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!

 

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...
  

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 Research Committee - Fundraiser!

Source.

Behold!

Yes, Ralph Collier wants your money.

In exchange, you get some awesome stickers and/or an awesome t-shirt and/or an awesome book that is being highly praised by none other than Dr. Ueber-Charlatan, Chief Scientist (!!!), Global Shark Attack File, Shark Research Institute!

Wow - if that doesn't say it all!

And the stupendifabulous ultra-mega-secret DNA research?

Like I said, nobody lifts Sharks out of the water merely in order to obtain DNA samples - and when the researchers draw blood, they do so in order to investigate other matters! The whole breathy bit about the revolutionary pioneering completely noninvasive procedure that will not require removing a shark from the ocean and exposing it to potential injury that could result in serious health consequences or even death is meant to impress the anti-OCEARCH crowd who have gobbled up the bait hook-line-and-sinker and are busy promoting this nonsense in their circular echo chambers.

Oh and then, I find this.

And this. And this. And this. And this.

Interesting - but he loves Seals, see at top!

Anyway.

Don't be a sucker.

Give your money to reputable researchers - or even better, treat yourself to a Shark dive with a reputable operator!

Pioneering DNA Shark Research Methodology?

Source.

Have you seen the above - impressed?

Me, not so much.

I don't know what planet those dudes are living on - but both we and all Shark researchers I've ever talked to take DNA samples with a simple biopsy probe that can be deployed underwater via Hawaiian sling or spear gun (or even a ROV!), or from the boat via a lance, etc. As tested multiple times, e.g. here, the methodology is highly innocuous and leads to zero post-impact mortality.

Those probes have been around for decades, and contrary to what is being suggested, nobody has been hauling any Sharks out of the water and exposed them to potential injury that could result in serious health consequences and even death of the animal merely in order to obtain a tissue sample.

This is simple, proven research that needs no fixing let alone revolutionizing.

But maybe I'm missing something here.

If so, may I suggest to remove the highly misleading wording and replace it with some pertinent information.

Or not.

And if so... :)

Big GWS off San Diego - or is it?

And I quote.

When you see a picture like this one... you have to be weary, at first, of a hoax - but an EXPERT says, this one is far from it...
And though you and I may not be able to tell how big this Shark is from the picture, (the token owner of a demented dog and lover of large omnivorous plantigrades) can...
"The shape of this fin is very very suggestive of an animal that's in the fifteen foot range".

Wow!

But watch for yourselves - the man is truly a monster of erudition!

Or maybe, not so much.

Turns out it was an April's fool hoax, and that somebody had crudely doctored a pic of a dolphin, fooling not only Collier but apparently, a number of his colleagues - which of course begs the question, who else disposes of zero academic credentials but continues to publicly proffer EXPERT pronouncements about Sharks?

Lemme guess - the pompous bloviating fireman? The unequaled SVS?

Anyway.

Remains the issue of whether one can truly estimate the size of a GWS from the shape of its fin, a revolutionary technique that would spare the scientific community plenty of headaches and thousands of dollars in complicated and unwieldy laser equipment. When put to the question by Martin who incidentally happens to be the very person that uncovered the hoax, Collier indignantly lectures,

Wow - again!

Let's see... from apex to apex, would that be 55% or thereabouts - and if so, does that make me an EXPERT as well? 

But I'm digressing as always. 

So now, it's the shape, plus the distance between the fins - what, in millimeters? 

Cuz for the life of me, and much like those other laser toting ignoramuses, I could never tell the actual distance from looking at the pic at the top! But I sure can notice the glaring absence of a terminal lobe on the presumed exposed tail (compare to here, here, here and here!) - and thus, I will bravely go out on a limb and publicly call BS on Collier's assertion that he was right because actually, this is the superimposition of the image of a real GWS!

But then again, considering the historical precedent, who am I to say!

Opinions please: a) unfairly maligned EXPERT or b) pompous Sesselfurzer instead?

They're back!

Betcha that's not a GWS but a Basker - click for detail! Source.

Great that Mundus hasn't managed to kill them all!

The GWS sightings on the US Atlantic Coast are off the chart.

And they are big and hence old - which leads to the inevitable question, where have they been hanging out all this time!

