Shark Consciousness, Energy Balls and Quantum Levels - and Spider Beings!

Watch.
Skip liberally - and be amazed!

Wow.

Normally I would say, you just can't make this shit up - but obviously you can! Quite frankly, it makes Ritter with his shamanic seminars and the ghastly Veronica Grey with her pineal gland look like bloody dilettantes by comparison!

Crafty crafty - in so many ways!

And now that she says it, it's so blatantly obvious!

All you gotta do in order to prevent those annoying Shark strikes, is to project your energy ball - much like when dealing with disrespectful Spider Beings, present and future, as per the following equally telephatically insightful instruction!

Bingo - that simple!

Having done some researching (that I now frankly very much regret!), I discover a whole universe of globally interconnected brazen con artists and charlatans visionary benefactors conducting seminars and seances about telephatic animal communication - not to be missed and guaranteed to work!

So now you know.

Consider this a personal favor, from me to you.

You're welcome!

 

Ralph Collier - quousque tandem?

Oh FFS.

Read this shit.

Yes he's still at it.

There has been a Shark attack on a surfer Shark encounter (right... I mean, seriously!) between a GWS and a surf board, and here they once again trot out California's token Shark bloviator.

Centrifugal force huh.

Interesting.... possibly Coriolis?

Michael is of course totally correct: GWS taking up residency and establishing a territory that gets defended against conspecifics is just simply ludicrous. This was most likely a predatory attack or maybe, an unusually assertive display of agonism - tho we will obviously never know!

Where I differ with Michael is the bit about the respect.

I ask, respect for WHAT? The serial pear reviewed pseudoscientific garbage? The denialism? The quackery and credulous pseudo- and anti-medecine? The shameless and callous conspiracy theories? The demented NRA garbage? The xenophobic fearmongering?

And check out these links! 

Respect?

Nah, not from me!

 

Ritter - at it again!

Oh for crying out loud!

Read this shit.

A prominent Shark researcher comments,

Rubbish. 
Never even heard of that journal. What's the point??? I don't get it. Ritter must be a lot smarter than me.

But is he?

Yes some Sharks do sneak up on divers.

Big deal. We divers all know that all Fishes, not only Sharks appear to know when you're looking at them and moreover, appear to be wary of occasions when we pay them special attention like when taking pictures or spearfishing. Depending on our behavior and the animal's boldness or lack of, this may lead to close encounters or conversely, to flight behavior. It's complicated because of the countless variables - but if there's one constant, then it is indeed the fact that the animals are very much able to discern whether we see them or not. This is hardly surprising as this faculty is an advantage for both predators and prey and also in other interactions, meaning that evolution would have certainly selected for it.

So far so good.

But then come these remarkable statements.

Since nearly 59% prefer to swim very near—less than 1 m—from the sea floor when approaching the test-subjects, we suggest that the ocean floor is used as a form of camouflage, allowing the sharks to better blend in, whereas a mid-water approach may make them more visible against the lighter background, illuminated by the sky. Approaching close to the bottom to reduce visibility reflects a typical stealth behavior.

Really.

Nothing about currents, and the fact that currents are generally lowest when swimming close to the substrate. Nothing about the fact that on sandy bottoms, most of the potential prey will be either highly camouflaged, or partially to totally buried - meaning that proximity to the sand will enhance detection and chances for predation. Dunno about you - but that's where I would swim too, especially in a stronger current and/or when capturing images of wildlife!

And this?

Such an observation could imply that sharks might categorize humans as a potential form of prey. However, if the shark’s idiosphere does indeed reflect a flight initiation distance, then humans can rather be categorized as some form of predator. Nevertheless, there is also the possibility that sharks assume humans to be neither a prey nor a predator and simply accept them as unfamiliar objects. It, therefore, remains unclear whether and how humans are categorized by sharks, but considering the low yearly incident rates between sharks and humans, there must be some factors that hold sharks back from biting more frequently during encounters with humans.

Really.

Firstly, those are Caribbean Reefies not "Sharks". 

How Sharks behave is species-specific, and there, it varies according to location, situation and individually, the latter based on traits like boldness and/or previous experience etc etc. To in any way try and generalize is just simply stupid, like trying to apply observations made on individual Birds of Paradise to all Birds including Ostriches, Tits, Penguins and Golden Eagles!

Anyway, I can categorically assure you that Caribbean Reefs will never assume that a diver may be prey, as a loud, bubble-spewing 5+-feet person is nothing like anything a Caribbean Reef would ever consume! And for the matter, neither would a Basking Shark, Wobbegong or, say, Epaulette Shark! 

I mean - WTF?

Same-same for the idiosphere!

That's akin to somebody's personal space and like with people, it varies according to the culture (or in animals, the species), the individual and the situation = e.g. the individual's mood or familiarity, or the way it is being approached, etc - meaning that invading it may lead to flight, or avoidance or aggression. Or to a kiss. Or to nothing!

And the explanation of why those Sharks approached the divers?

If completely naive of people (and how likely is that?), those Caribbean Reefies could have indeed investigated those divers as potential predators. Or as generic threats. Or as competitors. Or out of curiosity. Or to better hone their sneaking skills. Or playfully. 

Or because they did in fact know people and had learned that some of them are hunters that will eventually lead them to a feeding opportunity. Or, that some of them are providers of food and/or nose rubs. Or because they wanted a hug. Or as potential partners for kinky sex!
 

The reason why "they" don't bite more people?
What has that got to do with Caribbean Reefies approaching over sand? But ever the Shark pornographer, that's all the dude cares about! They don't bite people because they actually got better things to do, lives to live, prey to catch, babies to make, places to go! They couldn't care less about Ritter's phobia and in most cases when they encounter people, there's no reason for them to strike - see here!

Anyway, who knows. 

Not you, not me and certainly not Ritter, see the crap that follows!

Long story short?

Indeed, what's the fucking point!
And so it goes!

Ritter and the Oxygen Myth!

Watch.

