Upon further Reflection!

There’s something I wanted to share with you.
Whenever I post something a little more substantive, there’s obviously a lot going on behind the scenes. This time, I have been severely reprimanded – and been caught out as a total ignoramus in the process!
Remarkable!

Nah it’s not about one of my rants.
In fact, those who have earned my respect and thus, the right to criticize me rather like my rants. They know me and know that I have zero (make that −273.15°C) tolerance for stupidity, hypocrisy, bullshit and lies and that I consequently loathe such things as political correctness, new age whackoism, conspiracy theories and religious piousness - and above all, all facets of pseudo-, alternative- and anti-science! They also know that my rants are generally motivated by my own ethical imperatives rather than tribalism or obscure secret agendas of world domination and the like. In my former incarnation, I was a staunch proponent of meritocracy and its inevitable consequence, accountability, and I thus pride myself in being an equal opportunities blamer and praiser – actually, with an emphasis on the latter!
But I’m digressing as always.

No, surprise surprise, I got slammed for this!
Looks like whilst trying to sort through all of that pseudoscientific speculation, I’ve committed the exact same sin I criticize in others!

The contentious issue: my endorsement of this interview with Avi Baranes.
Indeed, I must confess that I’ve been caught up in its overall pro-Shark messaging and have completely failed to properly analyze the specific content of what was being said!
Mea culpa – totally!

My critic will remain unnamed – no, you won’t be able to guess!
Suffice to say that he is highly intelligent and that he totally knows what he’s talking about - and that he shares my passionate aversion for bullshit!
I re-print his critique verbatim, albeit slightly abridged to preserve his anonymity as this was never meant for public consumption. But I do find it highly instructive - and personally, rather humbling! My self esteem is rather, for lack of a better term: robust (did anybody say pompous ass?) and this has definitely pricked that cozy bubble! Somewhat!

Anyway, I wanted to share it with you, if only to show how easily the discourse can slip into utter irrelevance, scientific and otherwise – and this even when the interviewee is a pro who certainly knows better!

So, here's how a brilliant analytical mind has dissected that little interview.
The critic’s comments are in blue.

Enjoy!

********

This interview is not the words of a scientist trying to place sharks in proper perspective. It reminds me of those people that think sharks are nice and need to be invited to tea. Sharks are not nice or mean—as Da Shark said—they are sharks.

In an interview with Haaretz, he sought to make clear that "sharks are actually quite nice." Avi Baranes
Dec. 7, 2010 (Nir Keidar)

Dr. Baranes, the shark attacks we've seen in Sinai recently are considered rare, but three such attacks have been reported in rapid succession. Why is this happening?

It's true that a violent confrontation between swimmers and sharks is an exceptional event. I think there have only been two cases in all our history: with a British English soldier in 1946 and an attack in Eilat in 1974. Unfortunately the film "Jaws" gave sharks a bad name, and unjustifiably so. Many more people are eaten by dogs than by sharks, and this is because sharks are uniquely attached to their own particular food.

More people are eaten by dogs than are eaten by sharks because sharks are UNIQUELY attached to their food????
This assumes that feeding ecology is the sole motivation of why all sharks attack people. I would argue that the evidence does not bear this out. So it can not be that dogs eat more people than sharks because sharks are attached to their food.

So, when there are incidents like this, we have to look for a cause. Sharks attack people when they invade their territory, and then their reaction is aggressive, as it is when they are unable to obtain their natural food.

Territory and aggression are very loaded words.
When a great white bites, kills and consumes at fur seal is the shark being aggressive (one of the “big five” drives) or is it motivated by feeding? Sharks are actually rather unaggressive animals tolerating one and other very well. Even intraspecific aggression is rare in sharks—think feeding in a bait ball.

Most rapacious sharks do not appear to hold territories although they carry a personal space around with them.
Dr. Baranes is mixing up his terms and strongly confusing the issue as well as being just plain wrong considering what we know of social behavior of sharks. Then he finishes this tour de force by stating that they become aggressive when they can’t get their food!
Oh Pleeeeeze!!