The answer being, likely offshore!

Contrary to common lore, GWS feed on Pinnipeds only when they are large adults, and then often only seasonally, meaning that even those big mamas could have easily survived on Fishes and Cephalopods alone - and possibly also by scavenging on Whale carcasses like in SA!

So why are they back?

Watch this.

I must say, I'm warming up to George - mind you, slowly!

Ever since the ever pompous Collier has replaced him him as the token Sharxpert and source of the most egregious inanities, Burgess appears to have rediscovered science, and his rather rare quotables have become, uh, quotable!

And I'm very much looking forward to reading the GWS paper!

And the link to the increase in Harbor Seal numbers?

There certainly appears to be a correlation - however with the BIG caveat that correlation does not equate causation! At this stage, it remains merely one, albeit a highly plausible hypothesis, and I invite you to read this excellent piece on the subject.

Be it as it may - great that they are back!

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!

Baited Shark Dives and Shark Attacks?

Outright Shark feeding - even worse than chumming?

Oh well.
So much for being too busy to blog.

There has been a Shark strike in Western Australia.
From what I can discern, it very much appears to have been a predatory attack (Christopher???) and it comes right on the heels of Mr. Moore's decision to preemptively ban cage diving there. The apparent reason for that politically motivated stupidity was that South Australia had restricted cage diving there because Barry Bruce et al had discerned that berleying (= chumming) had caused a minimal change in GW distribution.
Nothing whatsoever to do with Shark attacks - but who gives a shit provided that one can engage in populist grandstanding, right? And this? Indeed: Neanderthal reactions!

Which brings me straight to the following.
I rather despise those couch farting Shark lists - but people do keep me in the loop about the rare noteworthy discussions; and so I got sent this remarkable, and provided that you got a sense of humor, incredibly witty post by the Grand Mufti of Shark behavior, non other than the forever unequaled Doc.
I hope he doesn't mind me re-posting it verbatim in all of its glory.

A key criticism of the ruling in Western Australia is that researchers were not able to show a causal link between shark attack and chumming at shark dives. Lets see how they might prove such a link using the scientific method. How about setting up two dive sites within say 5 km of each other. At one you use chum and feed the sharks from a feeding tube or box. At the other you attract sharks by low frequency sound attraction and again feed shark from some device that precludes odorant from getting to the test-beach 5 km distant.

Now if there are sharks around I wager they will very quickly be attracted to the baiting station due to currents which rapidly brings the olfactants to their nostrils---so you might get them trained up in just a few days. For the acoustic attractions the sharks have to be within about 500 m of the hydrophone and be fairly motivated at the time. This might take several months but eventually the sharks at both sites will be feeding regularly, and reliably but probably seasonally.

To be further certain about your experimental study population you would have to tag the sharks and possibly take genetic samples to be sure you are working with different animals at the two sites...ok it could be done. Thus you have established two relatively equal feeding sites with a control and a treatment trial....good!

So after about two years of preparations you can now set up an hypothesis: H0, the null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between the control and treatment groups with respect to shark attacks; H1 is the proof of the pudding---There is a statistical difference between the two.

Ahhh, but here's the rub: You would of course have to continue your trials until you collect and adequate sample size for your appropriate statistical tests that you would used to either accept or reject H1 or H0. Based only on the annual rate of shark attacks world wide, this will take on the order of 1,000 years depending on the seasonality of the sharks. Considering the paucity of attacks and the time required for a human generation, you should put in your will that for the next 50 generations your offspring must continue the experiment on a daily basis until each season ends, then start again next year when the season begins. Get my drift? So it goes for all such shark-attack research.

OK...I put it up there now you shoot it down. I personally would love to understand the motivation of why sharks bite naked apes. (see Gruber, S.H. 1988. Why do sharks attack humans? Naval Research Review 40(1):2-19.)

Bingo! :)
As I've said all along, those musings about Shark attacks amount to nothing more than conjecture, i.e. sometimes plausible but ultimately untestable hypotheses.

But is the whole story?
Is there really no evidence whatsoever to point us one way or the other?

