To Feed or not to Feed - David's Interview!

David has posted his own unabridged interview.

As always, he's making some excellent points.

Re-posted in its entirety, with tacit permission.

What is your opinion on baited shark dives and shark feeding dives, and why?

It’s a strange one, I am neither “pro-shark feeding” nor “anti-shark feeding”.

It would be more accurate to say I wholeheartedly support projects which encourage conservation initiatives for sharks whilst involving local communities and tourism, all with a goal to create long term, sustainable and economically successful alternatives to the short term financial gain of commercial or sport fishing. In short, that generally means eco-tourism shark diving and if you want to ensure your business is sustainable, your clients need a guarantee of sharks and in most places, that means baiting or feeding. 

People have been feeding sharks since the dawn of civilisation.

As soon as we stepped aboard boats and into the water, sharks have benefited from our being there, it’s not this new thing people seem to think it is. This idea that politicians or just the everyday man on the street is going to want to protect something simply because it’s the right thing to do is not only naive, it is grossly misguided. People need incentives to commit to things long term and that incentive has to be financial for it to work properly. Most of the best places in the world to see sharks are third world or developing nations, these nations are already being exploited by fishing fleets looking to empty their waters of fish before leaving them with nothing and heading on to the next location to destroy and for people with nothing, short term financial relief offered by destructive industries is going to be preferable to seeing your family starve. What shark dive operations in these areas can do is provide long term careers and financial stability to areas in desperate need, not just directly linked to the shark feed either but to all the other ancillary businesses which benefit from an influx of tourism capital. 

People who say that these feeds condition sharks to view humans as food or as a source of food simply do not understand sharks.

Sharks are not mindless killers, to imply that seeing a diver behind a cage will condition that shark to equate a diver outside a cage, in a different location, as food is just complete nonsense, akin to claiming a dog can learn to drive a car because he sits in the back seat when you take him to the park. The people who continue to make these claims are implying, whether they realize it or not, that all cognitive development in sharks is in someway ultimately geared towards aggression towards people which is obviously untrue, but also reduces sharks to nothing more than the big dumb animals portrayed in the movies. 

Not all feeds are safe, not all feeds are well intentioned and some are downright irresponsible.

But we cannot condense an industry which on the whole does some incredible things for shark conservation, into one which is creating man-eating sharks prowling the coasts looking for people to eat because the facts don’t lie, shark feeds have not increased the number of shark attacks or the risk of shark attack, anywhere on the planet, the link just does not exist. Those with moral or ethical concerns about the practice need to consider what is better, shutting the feeds down and letting the fishermen in to wipe out the sharks, or choosing not to partake personally in these dives but appreciating the conservation benefit they can provide. 

A protected site under the stewardship of local employees which serves as a site to take tourists out to see what magnificent animals sharks are is the best available scenario we have and shark eco-tourism, is possibly the last remaining realistic way we can halt and then hopefully reverse the alarming decline in global shark numbers. 

Or even, how do you feel about the controversy surrounding baited dives? 

It’s a controversial issue surrounded by myths and untruths perpetuated by people who really don’t understand the issue of shark behaviour. 

The primary concern has always been the increase in the perceived risk of attack but it just simply isn’t true, there is zero evidence that a shark feed operation increases the risk of attacks on bathers, divers and surfers, in fact, if you look at the statistics, you are less likely to be bitten by a shark in a location where feeding occurs, than you are in a location where it does not. I recently saw a claim that the cage diving operations at The Neptune Islands, South Australia, could be directly linked to the attacks in Western Australia which is of course ridiculous, but indicative of the kind of opinions some people will believe are credible. 

It must also be said however, that if you start a shark feed 100 yards off shore from a popular beach, you will likely encounter problems, not because of the implausible notion that feeding sharks conditions them to humans as food (something which has been largely disproven) but because you will be aggregating sharks, at least periodically, in areas of high human recreational water use. More people, more sharks, more risk of a bite, it’s that simple. 

If you are going to open a shark feeding site, you must use common sense, pick a site not used by recreational water users, protect the site so you don’t aggregate sharks for the fishermen and put in place protocols from which you never ever deviate. 