Essentially Avi is stating unequivocally why sharks attack and gives the reasons---territoriality and aggression!! Hi suggestions are not even that reasonable even in the light of our poor knowledge of shark behavior. Just think of all the divers who would die with such a behavioral repertoire—aggression and territoriality---when humans enter the water.

In 1974 in Eilat, a Mako shark attacked a German tourist. The shark was caught the next day and it turned out that it had a problem with its spine and could not swim fast.

Now here we see a forensic determination of why this mako fed on the person.
It may or may not be true. However we have seen all sorts of deformities in sharks including blind ones and plastic-ensnared ones that are doing just fine. So while it might be true that the shark could not feed properly it is just a theory not a fact.

This was a shark that usually fed on tuna, and it simply could not obtain its regular food.

What is the regular food of mako sharks?
In fact they have a relatively wide feeding ecology with prey spanning the gamut from marine mammals to cephalopods. I am sure that even a damaged mako can find food or else it world die rather quickly being warm bodied. I can accept the explanation that Dr. Baranes gave but it sounds to me like the experts simply wanted to come up with a reason for the attack that made sense. I would love to read the report to see just how they determined that the shark could not find and catch its “regular food”. Remember: scientists should be skeptical by nature just like attorneys—show me the evidence!!

In Sinai I know of cases where sharks simply bit the legs of Bedouin fishermen who were standing on reefs. This is the response to an invasion by humans into the shark's living space, and this can also happen when divers enter their territory.

What? No!! This is yet another unsupported conclusion.
What if the shark happened to bump into the fisher? I have seen small sharks on the flats swim right through the legs of waders and they might have been bitten if they had frightened them at that moment. So anything from fear to aggression---rare in sharks---could be operating in this example.
Shark territory reaches right up to the beaches in Sinai? Sharks do not apparently hold or defend territories like damsel fishes. Perhaps Dr. Baranes means shark habitat. Territory is a very loaded term.

The Red Sea is one of a kind. It is narrow and deep and that means that whereas in the Mediterranean, sharks are found only in the middle of the sea,

I do not believe this at all.
Avi is apparently mistaking all sharks for pelagic sharks. There are plenty of littoral sharks in the Med. Here is a nice discussion of chodricthyan zoogeography in the Med.

in the Red Sea they can arrive close to the shore. If you go out 50 meters in Eilat, you are already at a depth of 100 meters, so big sharks can get pretty close to the shore. They also approach areas where food is accessible, and by this I mean port areas.

So is Avi saying that shark attacks can be expected to occur more frequently at Port locations?
Is Sharm a port where garbage is thrown? If so wouldn’t sharks be attacking all the time? Actually there are plenty of big sharks like grey reefs that can and do stay close to shore whether there is a drop-off nearby or not. So having the pelagic zone is not a prerequisite for big sharks like great whites or tiger sharks to come close to bathers.

Unfortunately, we use the sea as a big garbage dump.
Three years ago we caught a tiger shark on the northern shore of Eilat and in the laboratory, I found a smaller shark, about 1.8 meters in length, in its stomach, as well as a sheep's head, two chickens, a nylon bag and two unopened jars of mayonnaise.

But why does this not surprise me?
Tiger sharks have perhaps the widest feeding ecology (broadest trophic niche width) of any large rapacious shark and are notorious for feeding on offal. Check the stomach of a copper shark or grey reef and tell me about garbage. By the way you do not have to kill a shark to find out what is on its stomach!

What about Mediterranean sharks?

The Mediterranean is very shallow and so when sharks approach the beach, they are usually females in spawning season who have entered shallow waters to spawn their young. Shallow water is not amenable for large male sharks to swim in.

OK Mike you tell me about whether Avi is blowing smoke here—shallow water not amenable to males? What?

Can you compare the different species of sharks in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea?

In the Red Sea, the temperature does not go below a certain point, so that the corals produce reefs, a kind of refuge for all kinds of marine life. I would say that 80 percent of the fish in the Red Sea live on reefs - a kind of highly accessible food pantry - and so the sharks patrol along reefs. We have 26 species of shark in the Red Sea, include thing Leviathan shark, the largest of all, which pays visits in April and May. It is 12 meters long, but not dangerous. Of the 26 species, there are maybe two that are capable of attacking people. There's no need to make a big deal about this.