I believe that in fact, there is.
Yes George the great doyen of Sesselfurzing should indeed finally creep out from behind his desk and have a reality check by doing a couple of Shark dives; but in this specific specific case, he may even be useful by staying right where he is, smack in the middle of his Sammelsurium of Shark attack data - and ditto for Collier!

What I'm suggesting is this.
Get a Masters student to mine those data and to analyze whether globally, there is any statistically relevant correlation between the location of Shark strikes and that of baited Shark dives!
Of course correlation, even if it were found, is not causation. And, this would not be testing the hypothesis that baiting leads to more Shark attacks. For that, one would have to proceed like Doc suggests and wait for several centuries. But it would at least give us an indication about whether the hypothesis is at least plausible and thus, worth testing!

Betcha the result it is a big fat zero!
And if so, wouldn't that be all the more surprising as common wisdom would suggest the exact contrary! Here's the long version of why this should be the case - but if you can't be bothered, here's the synopsis.

For there to be a Shark strike, a person and a Shark need to be in the same place at the same time (dooh...) and consequently, anything increasing the rate of such encounters increases the probability for such a strike.
When it comes to baited Shark dives, it thus follows that, equally trivially

• the more Sharks are present, the higher the risk of a Shark bite
• the more divers are present, the higher the risk of a Shark bite
• the more dives are being conducted, the higher the risk of a Shark bite
• the closer the divers and the Sharks interact, and the more frequently those interactions occur, the higher the risk of a Shark bite - meaning that protocols are incredibly important!

And then there's also the element of location, i.e. where those baited Shark dives are being conducted.
They are obviously being conducted where there are Sharks (dooh...) - but often, they are even located where Sharks aggregate naturally to mate and feed, e.g. around Dyer and Seal Islands in South Africa, the Neptunes in Southern Australia, Guadalupe, etc., meaning that those places are more dangerous to start with, something one may want to consider when analyzing the data.

But then again, maybe the above is a fallacy.
Maybe Shark dives habituate the Sharks to the presence of people, meaning that they become more relaxed or "tame" and thus refrain from biting. Let's not forget that agonistic (= essentially, defensive) behavior may well be one of the principal causes of Shark bites on divers! And if we put too many divers in the water, the Sharks may well decide to simply go away.
Yes as always it's complicated!

So how about it.
Will those guys finally let somebody analyze those data, and will those stupid assertions be finally outed for what they really are, nothing but rubbish and completely unsupported and probably even falsified by the very data collected by the people proffering them!

PS Patric here (thanks!) and Jillian here!
PS great comment on the attacks here!

Part Two: The BAD and the Ugly!

Yum yum!

And now, to the juicy part!

But first.
This is when somebody will inevitably start shouting, how dare you attack fellow conservationists and invoke global peace and harmony and-so-on and-so-forth.

So lemme state this loud & clear, I don’t hate anybody here.

What I however do hate is bullshit.
And in the spirit of qui tacet consentire videtur, I will always reserve the right to criticize situations I don’t agree with - and if they happen to be in the public domain, I will also feel perfectly entitled to do so publicly!
I also believe that like in science, progress in conservation is achieved via dialogue but also, via robust debate where opinions may get heated but where everybody who is legit accepts that those are just the rules of the game – and where those who do not are simply not scientists and conservationists but posers and bullshitters.

In brief, where I’m coming from is that whereas it is great that Shark conservation has become sizzling hot and is uniting many passionate voices around a great common cause, bullshit continues to be bullshit and shenanigans, shenanigans - and the great common cause is in no way an excuse for any of that.
And like in real life, people are sometimes simply incompatible and thus mutually exclusive.

If you don’t agree, stop reading now - HNY and have a great life!
Seriously, spare yourself the aggro because the following aint gonna be pretty – but if you cannot resist and end up being outraged, spare me the lessons in ethics and instead, debate the assertions!

If the meteoric rise and the astounding successes of Pew teach us one lesson, then it is that the correct way to save Sharks is to pursue their protection by pragmatic, science-based advocacy and by hard work and smart negotiations aimed at legislative changes.
The rest is just stupid fluff and hot air, and counter productive to boot. We are not the ones who enact Shark protection - and rest assured that the people who do have zero time, zero patience and zero respect for the vocal clamoring of the Shark whacks!