Oh yes he's still at it.

By now, everybody and his dog knows that the oxy myth is nothing but moronic pseudoscientific BS - but you can trust the grand mufti of Sharkitarianism to continue regurgitating the same old tired and utterly discredited diarrhea to his googly-eyed audience of credulous dimwits!
Talk about the man being an inexhaustible cornucopia of rubbish!

But worry not.

I'm not about to go repeating myself.

Shark Strike in the Azores - Debate!

Oh for crying out loud!

Have you seen this?

Spare yourselves the 40 bucks - in essence, the article recounts how a Blue Shark bit the fin of a pal of the authors, and this thusly.

An Unprovoked Attack by a Blue Shark Prionace glauca (Chondrichthyes: Carcharhinidae) on a Spear Fisherman in Terceira Island, Azores, Northeast Atlantic

On July 24, 2013, near a shallow water rocky reef approximately 50 m from the coastline, a 48-year-old spear fisherman was surprised by a blue shark that bit his right flipper. The incident occurred on the South coast of Terceira Island, Azores, Portugal, Northeast Atlantic, where a shark attack or conflict is a very rare phenomenon, having only 3 minor incidents previously recorded...

Late afternoon the spear fisherman entered the water and swam away from the adjacent fishing port, now converted into a leisure summer area, toward the tip of the adjacent rocky reef. 
There, he saw a school of Atlantic Bonito, Sarda sarda (Bloch, 1793) and immediately dove to place himself in a position suitable to target one of the fish swimming in front of him. As he descended to a depth of approximately 10 m, he felt his right foot being pushed and turned his head to see an approximately 2.1 m total length blue shark biting his flipper...

At the same time, he reported that at least 5 more similar-size blue sharks were close by, and he was able to chase the first specimen away simply by touching it with his left leg. The sharks disappeared, and the victim continued to fish in that same area with no further sightings.

And then the authors have the audacity to attribute the incident to Shark feeding as follows.

These offshore, mainly pelagic species do have coastal habits when in close proximity to oceanic islands, as happens to be the Azores. Moreover, they are attracted by tourist operators with feeding stimuli and may be already in the process of associating these stimuli with humans, namely, divers. Contrary to well-known coastal sites where this practice is common and local sharks seem to have residential habits while becoming conditioned by specific diving sites, Azorean targeted species roam vast areas and far away from the open water zones where they are mainly attracted.

In spite of the fact that some of the most dangerous species are seldom seen in the Azores, we believe that this practice of proximity and feeding stimuli to open water nonresident sharks is potentially dangerous and may well lead to more, possibly very serious, accidents in Azorean waters in the future.
In our opinion, close proximity of large predatory vertebrates to humans may well lead to accidents that sometimes may even be lethal. Apex predators, when accustomed to being enticed with food by humans, either for tourist purposes or from simple curiosity, are known to increase attacks.
Changes in shark behavior due to touristic activities such as “shark diving” were also documented by Hammerschlag et al.

We do think that care and common sense must surely prevail in these cases, while dealing with situations than can easily get out of control and lead to serious risks and overwhelming panic situations, which, if nothing else, will inevitably affect tourist activities as a whole.

Not so fast, says Juerg.

Here is his reply, unabridged.

Shark Attacks and Shark Diving 

To the Editor:
It is with great astonishment and concern that I read the letter to the editor by Barreiros et al in which the authors report an attack by a blue shark on a spear fisherman in the Azores.
Whereas the first part of the article accurately details the circumstances of the accident, Barreiros et al, in the second part,devise a far-fetched and illegitimate connection with shark div ing, in particular with shark feeding.

Shark-induced human injuries are among those inter actions between humans and wildlife that arguably receive the most media and public attention.
The general arguments of shark feeding critics are that 1) luring or feeding sharks over a period of time has the potential to condition them and that this conditioning could lead to sharks associating the presence of humans with food; and by insinuation, 2) make them aggressive toward humans. This in turn could lead to 3) an increase in accidents (eg bites)at shark feeding sites when no food is provided. Concern also exists that 4) regular shark feeding at ecotourism sites may increase the risk of shark attacks on ocean users in surrounding areas.

The first argument is beyond scientific controversy.
There is ample empiric evidence that elasmobranchs can be conditioned and are capable of learning to associate, for example, specific locations with food rewards. Recent studies looking at long-term trends in shark abundance at such sites have found numbers,at least of certain species, increasing over time,which further supports the quite unsurprising conclusion that sharks can learn to associate specific locations with food. It is this very capability shark diving operators capitalize on to set up profitable and sustainable businesses. No empiric evidence exists that would support the other 3arguments.

If shark feeding critics implicitly deduce them from the first argument,one has no other choice than to assume that what critics mean is not sharks “associating” humans with food, but “regarding” them as a food source. This could be viewed as semantics, but they are the very arguments on which authorities have based the implementation of legislation on shark feeding bans.
For example, in 2 highly publicized cases in 2002, Florida and Hawaii banned the practice of shark feeding while diving or snorkeling in their respective state waters.

Barreiros et al use a certainly tragic but single shark accident to fire an unsubstantiated broadside at the nascent shark diving industry in the Azores.
If shark feeding critics are serious about their assertion that sharks regard humans as food, then it is time to come up with fact sand figures. In doing so, the results of the respective studies will add to the objectification of the public discourse about feeding sharks as a tourism attraction. If shark feeding critics continue to refuse to address the respective questions by applying the scientific method, then their arguments remain what they currently are: tendentious and uninformed.

Juerg Brunnschweiler, PhD ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

And this is the riposte by the authors.

In Reply to Shark Attacks and Shark Diving

To the Editor:
 In his letter, Dr Juerg Brunnschweiler expresses both astonishment and concern regarding our paper when stating that it “devises a far-fetched and illegitimate connection with shark diving, in particular with shark feeding.”