Pardonnez moi!
Any shark over 1.5 m is capable of attacking a human. Whether they bite depends on the situation! Even a little 2 kg carcharhinid sharks can bite the sh-t out of you if you grab their tail!!

OK—gotta go. I have highlighted the egregious parts. Happy Holidays

The Mediterranean has more species than the Red Sea, and that's where the great white shark [the star of "Jaws"] can be found, rather than in the Red Sea. To date, there has been no damage to the shark population in our areas, but those in the Mediterranean are under threat because of a reduction in the number of fish. If something is not done to give the fish a chance to recover their numbers, the big predators will be in danger.

Today we have, in partnership with the UN, established an organization to protect sharks from extinction. All Asians love [to eat] shark's fin. They make soup with it, which the Chinese claim strengthens virility. It's true there are lots of Chinese, but that doesn't necessarily make this claim true. Thousands of tuna are used to catch sharks each year; the hunters take the fins and throw the rest back into the sea, and the damage is enormous. Luckily in Israel the shark is a protected animal.

What do you recommend to reduce and prevent shark attacks like the ones we've been witness to recently?

Protect the sea.
Don't turn it into a garbage dump, and prevent pollution. A lot of sewage flows into the sea, and the minute you damage a system, a lot of species are hurt and disappear. It's like a Russian nesting doll: The big swallow the small. If you damage a coral that serves as a refuge for small fish, not only will they disappear, but and whoever feeds upon them will also disappear, and so on down the line, until the big sharks can't find food.

I suggest we not be afraid of sharks.
We must respect them, and we can look at them in the water. I also suggest that we refrain from trying to attack them because they will respond and they have the strength and the means to defend themselves. Just enjoy the view. There is nothing more beautiful than a shark swimming in the sea.

Too Many!

I did like Patric's Sunday Sermon.

It's in the comments section of this post, after which he has posted this one.
Both deal with the numbers circulated by some Shark activists and warn that if we argue with faulty data, we lose credibility and ultimately harm the cause. All very truthful, important and timely indeed.

Thing is, maybe it's really not that much of an issue as nobody really knows what's going on anyway.

Take the assertion that 90% of all Sharks have been wiped out.

"Sharks"?
Cookie Cutter Sharks? Greenland Sharks? Whale Sharks? Pigeye Sharks?
I've said it before, like "Birds", "Sharks" is an amorphous concept that leaves very little scope for generalizations. What we seem to know is that the stocks of some of the large, oceanic species like Silky, Oceanic Whitetip, Blue, Scalloped Hammerhead and the Threshers that are being targeted in tandem with other apex predators like the Tuna and the Billfishes have collapsed. Other coastal species, like e.g. the Caribbean Reef, Bull and Tiger appear to fare better and are still locally abundant.
Clearly, the assertion is not true - but then, what is?

Think baseline count, the original 100%.
Do we have that information?
I'm inclined to believe that when somebody tells me that over 90% of the large Sharks in the Mediterranean have been wiped out, it is based on fact. The Mediterranean Sea is surrounded by many highly developed countries that could well have established the apparatus for collecting population data and for monitoring any fishing taking place there, and the changes that the relatively recent industrial exploitation of Fish stocks have brought about in the last 30-40 years.
But how about, say, Yemen, another place where there is a large Shark fishing industry? Do you really believe that there are reliable data about the Sharks being landed in comparison to before, or a reliable census of Shark stocks in the Southern Red Sea compared to 1960?

And with that in mind, are the numbers of Sharks killed every year really between 25 and 75 million? 100 million? Or even between 150 and 200 million as one Shark conservation website claims?
And again: is that relevant? What species are we talking about? And how do those numbers relate to the total size of the relevant stocks and the carrying capacity of their habitat? Is that 1%, 10% per annum, or is it more than that? And what is the rate at which those stocks replenish?