Again, Shark conservation is inextricably liked (q.e.d.) to political and economic considerations, and he who does not understand that is just a fool.
Shark fishermen don’t hate Sharks, they want to make a buck – and the authorities don’t subscribe to conservation because they have changed their perspective and suddenly love Sharks, they do so because they have been convinced of the (eminently economic) need for sustainability and in the case of Sharks, because they have learned about the importance of several (not all!) species in regulating the marine environment and thus, of their economical value all the way to generating millions in income from tourism.

Shark finning?
The finning bans are archaic and ineffective and thus not anymore worth pursuing in isolation. Yes finning is an ethical abomination and needs to be abolished – but what is killing the Sharks is Shark fishing and if you care to open your eyes, you will quickly discern that many of the major Shark fishing hubs are processing the whole animals as the meat is increasingly sought after by ever increasing populations starving for protein, and other products like leather, squalene and even the eggs are introduced into the wider economy.

The facts and numbers?
Science is in continuous flux and the data do indeed change – but until they do, the latest peer reviewed science remains the best approximation of the truth.
Thankfully, there are now plenty of resources where anybody can consult the latest insights and data, meaning that those who continue to operate with inflated statistics and outlandish assertions lack any excuses and credibility whatsoever. The facts are plenty horrible as it is – so let’s please stick to those and refrain from the usual stupid inflated hyperbole!

The industry?
If there has been one trend at this year’s DEMA, then it has been Shark conservation - and everybody in the dive industry is now claiming that he has always been deeply and passionately involved.
Great – if only they all did walk the talk!

Instead, the usual shenanigans have continued unabated.
Don’t get me wrong, I know that nothing is just black or white. Competition is continuously leading many Shark diving operators to ever up the ante, this also very much in order to satisfy the continuous requests for ever more adrenaline by their clients. There is also an insatiable demand for images featuring stunt work with Sharks.
I understand that these are businesses and that those folks are merely trying to make a buck – but I certainly do not subscribe to the notion that these developments are inevitable, the more since we at BAD are doing very well indeed by promoting a totally different kind of experience, do not enable Shark porn and have in fact continuously tightened our protocols as a result of the stupendous increase in large Sharks visiting Shark Reef.

But you can’t have it both ways.
Stunt work with Sharks and promoting gratuitous adrenaline thrills got nothing to do with Shark conservation, period!

And the much-invoked Demystifying and Changing Perceptions about these Misunderstood animals?
Indeed - respectable Shark diving operations do that daily, and this without having to resort to those stupidities, and so do respectable Shark media!

Think about how the same was achieved with the terrestrial top predators: certainly not by showcasing scantily clad death-defying bimbettes perambulating in the savannahs and the Sundarbans and also not by turning alpha predators into pets by allowing tourists to physically interact with them, let alone ride them!

Changing perceptions by attempting to “prove” that we’re not on the menu of Sharks actually perpetuates the myth by reducing the animals’ fascinating and complex life history to one element only, that of shark-human interactions where some of the large species actually do devour people – which is perfectly normal and merely illustrates that they are the opportunistic top predators they just happen to be!

Nobody in his right mind asserts that Lions and Tigers are harmless – but most of us have learned to respect and love them for what they are, beautiful, charismatic and awe inspiring essential elements of their natural habitats, and very much endangered.
Think BBC documentary: that’s how you do it – and yes, the rest is just moronic BS!

Anyway, I’m digressing – here’s the list.

• Least credible Shark Conservation Org: Shark Research Institute
  
  Founded in the early nineties and once rightfully considered to be the visionaries and trailblazers in Shark conservation, this org has simply ceased to evolve and is now quite obviously well past its sell-by date.
  A motley grouping of baby boomers whose claim to fame, if any, lays way back somewhere in the distant past, they doggedly cling on to outdated concepts, data and strategies and achieve nothing substantive in the process. This year’s media by some of their featured members have been simply appalling, see below, to the point where the whole org is little more than a purveyor of clients for Amos’ pinnacle expeditions and has frankly become a major embarrassment to the cause - and being my usual polite self, I will certainly leave it at that!