We do not agree with Dr Brunnschweiler’s comments, because 1) our paper is not a “criticism” of either shark diving nor shark feeding but yet a description of an attack that might have had some kind of connection with the growing industry of shark diving in the Azores; 2) we clearly expressed a legitimate concern that, contrary to shark species with residential habits, the blue shark that caused this attack has pelagic habits and roams coastal areas of oceanic islands, and is the only species targeted by the Azores commercial shark diving companies; 3) the possibility—although rare—of interactions with humans and eventual attacks are real and may cause collateral damage to man upstream and downstream areas of maritime tourism in the Azores; and 4) panic and disproportionate fear, something that is worldwide associated with sharks, are critical issues and may lead to other types of accidents.

We understand and respect the diving operators’ will to capitalize on this specific niche of tourism. 
However, we think that it is our duty and even a responsible obligation to describe well documented events and discuss them within the scientific community. Throughout the world, many accidents presenting several degrees of gravity do occur. However, it is known that many remain unreported, either because they occur in remote areas or because there are many types of political pressures to avoid their knowledge precisely not to harm some types of touristic initiatives. That is one of the reasons why Dr Brunnschweiler’s comment when asking for “facts and figures” is so difficult to achieve.

And yet,in his last paragraph, DrBrunnschweiler expresses a very inelegant affirmation when he doubts our ability to use the “scientific method.”
We are certain that he knows perfectly well that we did use it, but numbers do not appear—and probably that will remain as it is for a long time simply because (and may we add, fortunately) shark attacks are rare.

Our arguments are precautionary and cautious.
Enticing predators and especially apex predators with food will lead to conflicts between humans and wildlife, and these happen all the time and in many places. This is not the first time that the description of an attack with a discussion on possible causes is criticized, and we thank Dr Brunnschweiler for doing precisely that. Discussing these aspects, however, may well lead to more caution and common sense when dealing with these types of animals. That will certainly improve human-wildlife relations, reduce conflicts, and certainly diminish high degrees of intolerance toward wildlife—and that will ultimately be of great help in protecting precisely these animals, including sharks.

In conclusion,we would like to add that, apparently, Dr Brunnschweiler expressed his legitimate concern for the industry of shark diving. We express our deep concern on behalf of the welfare of both humans and sharks.

Deep concern huh.

My take?

• First, there is ONE scenario whereby the authors would be correct.
  That is, if some fool had been feeding Blue Sharks on that reef 50 meters away from the adjacent fishing port, now converted into a leisure summer area. I've said it before: location matters, and establishing a Shark feeding dive right in front of a tourist area would be utterly reckless and negligent, and the authors would be absolutely correct in asserting likely causality and being deeply concerned.
  But I don't think that's the case as every single picture of Blue Sharks from the Azores has been clearly taken in open ocean.

And if so, the assertion by the authors that they did use the scientific method is just plain ludicrous. Yes n=1 really does generally not allow for any deep insights, and Shark strikes are rare and thus elude science - and in fact, had they attributed the strike to the alignment of Mars and Jupiter, their finding would have had the exact same degree of veracity!

With that in mind, it would have been perfectly OK had they simply reported the incident - but once they started to speculate about the likely cause, then the scientific method would have mandated to examine all the possible scenarios and not simply jump to conclusions and blast what is obviously their pet hate, and this without a single shred of evidence.

So there.

• Blue Sharks are big, bold and potentially dangerous.
  Yes they do not figure prominently in the Shark attack statistics - but that is both a figment of those statistics and also due to the fact that they are epipelagic and that there are usually not a lot of people perambulating in the open ocean. But as those gruesome shipwreck tales from WWII amply illustrate, large epipelagic Sharks will certainly investigate and eat people and thus, the surprise of the authors that a Blue Shark would approach, investigate and nip their pal is rather naive.


• Incidentally, that's also not how a conditioned Shark would approach a person.
  As anybody that dives with fed Sharks can attest, they don't sneak in and then take a nip - that's typical of wild Sharks. Sharks that expect to be fed approach openly from the front and linger waiting for a handout.

• But what were those half-dozen Sharks doing there in the first place?
  As the authors assert, the species is known to frequent coastal areas of oceanic islands so that's hardly surprising. In this case, it appears plausible that they may have been following their prey = those Atlantic Bonito, an equally epipelagic species that may in turn have been coming to the coast to feed.

• Or maybe not.
  Maybe the cause for the presence of those Sharks was that the reef is frequently being used by spear fishermen. Or maybe it was the proximity to that fishing port. 
  Because let us never forget who feeds and conditions the Sharks: fishermen! 
  Spear fishermen produce fish blood and vibrations, attract Sharks and are frequently victims of Shark strikes. Fishermen feed Sharks with millions upon millions of baited hooks, clean their catch and discard bycatch, and specifically those Blues have been following fishing boats into port since time immemorial.  
  If there has to be talk of conditioning, that it is THAT the authors should have been focusing on, not a few people baiting with tiny scraps!

• And what about the assertions that apex predators, when accustomed to being enticed with food by humans, either for tourist purposes or from simple curiosity, are known to increase attacks and that enticing predators and especially apex predators with food will lead to conflicts between humans and wildlife, and these happen all the time and in many places.
  
  Welcome to the fucking old tired "don't feed the Bear" argument!
  Yes "they" happen - but so far, when it comes to those big Sharks, that is simply not the case! Whereas accidental bites on feeders do happen, strikes let alone fatal ones on participating tourists are exceedingly rare, and any correlation (let alone causality) between Shark feeding and Shark strikes on the public at large is completely speculative and not at all supported by the evidence.
  
  In fact, and yes I'm repeating myself, people who feed large Sharks are acutely aware that it is dangerous and are exerting tremendous caution and common sense - and as a consequence, the danger of those activities is significantly smaller than interactions with other marine life (including smaller Sharks) that are being viewed as more harmless; and it is orders of magnitude safer than "normal" diving! 


• In fact, if anybody had to be reprimanded, then it would have been the victim, for being totally reckless: for potentially attracting Sharks to a tourist area, for spearfishing at dusk when predators are known to feed and above all, for not immediately leaving the water but instead continuing to spear fish after having been nipped!