Thing is, nobody knows and all of the numbers that are being circulated are nothing more than elaborate and more or less plausible estimates, with huge discrepancies based on individual assumptions (how much goes under- or un-reported, etc) and mathematical models.
Thus, the theoretically impeccable rule postulated on an interesting and intelligent conservation biology blog, that one needs to manage populations in function of the minimum viable population size is certainly highly interesting - in theory. But in practice, it's utterly useless and once again, nothing but an erudite crapshoot when applied to the urgent need to preserve marine species that are often spread across immense areas. Is it really plausible to postulate that approx. 5,000 Blue Sharks spread across the vastness of the Oceans would ensure that the species would survive? And who, please, would be able to count, let alone manage them?

But as I said, the numbers are rather irrelevant anyway.
What is relevant, I believe, is that anybody who has knowledge of the Sea is aware that the marine environment in general and Sharks in particular are in real bad shape.
I remember sailing into Cocos’ Chatham Bay in the eighties and there would be Shark fins crisscrossing the surface everywhere, and heaps of huge Silvertips on every dive. Or sitting at Dirty Rock and witnessing a never ending procession of Hammerheads that would completely fill my field of vision - up, down, left and right, as far as I could see. They were thousands - and today, a couple of hundred are a major event. Or take the Silvertips on the Burma Banks and the guaranteed Whale Shark sightings at Richelieu Rock: gone, likely forever. Or diving with Blue Sharks off San Diego: not anymore commercially viable.
And the list goes on and on and on.

This, and not a set of numbers that are not very tangible and may, or may not be factually correct is why many of us have become Shark conservation advocates.

Want a number, as in how many?
How about: Too Many!

The principal threat to large oceanic Sharks is the fishing industry that targets their fins. This fishery appears to be unsustainable, as witnessed by the reported regional (and some say: global) collapse of stocks.
Here, the main thrust of any conservation efforts needs to be sustainability: first, the stocks that have been overly depleted need to be allowed to recover and after that, one has to agree on quotas. All of that should be based on proper data that so far are largely lacking and until they have been gathered, it is imperative to apply the precautionary principle, operate under worst-case scenarios and to err on the side of caution.
But once the data have been collected, we must be willing to compromise and to allow for the sustainable (and ethical, meaning no finning) harvesting of Sharks as long as there will be demand for their fins – and yes, for the umpteenth time, I’m repeating myself!

On the other hand, and very much depending on location, the principal threat to coastal Sharks appears to be habitat degradation coupled with fishing pressure.
Here, on top of promoting sustainable fishing, one needs to focus on preserving the habitat, be it coral reefs or the equally important nursery areas. This is precisely the kind of work conducted by us here in Fiji, by having established a marine reserve, by now focusing our work on the river nurseries and by sponsoring plenty of research aimed at helping us take the correct decisions. And yes, we’re also engaged in promoting pro-Shark legislation, conservation and awareness.

There’s much to do and it’s not going to be easy.
But maybe contrary to others, I really do believe that it’s neither impossible nor too late.
Shark conservation has come a long way and despite of the inevitable setbacks, we thankfully appear well on course to changing perceptions and to finally depict and treat Sharks as what they are: not unpredictable monsters nor misunderstood pets – but charismatic predators that like their terrestrial counterparts need to be respected and above all, to be protected as they are important and often essential elements of their habitats which they help to regulate.

Long story short: everybody who loves Sharks will find a suitable niche where he can make a useful contribution.
But like Patric, I just wish that everyone could abstain from gratuitous sensationalism and activism and really focus on the task at hand, to engage in effective and pragmatic Shark conservation. That includes less idle chat and more hard and often tedious and frustrating work, less dogmatism and more compromise, less propaganda and more hard facts, less infighting and more coordination, less squandering of precious and finite resources and goodwill.

And above all: lots of love and respect for the animals and passion for the cause!

Nonsense - but for a good Cause!

This reminds me of that trip to Wolf and Darwin.

We had chartered the venerable Sulidae (more than a century old - and cabin 6 in the stern castle with its multicolored windows is just plain amazing - very retro! The only thing missing is a lava lamp!) for a special charter to the northern Galapagos and had been put under the tutelage of the compulsory naturalist guide provided by the Darwin Station, a real delightful and funny guy called Carlos.