• Most disappointing Shark Conservation Org: Shark Angels
  
  A great concept combining a promising initial triumvirate of passionate and good looking female Shark advocates, Shark Angels could have become the next big thing in Shark conservation.
  Well, after several years of waiting it turns out that it did not. Pretty girls posing with cardboard signs next to dead Tiger Sharks are just that, pretty - and the actual track record is that they have certifiably saved zero Sharks from the nets of the KZNSB or otherwise, not then and not after several years of pretty PSAs and obscure conservation work in SA. Now it appears that the epicenter has been moved to Canada and I remain equally unimpressed. Did I hear Toronto? Yes, maybe - but then again, maybe not so much!
  Up next? Canada. And the world... we shall see!

• Conservation Snake Oil of the Year: United Conservationists
  
  Wow. How could I be so blind!
  Like all strokes of genius, it’s so compellingly simple: humankind just needs to stage a media-based Revolution under the leadership of those visionary dreamers and doers - and the Planet will be saved! Because we are all inherently good deep down inside - and if you give us 50k, we'll even take you diving! We are the 99%!
  Send us your money and we will save the Sharks, Lemurs and Tigers! And we will end Ocean Acidification because once they see my movie, the uneducated masses in China, the US, Europe, India and Russia will rise and force global governments to agree on reducing emissions! Just like the Arab Spring – or whatever, just send us the money!
  Seriously!

• Least impressive Shark Conservation Achievement: California Shark Fin Ban
  
  As they say in German, The Better is the enemy of the Good.
  Talk about a missed opportunity! Nice – but given the impressive widespread good will, resources and star power, this is simply not good enough! Check out the legislation, corollary with exemptions and analysis: this is a (bad) licensing law that bans the possession of Shark fins (notabene, fins that are imported from Asia where they first get processed for consumption) and clearly unilaterally targets the principally Asian consumers of Shark fin soup in California.
  Is that really Shark conservation? Does closing down the Californian shark fin market really impact the global trade and really save Sharks, let alone combat Shark finning, one of the stated aims of the legislation? Convince me!
  
  Plus, there is this.
  The demise of California’s Blues and Makos is legendary - and yet with this law, the local commercial and game fishermen are still free to go and kill California’s Sharks, and anybody is still welcome to continue eating Shark steaks and to consume all other Shark products. And the outlawed fins of those Californian Sharks? Betcha that they get exported to Asia!
  Compare that to the excellent progress in Florida where more and more Sharks are being protected – still think this is an achievement to be proud of?
  But as I said, nice!

• Curiouser and Curiouser: Erik Brush (& Co!)
  
  "On the day that too many sharks have gone you will not know that a line has been crossed. It is only a while afterward that the sudden unleashing of methane hydrate into an already weakened atmosphere will show us our error. Then we will long for our predatory friends that could have regulated the food chain and kept the gas exchange of phytoplankton working for all life!" - Self Quote.
  
  New Age meets Shark conservation meets pseudoscience - and, meets the (obviously mad!) Hatter!
  Check out IMEC, Brush’s curious Facebook page and his curiouser personal website and tell me if I’m not right! And we've even got ourselves a new and mysterious Alliance!
  
  Anyway, all of this would just be harmless and actually, quite entertaining albeit in a bizarre way, were it not for the fact that the self professed marine biologist, Shark specialist and friend of Doctor Erich Ritter has managed to accumulate quite a loyal following (really? Are we witnessing the dumbing down of Hollywood?), among which some prominent representatives of the SRI who very much appear to endorse his pseudoscientific ramblings.
  Does Collier really think that Erik’s Shark math is very nice?
  Does the President of the SRI (doesn't R stand for Research?), apparently a German TV star and associate of Brush, really totally agree with Erik’s assertion that Sharks are the most critical factor besides human pollution to global warming and mass extinction?
  Whatever – right? But the cartoons are cute!