• And finally.
  That will certainly improve human-wildlife relations, reduce conflicts, and certainly diminish high degrees of intolerance toward wildlife—and that will ultimately be of great help in protecting precisely these animals, including sharks.
  
  What a load of sanctimonious horse shit!
  Fishermen target Sharks for money - not because they hate them for biting people! That argument is frankly so stupid to be embarrassing!
  Want to save those Blues? Take a boat to Vigo and tell those fishermen to stop targeting the Azorean Blue Shark nurseries - or at least stop wasting people's time and patience with BS, and work on making a stock assessment and on implementing a management plan for sustainable Blue Shark fishing in the Azores!
  That's how real scientists contribute to Shark conservation!


• And one very last remark: how the fuck did this manage to get a pass by the peer review?

Long story short?

It's exactly like Juerg states: this is not science but total bullshit, nothing more than a completely unsubstantiated broadside against the nascent Shark feeding industry in the Azores, and this clearly not based on the evidence but driven by one's uninformed prejudices.

And yes I can leave it at that.

Not impressed and once again, rather pissed off!

The Ocean is no Place for the Ignorant, the Arrogant and the Craven!

Source.

Sez the Grand Mufti of conservation BS!

Indeed!

That would be the same dude who tells his naive volunteers that they must be prepared to risk their life, or whatever, when they go molesting the Japs in Antarctica - only to then do a strategic runner when confronted with the prospect of having to proudly justify his heroic actions in court!

Anyway, have you seen this shit?

A prominent Shark conservation advocate writes, I have no words to describe this piece.

Not me - so there.

• Shark attacks are on the rise.
  
  Maybe - but not last year.
  Yes the long term trend may well be ascending - but if one factors in population growth and the ever increasing number of aquatic recreationists = potential victims, the overall, already infinitesimally small per-capita risk of Shark strikes may even be decreasing!
  This however with caveats, see below!

• It is in fact more dangerous to play golf than it is to surf or scuba dive, because statistically more golfers die each year from lightning strikes than people die from shark attacks.
  
  Because???

• To start with, we are diminishing bio-diversity in the ocean. Overfishing has removed 90% of the fish from the sea since 1950. Every single commercial fishery is in a state of decline. This is not just bad news for humans who eat fish, but it is very bad news for sharks, orcas, whales, seals and dolphins who have no choice but to eat fish. In other words, starvation is a very big motivation for opportunistic attacks.
  
  What a load of horseshit - predator/prey cycles anybody?
  And are we only decimating the prey - or is it not rather so that we have disproportionally targeted predator populations among which the Sharks?
  The truth is that there is not one single documented case of more Shark attacks occurring because of overfishing!
  
  In fact, when it comes to some GWS populations, we may be experiencing the exact opposite!
  Having protected the Pinnipeds, we are now seeing more GWS in California, the East Coast of the USA and also Western Australia! And there are authoritative voices claiming that the Tiger Shark population of Hawaii may be increasing owing to the protection of Sea Turtles!

And not every commercial fishery is declining!
Yes most if not all are severely depleted - but owing to good management, several are rebounding, especially in the US!

• Halal demands for live animals?
  
  Right.
  Hundreds of thousands of cattle and sheep producing dozens of bodies and thousands of tons of animal feces and urine are the cause of n=3 Shark strikes in 2011, n=2 in 2013 and n=1 in 2014? By GWS and not the ubiquitous scavenging Tigers?
  Really?
  
  The fact is that there are more water users going to ever more remote locations and extending their season due to better gear. And at the same time, after decades of protection, there are more large GWS and there is more of their coastal Pinninped prey. You draw the inevitable conclusions.
  And anyway, considering the infinitesimally small risk of those Shark strikes, the main factor here is plain and simple chance and bad luck - nothing more nothing less!

• Shark drumlines, meant to discourage sharks from approaching beaches, actually create another attraction. Sharks and other creatures become snared and entrapped and they die; this in turn attracts more sharks, bringing them within close proximity to the beaches.
  
  I see. Snared and entrapped. In a drumline.
  And anyway - are there more or less Shark strikes on beaches with drumlines?

• Climate change, ocean acidification and pollution are other factors affecting the migration patterns of sharks.
  
  Oh yes oh yes - especially acidification!
  Evidence = a big fat zero, especially the implicit assertion that those factors would attract Sharks to the coasts where they would then strike people.

Long story short?

This is everything I despise about Fat Paul's breathy brand of fake conservation messaging.

As usual, it is nothing but a sequence of moronic and misleading pulled-from-the-arse factoids that is then picked up and parroted as the latest truth by his googly-eyed devotees - remember the Earth Doctor?

What pisses me off is that as a result, the movement is then perceived as being dominated by extremists and idiots, once again making it that much more difficult to achieve tangible results on the ground.
Remember this?

Kirsten E

December 27, 2012 at 5:17 pm · Reply

Popularizing science is a very difficult thing to achieve. It is worth considering that misinformation becomes widespread because it appeals to the general public’s sense of Right and Wrong, where soundbites with some tenuous connection to a factual foundation fit firmly into a black and white worldview. It is not surprising that sympathetic individuals fall prey to exaggerated claims, because they lack the background, ability, or dedication to look deeper.

I am guilty of being a bit of a loudmouth when discussing shark conservation, but as it is my intended career path I am always looking to further my knowledge. The difficulty is that most people’s introduction to these issues is not from researchers, but from organizations like Sea Shepherd or documentaries like Sharkwater, who seek a reactionary, emotional impact to make a point. Once that impression is made, it is very hard to scale it back to a more realistic discussion, perhaps because it lacks the same shock factor that appeals to people’s indignation in the first place.

It’s ironic that conservationists can be their own worst enemy.

And the Huffington Post?

More and more, it looks like there is really zero editorial integrity but that instead, they will post just about anything by anybody, with not an iota of even the most cursory fact checking.