Carlos was a great stickler for discipline and strict protocols, and he started off by having us undergo a thorough check-out dive which consisted in freezing off our collective bums somewhere near Baltra whilst proving that we were able to face the most rigorous challenges diving would throw at us. Which incidentally resulted in some truly epic footage of Valerie Taylor being tested in the arcane art of clearing one's mask - all gleefully recorded for posterity by her loving husband.

So weighed, tested and not found wanting, we all had a wonderful time despite the ubiquitous Garua, saw tons of humongous Whale Sharks, made friends with that pack of Galapagos Sharks on that corner of Wolf, drifted into enormous schools of Hammerheads and Silkies and generally drove Carlos crazy by never, ever, ever keeping to anything that could even remotely be described as a responsible buddy diving system. Poor Carlos gave up the valiant fight halfway through the trip - and ended up telling us that he had experienced some of the best dives of his life as a consequence!

Anyway, on the way back, we stopped at Isla Bartolomé and went ashore to take some pics of the Penguins and Sea Lions, only to have Carlos chastise us when we started unpacking our strobes. That was apparently strictly forbidden and when questioned about the reasons, he proceeded to lecture us about the fact that strobe light would cause permanent damage to the vision, but above all, to the developing embryos of the pregnant Sea Lions!
At which Valerie quietly took him to one side and whilst lauding his zeal, gently explained that he should stop making up such nonsense as it was completely destroying his credibility and defeating the aims of what he was trying to achieve.

I was reminded of Carlos when I found this article.

In it, an equally valiant Filipino fisheries official is trying to promote Whale Sharks as the "heroic" ultimate saviors of a bay infested by pollution and a Red Tide of Harmful Algal Bloom.
I can see that what he is really trying to achieve, is to convince the local fishermen that Whale Sharks are useful and thus worthy of protection. In a way, that's smart pro-Conservation marketing using a local calamity as a pretext.

That is, until one starts to examine the details.
Of course, Whale Sharks are not giant mammals - but let's be generous and attribute that to an editorial mistake.
But "Plankton" is not simply "Plankton" and Whale Sharks eat Zooplankton, not algae. Here, we're talking about a persistent and apparently, toxic algal bloom which is said to be triggered by pollution - hardly the kind of meal that would motivate an army of Whale Sharks to hone in for a feast!
Whale Sharks are not just dumb biological water purifiers that roam the Oceans, mouth wide agape, in the hopes that something useful may end up getting swept inside - they are selective and rather "smart" active predators of Zooplankton and small Fish that have developed efficient hunting techniques and periodically aggregate in areas featuring high concentrations of other suitable nourishment like Coral and Fish spawn.

I would also dare to venture the presumption that the assertion that they are immune to toxins which are lethal to humans is a "Carlos", a daring and spectacular assertion that has been made up on the fly.

In fact, it's not even very plausible.
I did google "Red Tide dead Fish" and have come up with 1,240,000 entries talking about the toxicity of Red Tides to Vertebrates. There's no reason to assume that Evolution would have selected for a largely oceanic Carnivore to have developed an immunity to a largely coastal phenomenon involving plant-like matter - the more as most coastal Fishes for whom the selective pressure would have to be higher haven't managed to do so, this probably owing to the rarity of those tides.

Much rather, I would think that a Whale Shark venturing upon a cloud of toxic algae would sense its taste, keep its mouth closed and simply swim somewhere else.

But I shall be happy to be proven wrong!
Anybody out there who knows?

Up, up and Away!

Life on the pack ice is dangerous.
It can also be unnerving.

It may have been sheer loss of patience or a reaction to increased habitat loss due to Anthropogenic Climate Change: but a lonely and just recently discovered tribe of Penguin has resorted to a rapid and miraculous bout of Reverse Ontogeny and resurrected their ancestral Bauplan. It is widely believed that the Ratites, equally of Gondwanan origin, may eventually follow suit as their habitat is equally affected.
Here are the first images documenting this remarkable adaptation, a clear proof of the versatility of Darwinian Evolution.



Described as Pygoscelis volitans, or the Lesser Flying Tux, they are now making regular incursions into the lower Amazon basin, thus threatening to severely disrupt its food chain and spurring a push of Heteropatric Speciation among some local predators.



Aint Nature a wonderful thing!