• Shark Pornographer of the Year: ABC4
  
  Well, no need to further post any evidence here.
  Andy is actually a nice personable guy, an accomplished cameraman and also brave to the point of being crazy - and thus highly sought after when it comes to filming stunts with large predatory Sharks. Several other cameramen do the same and although I hate the imagery they produce, I know that that’s what the market wants and respect them as professionals as I understand that they do what they do because competition in that field is fierce, jobs are scarce and they got bills to pay.
  What however riles me here is Andy's total hypocrisy of regularly partaking in Gurney’s despicable productions, see below, and then turning around and pretending to be a fervent Shark conservationist. Thing is, even if that were true, for every person conceivably heeding Andy’s self-professed conservation messaging, thousands are being certifiably influenced against Sharks by watching the images he produces.
  Can’t have it both ways buddy – either finally walk the talk, or take the $$$ and shut the F up!
  And the exact same applies to those Shark diving operators who continue to enable that shit - and no, I'm not about to post names lest I once again get accused of engaging in some food fight or the like: they know who they are and so do you!

• Shark Porn Production House of the Year: Gurney Productions
  
  Again, follow the link here.
  Discovery’s go-to people for those appalling Shark Week programs featuring idiotic scripts, idiotic experiments and idiotic anchors, they really transcend negative attributes. Absolute scum!

• Shark Porn Channel of the Year: Discovery Channel
  
  I’ve long stopped watching that shit that is Shark Week – but sometimes I catch a glimpse whilst zapping thru the wonderful selection of Fiji’s Sky Pacific and guess what, nothing whatsoever has changed. Not that they would care in the slightest - but I will continue to boycott Shark Week and BAD will continue to turn down those yearly requests for atrocious film shoots!

• Worst Shark Porn: How Sharks Hunt
  
  Featuring the chain wrapping of Emma, courtesy of ABC4 and Gurney - nothing to add to what I said there.

• Most embarrassing Shark Conservation Advocacy Stunts: Bikini Bimbettes and Warriorettes
  
  And I cite from a message by one of the Shark Greats – you would be amazed (and the bimbettes, totally ashamed!) if I told you her name!
  
  How I hate the latest bit of National Geographic Society shark porn!
  Absolutely ghastly that they have fallen so low, pandering to the lowest common denominator--sex and sharks. Not a scintilla of redeeming quality. I say this sight unseen as I refused to watch it after seeing the trailers.
  
  But that would be but one, albeit particularly pathetic example.
  Why some otherwise modern and emancipated women would agree to demean themselves by partaking in these embarrassing stupidities will forever remain a mystery to me – and undoubtedly, to the other 99.9% of intelligent modern and emancipated women who love Sharks but don’t engage in those shenanigans!
  
  Oh - did I hear Demystify and Changing Perceptions?
  By “proving” that Sharks don’t strike bikini bimbettes? Well guess what, they do, so sorry folks – and that makes them neither good nor bad, nor does that fact in any way diminish the validity of the assertion that we need to protect them!
  The swimwear stunts and experiments are moronic pseudo-conservation and pseudoscience that presumes that everybody out there watching is a retard – thing is, most people are not and will quickly identify them as what they really are, highly embarrassing self promoting publicity stunts!
  Tip o’ hat: Erich Ritter– and we all know how that one ended!

• Lifetime Achievement Award for Pseudoscience: Erich Ritter for Sharkitarianism
  
  Yes the above link is plenty sufficient!
  And after more than a decade of spouting those outlandish and I may add, very much self-debunked theories: still eagerly awaiting the first peer-reviewed paper on the subject!

• Most preposterous Assertions by Shark Expert: Ralph Collier
  
  George eat your heart out!
  Having managed to completely supplant him as this year’s undisputed token Sesselfurzer, Collier and his Shark farts have been nothing short of spectacular. From the epic dog analogy to having linked JAWS with the starvation of Grizzly Bears by means of the dreaded domino effect, the man is truly a cornucopia of moronic pseudoscience. Will he be able to further exceed this year’s stellar performance and grace us with more, forever unforgettable tidbits of hot perfumed air?

• Shark Conspiracy Whacknut of the Year: H E Sawyer
  
  Huzzah!
  We've finally got ourselves our very own, home-grown conspiracy – and shame on Wikipedia for not having posted it on the ominous list!
  So it turns out that not only are the numbers a conspiracy concocted by the scientific intelligentsia, but that all of us are (once again!) nothing but the puppets of Big Oil!
  