Not impressed!

PS - David is on it as always! :)
PS2 - it now says, This post has been edited to change factual errors contained in the first version.
Right. E.g where it now basically states that having removed 90% of the big predatory Fishes (= including Sharks!), the remaining 10% of Sharks are hungrier and are thus striking people.
FFS!

Huffington Post - Retraction!

Bravo David - again!

Looks like that stupidity has been retracted.

Editor's note here!

Sed scripta manent.

Stupid article by the Earth Doctor here, idiotic video here.

And how about this shit that claims the exact same nonsense - or this drivel that once again operates with totally unsupported assertions.

And the list goes on and on!

Retract that too?

Or let bygones be bygones and instead, permanently retract the embarrassing scribe?

Huffington Post - promoting Pseudoscience?

Source.

Bravo David for debunking this utter stupidity!

His ProTips here, and here is a follow-up.

The breathy dude?

Nah I'm really not gonna waste my time - the self-professed Earth Doctor just another insignificant loon trying to be somebody in Sharks and wasting everybody's time with his pulled-from-the-arse pronouncements and his propaganda for the SSCS.

Coming to you from the exact same school as this shit - need I say more!

But shame on the Huff Post for continuing to lend him a platform.

I really thought they were better than that.

PS - turns out that they are not.
PPS - have they retracted the story? See comments thread!

How to spot Bad Science - Infographic!

Click for detail! Source.

H/T: David!
And if you like that one, you'll like this one, too!

Source.

Red Sea Shark Attacks - Paper!

The Mako- source.

So there.

My backlog is nearly cleared.

Have you read the post about Collier's demented dog like I suggested?
If not, please do - and then please refresh your memory by reading, in chronological order, this and this post, and links, about those 2010 Shark attacks in the Red Sea.

And now, read this.

Well what can I say.

In general terms, it's probably the worst anti Shark feeding piece of pseudo-scientific rubbish I've read, ever. Considering the caliber of three first authors, this is hardly surprising - but it's a real shame to witness that they've managed to rope in Vincent, a generally smart guy who happens to make a living by taking customers diving with OWTs in baited conditions and regularly hand feeds large predatory Sharks!

Buddy - what the fuck?

But by all means, let's look at that shit.

There is actually one aspect I do like, and that is the evidence collection.
We now dispose of a good time line, good descriptions of the attacks and the injuries, have a good overview of the locality and of possible (albeit not always plausible, see below) factors contributing to the attacks and dispose of credible evidence linking an individual Mako and an individual OWT to the first two pairs of attacks.
But having said that - why does the paper assert that victim 2 was bitten in the buttock when the description of the attack states nothing of the kind? And where, please, is the evidence that the perpetrator of attack 5 is an OWT, let alone the same OWT as in 1 and 2?

And the interpretation?

Generally speaking, nothing I read leads me to differ from what I speculated back then, so no need to elaborate: agree about the contribution of the unique topography and the elevated numbers of water users, and that those were predatory events = attacks; skeptical about the Sheep and the Fish feeding; strongly dispute that the elevated temperature was causing a "need to feed" in the homeothermic Mako - rather the exact contrary! Or not?

But I notice that both the Mako and especially the OWT look emaciated which may be lending some creed to the argument about the overfishing of prey - but then, should the Sheep not have provided sufficient nourishment? Or may those Sharks have been sick?

And I'm still baffled by the fact that both Sharks were not coastal but epipelagic, and that they and at least one more OWT had quasi simultaneously found their way into the Gulf of Aqaba, well north of their usual reported range! Were they following a vessel or more likely, following prey that had been displaced north due to the heat wave?

Leaves Collier's demented dog.

Those folks continue to assert that an OWT that was being fed Fish by divers was thus conditioned to go and eat not divers but snorkelers. And that it bit them in the hands and in the ass because it had been hand fed, and the bait was being kept in a fanny pack. Like Collier's demented family dog!

What a load of crap!

This is what really happened.

Two, possibly three (additional Carcharhinid in attack 4) or even four (Carcharhinid in attack 5) Sharks attacked snorkelers and swimmers = people that emit noise/vibrations and are thus routinely the targets of Shark strikes. All Sharks and not only the hand-fed one struck the extremities (both legs and arms) because the principal vibrations originated there and because the victims used them to fend off the attacks.  The buttocks of victims 1 and 5 were never primary targets - instead, the injuries to the buttocks happened as the Sharks bit the victims in the upper legs and torso.

That simple - even an idiot like me can see it.

Any other interpretation is nothing but unsubstantiated anti-feeding propaganda, totally speculative pseudo-scientific horse shit. After literally thousands upon thousands of hand feeds of numerous species, we observe absolutely nothing of the kind those folks assert and on the contrary, are actually astonished at the continued shyness of the very same animals in un-baited conditions - and this corresponds to what everybody else in the industry is witnessing as well. Again: with the possible exception of SA, there is no geographical correlation between baited Shark dives and Shark strikes! Think Florida, California, WA, Reunion, Recife etc etc - there is no Shark feeding at any of those locations!

Like I said, not surprised,
When it comes to Levine and Collier under the academic leadership of Dr. Hopalot, it just reinforces my contempt for those people and their fake research institute. As per the link above, Collier is somebody who knows something about something and now has taken it upon himself to bloviate about Shark-related topics he hasn't gotten the faintest clue about. Ritter and Levine, barf - but considering that they regularly sell and partake in provisioned Shark dives, this moronic filth is just the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
Fouda was likely their host in Egypt and likely doesn't know better. Special H/T to Jennifer V. Schmidt and to all the other reviewers for their glaring failure in discerning the egregious faults of this stupidity. And finally, congratulations to Burgess, normally an anti hand feeding advocate, for not having partaken in this fiasco - likely more out of distaste for the individuals, but well done none-the less!

And Vincent.

Stop being a sucker - that affiliation will end up biting you in the ass big time!
Pun intended!

Oh and...  oceanic whitetip shark, Carcharinus longimanus (first paragraph). Really. If that doesn't say it all...
  

Back online!

Well, I was away and now I'm back.

First, a big thank you!

The response to the gazetting of the SRMR has been overwhelming and I just won't have the time to thank everybody individually - so there!

Second, the video is finally back up.

And third, please re-read this about Collier's demented dog who bites all the hands it sees and then runs out into the street to bite random people in the hands and in the ass! The same shit is now being asserted in an egregious publication by the Bangladesh Post Office SRI, no less, and I shall have to post a comment about it as soon as I work myself through my current backlog.

Enjoy!

Finned Sharks leaking Ammonia?

Most coastal sharks are landed, not finned - source.

And talking about crowdfunding scams.

So far, Collier has managed to rope in 25 suckers.

The thousand bucks will go a long way to fund his stellar Shark Conservation and Education Seminars where the enthralled public will be treated to such pearls of erudition as, and I cite when the discarded bodies of finned sharks are thrown overboard, they sink to the bottom where ammonia leaking from their ravaged bodies destroys coral communities.

And here. And here.

Wowza!

And since we're at it - let's also get rid of all those ammonia-excreting Fishes! Obviously, it is they that are the main perpetrators of the ammonia onslaught, not the small proportion of the caught coral-dwelling Sharks are that are actually being finned. Oh, and then there would be the ammonia pollution by the Corals themselves (!) - damn!

Detail detail!
But who cares about the pseudoscientific BS - as long as it's for the Sharks, right?

Anyway.

Save the Corals!

New Shark Repellent Scams!

Source.

Have you seen this?

Right.

After a decade of scientific research (see any mention of the specific research undertaken by NoBite Technologies?), no less, and a swim in California, surrounded by hundreds of sea lions engaged in a feeding frenzy, in an area known to be frequented by great white, tiger (!!!), and mako sharks, those guys are so confident in the technology that they are giving a $1,000,000 No Bite Guarantee!

Wow!

But they don't have the 175,000 to finish producing the gizmo?

But the video is great!
A pal writes.

• Sound bytes grabbed from quasi shark alliance bumper stickers - check 
• Scared looking surfers - check 
• Technology derived from sketchy research - check 
• Footage of a bunch of reefies looking bored - check 
• Let's do this shi... Now, strap it on and be vewy vewy quiet. Avoid splashing and sudden movements ... 
• Disclaimer: not a guaranteed or proven shark deterrent. Do not immerse for longer than a few seconds. May not work on sharks trying to hug you. Practice aloha and dolphin noises.

And this shit?
Yes they want your money, too - and plenty of it! But fear not, this must obviously be totally legit because they got none other than Collier and Ritter (!!!) as consultants - need I say more!  :)
Through extensive testing, the signal for the SharkStopper' “Personal Shark Repellent” (PSR) has been proven to repel sharks up to 60 feet away, with a minimum protection of approximately 20 feet. 
Really? Show me the fucking data!

I say, these are once again nothing but brazen scams.

To be convinced otherwise, I would have to be presented with evidence = as in a peer-reviewed paper about the testing of, as a bare minimum, a) the success of the gizmo emitting specific Orca sounds in repelling a variety of Sharks, vs a control b) habituation effects c) the effects of hundreds of aquatic recreationists beeping away simultaneously in the ocean. Or failing that - how about producing a suitably verified test protocol!

Yeah I know - never gonna happen!

Incidentally, the bible states.

Crucially, most sounds can elicit withdrawal if they start suddenly and/or rapidly increase in loudness, including medium-frequency pure tones and even low frequency pulsed sounds that would otherwise attract sharks.
...
It is important to note that sharks quickly habituate to both attractive and repulsive sounds (Myrberg et al. 1969; Myrberg et al. 1978), which would mean that for any auditory-based shark repellent to remain effective it would have to be deployed only for short durations rather than being left on permanently. 

And in related news.

Remember Marine Dynamics' zebra decoy?

Check out the pic at the top - there it is, doing what it does best: attracting GWS!

Shark Skool!

"The learning curve"??? Source.

Ach!

The guy who runs the course had a big chunk of his left leg ripped off by a Bull Shark a few years ago.

That wasn't reassuring.

Indeed.

But despite of the problematic promotion for Ritter's Sharkitarian snake oil, I must admit that I've really enjoyed this article.

This is really good journalism and apart from that faux pas, I must say that Contenta has certainly done his home work and interviewed a lot of relevant people. His tour de force is exhaustive, erudite and witty, the language compelling, the scope impressive.

Bravo - required reading!

Oh, and have you noticed

• It was the fault of the spotter.
  Not of some idiot who chose to wade around, bare-legged, among feeding Bull Sharks.

• And after having trained with the Caribbean Reefies, the idiot is going diving with GWS in Lupe. Cageless = illegally. With paying customers, among which a self-professed Suicide Diver! Because Sharks are harmless! (And only want to hug!)
  You just can't make this shit up can you!

And since we're at it.

Other news alert me that he's giving a presentation. This Friday. At a university! About his latest research project!

Hahhahahahahaha! 

But, do read that article!
 

FINconceivable - A minus!

Source.

Watch.

The minus?

No she did not utter the dreaded O-word - but Shark fishing got nothing to do with red tides! And anybody concerned about the poor quality of our air needs to stop faffing around about Sharks and trophic cascades, and work on limiting the anthropogenic emissions that cause it!

And yes I'm very much repeating myself!

Anyway.

A big fat A for idea, execution and cuteness!

Shark Strikes - Amateur Hour!

Source.

Oh for crying out loud - again!

And I cite.

Victoria - How do you test a shark proof wetsuit? It sounds like it could potentially be a very terrifying test. 