  Because, and I cite, shark conservation is actually a fig leaf for oil & energy corporations, through their ‘charitable trusts’ to ring fence large areas of international waters through MPAs, MCZs and ‘shark sanctuaries’ with the purpose of leasing it out to other oil & energy corporations, & using the money from that to fund the science that supports the policy of ring fencing large areas of international waters for ‘protecting sharks’ etc!
  
  Utter humbug? Far from it, here is the proof, black on white!
  Wow - makes Erik the Mad Hatter of Sharktivism look like a genius in comparison! If these are really the exhaust fumes of democracy, may I humbly suggest that this may indeed be this year’s ultimate Furz from the Sessel. May I further humbly suggest that the man urgently get himself a life and quite possibly, a diagnosis by a qualified psychiatrist, chop chop!
  
  As a reminder, here’s what the despicable cabal of evil has been doing in 2011 - unequivocally highly suspect!

Story here - check it out!

• Stupidest Shark Media: Guadalupe Mermaid
  
  Yes that would be the f@$%ing mermaid – and I’m still completely astounded by the sheer scope of the bullshit, hubris and mind-blowing stupidity!

• Irritating: Personality Cults
  
  Just one example among several.
  
  See, some of our founders made a little movie called Sharkwater. Soon NGOs started popping up and government policy started changing. All it took was information and a spark, and the world will never be the same.
  
  Have we got ourselves a case where the salesman is starting to believe his own marketing, with symptoms of incipient guru-esque megalomania?
  There is no doubt that Sharkwater hit a nerve and that it has done much for popularizing Shark conservation among the masses. But Rob is not the visionary trailblazer, Shark conservation did not start with Sharkwater and the recent spectacular successes are not at all attributable to that movie!
  
  Anyway, it is just one example and certainly not the most brazen one.
  The Heroes and heroines, warriors, whisperers, experts, specialists and whatnot are all legit if the moniker is being assigned by others - but when it is self promotion and really nothing more than branding, it becomes irritating.
  Does sharktivism really need its own version of the Kardashians and the associated frothy adulation and gossip? Maybe – but like in real life, I don’t like it one bit!

• Most Brazen Conservation Heist: Shark Research Institute
  
  Having nothing much to show for, the SRI is now mooching on other people’s hard work by insinuating that they were somehow responsible for all (!) of this year's Shark conservation achievements. From the SRI's Winter Newsletter - and I cite
  
  Thanks to you — our members — 2011 has been a very good year for sharks. Through SRI active participation, advocacy and legislative efforts we have achieved spectacular results. We still have work to do, but look at what has been accomplished this year alone!
  Give yourself a pat on the back!! Thanks to your support, 2011 has been a fantastic year for sharks. This year alone:
  * Honduras announced creation of 92,665-square mile shark sanctuary.
  * The Bahamas converted 243,244 square miles into a shark sanctuary.
  * The Marshall Islands, Guam and Palau created a region-wide 2 million square-mile shark sanctuary.
  * Chile banned shark finning in its water.
  * ICCAT agreed to reduce fishing of shortfin mako shark and porbeagle sharks (At least get your facts right! I thought you were there?)
  * The trade in shark fins, outlawed in Hawaii in 2010, was also prohibited in Guam, Oregon, Washington and California
  
  Certainly cleverly worded!
  I say, how cheap, sad and frankly revolting - simply unforgivable!

• Low Point of Academic Competition: Junior Controversy
  
  Got some time to waste?
  Read this and track back through the links. What you will discover is an ignominious smear campaign against Michael Domeier orchestrated by competing researchers. Dunno and don’t care much about what happened after it backfired, except for noticing that the Monterey Bay Aquarium has obviously not severed its contacts to the very much implicated Sal Jorgensen and Scot Anderson of TOPP.
  All very revealing and very disturbing!

• Stupidest Shark Conservation Memes and Slogans.
  
  Here, I did a quick brain storming session with some of my Shark friends.
  In no particular order: the Oxygen myth; No Fin No Shark No Future period (can anybody please tell me what that means?????); Fintastic; and last but not least, Fins Up!

And here endeth the list - happy I finally got it off my chest!

And, are you pissed off?
I sure hope so - the question being, at whom!
Comments welcome!