Nathan - Well, we have lots of PhD students who are willing to swim with these suits on (just joking!). 
Really, it is very hard, in actual fact for all shark deterrents to test these things. Limited testing can be done in the lab, but ultimately, you have to take the product out into the wild, try and induce sharks to come up and investigate. Then you have to see how effective it is. We’re at the very early stages of helping the company to test their wetsuit and it would be really nice to validate it and see if the science really works. There's likely to be no downside of the suit, but it would be really nice to know whether it decreases your chances. 

Victoria - Does that really involve putting dummies in different wet suits underwater and inducing sharks to come and investigate and see what happens? 

Nathan - Well obviously, there are ethical problems in putting either a person or even just an entire wetsuit, a mannequin in the water. So, we have to do it in a slightly more controlled way which is to use a piece of the wetsuit material, wrapped around something which doesn’t resemble a human because obviously, we have to be very careful that we don’t want to make any association between humans and food in an area where there are sharks.

Right.

So they want to test those stupid Shark repellent wetsuits on something that does NOT look like a human - and then what? Simply claim that their experiments are applicable to Shark strikes on humans as well?

Wow.

Please re-read this post.

Those various explanations about why strikes by different Sharks occur are at best plausible hypotheses and as Doc eloquently illustrates, they are essentially not testable. Shark strikes on humans can only be rigorously tested by, wait for it...,  having Sharks strike humans, and this against a control group and sufficiently often in order to have an adequate sample size allowing for statistical analysis - and this of course equally applies, mutatis mutandis, to testing those wetsuits!

Nathan is a researcher and knows that.

Or does he? From what I can see, he's essentially an animal physiologist that is now dabbling in Shark behavior - so maybe he would be well advised to refresh his knowledge by corresponding with the Grand Mufti of Sharks?

Because this is just bullshit.

We got plenty of clues as to why different Sharks strike people - but we know nothing with certainty and will have to continue speculating, and no money out of WA coffers is gonna change that anytime soon! That money would be much, much better spent on further perfecting WA's early warning system - and were Nathan not a veritable PROFESSOR, no less, I would have to scream, totally busted!

So there - no screaming!

And anyway, who am I to say! :)

The Shark Research Institute - peddling Pseudoscience?

Click for detail!

Really?

Have they done it - again?

You be the judge of it, see at top!

My thoughts on the subject here, with many links.

At best, it's shoddy reporting showcasing naive credulity - but it could also be interpreted as an endorsement and then, it's just simply unconscionable.
Disjointed musings about the SRI et al here.

In other news from la-la land.

Behold SRI's latest contribution to Shark conservation - oh yes, this would be on a government website soliciting comments from the public!

Pompous anybody?

Shark-proof Wetsuits - Questions by Mark Gray!

Source.

And it gets even better!

Mark is this dude.

A renown Shark photographer, he is above all a fellow Shark diving industry professional - and having discovered those Shark repellent wetsuits, he has taken on SAMS and is publicly, and doggedly asking precise questions about their, and I cite, scientifically designed and developed shark repellent wetsuit technology.

Here is the latest exchange.

I c/p it lest as so often, it gets "accidentally" deleted - much like the mentioned "other posting" that has disappeared from SAMS' FB page.

• 

  Mark Gray So you baited up two tiger sharks and they didnt bite the bucket you had your wetsuit wrapped in...........is that the science your using?

  Saturday at 4:52pm · Like
• 

  Shark Attack Mitigation Systems - SAMS Mark, our response to your other post on the site today refers. To clarify, the one minute video sets out one very short extract of a complex testing process, which has been conducted independently by University of Western Australia since January. We welcome you to investigate the science in more detail. The link to which you have responded sets out the science page at the SAMS website, and the FAQ page at http://www.sharkmitigation.com/faq.html may provide more information if you would like to check it out.

• Mark Gray So the research hasnt involved Great White Sharks? Bit irresponsible in Marketing your products and stating that they "Protect" and "hide" without testing on the major species of sharks which has cause the fatalities in Australia in recent years..........?
• 

  Shark Attack Mitigation Systems - SAMS Mark, we are trying to come up with a positive solution, based in science. Independent testing will be an ongoing process, potentially taking many years as we discover how the full range of predatory species respond and progressively refine the visual technology. All ocean users are at risk and discretion and caution is always necessary. We think people know that. We are offering information on what we have found so far scientifically, and an alternative to a black neoprene wetsuit so that ocean users can consider that option and make a choice. We are very clear that we are not offering guarantees. Who could? We invite you to also contribute positively to this page. We have responded to two of your posts already on the same theme. If you have suggestions as to how we could better inform, such as making the position clearer on our website or including more detail in our FAQ's then please let us know. We would welcome your constructive contributions.

  
  
• 

  Mark Gray Well according to your previous posting the testing program has only started in January this year with that testing program only conducted on Tiger sharks with baited drums???. Wouldnt it be wise and responsible to do further testing on different species, namely Great Whites and Bull sharks and using test subjects which honestly represent how your wetsuits present themselves to potential predator shark (ie moving dummy surfer or diver)? With all your press releases and your youtube clip you refer to your products as "Protecting" or "Hiding" from a potential shark attack and base all your supporting evidence on a test which produced very limiting results. You have entered into a full scale marketing event without doing your homework on the so call technology and the testing involved. Now if you can not answer my questions from my own experience with sharks on a regualr basis and with little common knowledge well maybe you have a take a reall good look at your product and how your market it and yourself to the community and consumers. I have asked in a previous posts questions which I and I bet alot of others out there would be asking and the last response I recieved from you was to quote "Mark, we note and respect your perspectives and views" but failed to answer the questions at hand.

• Mark Gray I accept your invitation to contribute positively to this page. What I would like to see is some more transparency to the technology, research, and what you conveyin your marketing of your products to the general public. I would like to see these 10 questions answered: 

   1. When did the in field testing start?
  2. When did your marketing campaign start?
  3. Has there been any testing of your wetsuits on Great White and Bull sharks?
  4. Has there been any other testing procedure which has not included baiting of sharks for attracting? If so what have they been?
  5. Has there been any testing which involved moving a simulated subject wearing you wetsuit through the water (both Diving and Surfing)?
  6. What in field testing program has been used to determine how Cryptic your wetsuits are? And how are the results differ with different visibility, water colour, overhead light ?
  7. Are the Cryptic dive wetsuits loose their ability to “Hide” when a scuba tank, BCD and fins are added?
  8. How does the Cryptic dive wetsuit hide the noise and sight of the bubbles of a scuba diver?
  9. Has the results of the research conducted by the WA University been published and if so which publication?
  10. Do you personally wear your SAMS wetsuit when your diving or surfing?
• 

  Shark Attack Mitigation Systems - SAMS Mark,
  
  Responding as follows:
  
  1. When did the in field testing start? January 2013 – refer previous post.
  2. When did your marketing campaign start? We have not started marketing, we did a media release to let people know what we are doing on Wednesday last week, and opened up the website for review, together with this Facebook page to encourage discussion.
  3. Has there been any testing of your wetsuits on Great White and Bull sharks? Not as yet, we have covered this in your earlier posts and elsewhere in the forum. The next set of tests are proposed to be with Great Whites.
  4. Has there been any other testing procedure which has not included baiting of sharks for attracting? If so what have they been? Not at this stage, the University of Western Australia is precluded from using humans or humanoid forms of any kind and have determined that the existing testing process is satisfactory. Baiting is a necessary practicality to get any engagement with sharks in experimental conditions.
  5. Has there been any testing which involved moving a simulated subject wearing you wetsuit through the water (both Diving and Surfing)? Not as yet.
  6. What in field testing program has been used to determine how Cryptic your wetsuits are? And how are the results differ with different visibility, water colour, overhead light ? We have responded to this question elsewhere on the site yesterday and will include in our FAQ’s at our website.
  7. Are the Cryptic dive wetsuits loose their ability to “Hide” when a scuba tank, BCD and fins are added? We have responded to this in your previous post.
  8. How does the Cryptic dive wetsuit hide the noise and sight of the bubbles of a scuba diver? Obviously it doesn’t.
  9. Has the results of the research conducted by the WA University been published and if so which publication? We have responded to this in the posts above.
  10. Do you personally wear your SAMS wetsuit when your diving or surfing? Yes.
  
  Mark, you have now posted somewhere between 20 and 30 questions to this page in the course of a couple of days, most of them repetitious. Some include personal statements that verge on troll-like behavior. We have respectfully attempted to answer them.
  
  We accept that you are not a fan of what we trying to achieve. Equally there are many people who see logic in the concept and wish to explore it further. Over the last few days, this has included previous shark attack victims making contact with us to see how they can help us in our trials.
  
  We will not be responding to any further posts from you, we hope you understand. If you continue to post in this manner we will, with regret, be obliged to exclude you from the forum.

  
  
• Mark Gray its a shame that after you have invited me for constructive contributions in a previous post your now no longer going to response to my valid questions regarding your product. I am all for trying to achieve a much safer aquatic environment for all to enjoy but I am not a fan on the ways and means in which your company has mislead the general public by telling them that you are scientifically backed, have the technology which has proven itself, hides you from the shark when diving and putting the fear of god into the genral public especially in your youtube clip stating "now the deadliest coast in the world". You have based your whole product line on unfinalised research (Results from 6 months of a 24 months research project) and on a single species of shark which is not the major cause of fatal attacks here in Australia, under different conditions which would not apply for which your products are inteded to be used for. Your Youtube clip and media releases do not included any of the cautionary comments which you have included in you website and your response to my questions above show that your more concerned about getting your product out into the public eye well before any of the scientific results and conclusions have been finalised which to me makes me believe that your company is more concerned with making a quick buck and not addressing the public saferty of water users. Lie to the genral public and you will be bitten on the arse but my concern is more for the safety of potential users of your products who have bought your product based on your mistruths and false advertising.

 Mark has summed up his conclusions as follows.

 Mark Gray From the SAMS face book page they finally answered done of my point blank questions.

1. The field testing is a 24 month on going process which started January 2014. Final results are still 18 months away.
2. The field testing is based on one species of shark (tiger) which was attracted by baits
3. The field testing has not involved Great White sharks or Bull Sharks to date
4. The field testing does not include testing similar sized subject which would represent the shape and movement of a surfer or diver. According to SAMS bait is required to attract sharks to the test subjects.
5. The cryptic dive suits are tested in clear water on a bright day not results given regarding low light, cloudy, or reduced visibility water quality.
6. Cryptic dive suits also require cryptic patterns to be also applied to scuba tanks, BCD, fins to make the wetsuit cryptic.
7. Cryptic dive wetsuits will not hide the user from the sight of their bubbles or the noise of their breathing.
8. SAMS acknowledged that GWS do attack using a breach method on silhouette prey on the surface.
9. SAMS also acknowledged that sharks also use other senses other than vision to hunt prey.

On the basis that field testing was performed by using baited drums on the test subjects of two tiger sharks in clear water in bright days with this testing only in its 6 month out of 24 set aside for a finalized conclusion makes me believe that SAMS is more interested at cashing in on the fears if the general public that spending time for proper ethical research to base their products on.

And to the Oceans Institute, this:

Sounds like your cashing in with the developers and using half truths to sell wetsuits that "Protect" and "Hide" you from all species of sharks. 

This is making your research look like as joke and is tied up with a bunch of snake oiler promising the world but delivering nothing

Bingo.

As I first mocked, and then stated: it's just total BS and shameless profiteering!

Meanwhile, in la-la land...

David has unearthed yet another priceless life saving  video by Eternal Youth Empire aka Israel-Light  - how to retard ageing by a whopping 30%!!!

And this time, it's all, gasp, for free!

Behold!

But beware!

You got to clean up the pineal gland, or it's all for naught!

Yes this is (caps lock) SCIENCE!

Exactly like her striped wetsuit - and incidentally, EXACTLY like the wetsuits by SAMS!

To be continued no doubt!