The basic logistics of a shark feed should be exactly the same every single day, the sharks need to learn what is expected of them and also, your clients must also be aware of what is expected of them, too many shark feeding sites these days are letting clients dictate what they want from a dive as opposed to the operator having full control over their input to the dive. If multiple operators use the same site and the same sharks, but their protocols are wildly different, that could confuse the sharks and could lead to issues later down the line and nobody wants that. 

It’s all about common sense, a long term initiative which has the sharks best interests at heart and also, involving local communities. Shark feeds run purely for commercial gain, with no thought for the well-being of the sharks, are no good for anybody other than those looking to make a fast buck. 

To Feed or not to Feed!

Yawn - right? :)

But this is really rather good.

It's a collection of interviews about the ever controversial topic of provisioned Shark dives - and to my great surprise, it's overwhelmingly pro-industry, and even the reservations by some are well informed and as such, absolutely legit.

So bravo Scuba Diver - considering some of the moronic comments fielded in support of the WA Shark Cull, this was certainly timely!

Oh and they did interview yours truly.

True to her job description, Alice Grainger the charming editor did some brutal editing, and the result is uncharacteristically concise, this probably much to the relief of the readers.

No such luck for you!

Here's the interview, unabridged.

What has you experience been with the provisioning shark dives you run at Beqa?

How do you approach the controversy surrounding this divisive issue?

Let me try to address the second question first.

It touches on two aspects – one ethical and one factual.

Ethical considerations.

Some people oppose provisioned shark dives for ethical reasons, stating that they are inferior to natural encounters, and that they demean the animals.

This may surprise you – but I don't advocate Shark feeding!

On the contrary, I'm very much of the opinion that nothing beats the awesome experience of witnessing Sharks doing their natural thing, like in, say, Palau, Malapasqua, the Sardine Run, Ningaloo, Fakarava or Cocos!

But of course those predictable natural aggregations are rather rare.

Plus, some of those Sharks are very shy, meaning that the encounters, although highly rewarding, can be very brief indeed. Other than that, encountering Sharks in the wild is difficult for some species and all-but-impossible for others, meaning that in most cases, anybody wanting to showcase them to paying customers will have to resort to some form of baiting.

This is what we do in Fiji - not because we are “for” it but because it is a necessity and because we believe that it is neither harmful to the Sharks and their habitat nor to the humans, a fact that is increasingly being corroborated by recent research, see below.

Factual considerations.

People who oppose baited shark dives claim that they are harmful to the sharks and their environment, and that they teach sharks to associate humans with food, which in turn will lead to increased shark strikes on people.

When presented with such opinions, it is best to look at the evidence – and the evidence looks as follows.

• Shark feeding appears unproblematic at the ecosystem level.
  All present research into those baited Shark dives appears to concur that those dives have little to no effect at large spatial and temporal scales. It appears pretty clear that far from becoming dependent on the handouts, those provisioned Sharks continue to fulfill their ecological roles and also continue to follow their normal life cycles as in e.g. mating, pupping and migrating.


• There's no geographical correlation between Shark feeding and Shark strikes.
  In brief and with maybe the exception of South Africa, the overwhelming majority of Shark strikes occurs in locations where there are no Shark feeding operations - which is even more surprising if one considers that most of those dives have been established in locations that are known for their healthy Shark populations! And even if there were some correlation, it certainly does not equate causation!

But of course there are some big caveats.

• There are certainly effects at small spatial and temporal scales.
  Shark feeding often aggregates the animals, and this can have local consequences. Documented examples of those local effects include increased aggression among sharks, competitive exclusion of other species by dominant sharks, or those postulated local behavioral changes and marginally increased residency of Great Whites in South Australia. Those effects however are strictly localized, and none of them has been shown to impinge on the fitness of those provisioned sharks, nor do they unduly alter their environment.


• Conditioning via positive reinforcement likely happens.
  Sharks are certainly smart and it is absolutely plausible to assume that they may have learned to associate the boat noise with a subsequent feeding opportunity - and should food be presented at the surface, it is equally plausible to assume that they could be popping up next to other boats in the area! Those are certainly considerations any responsible shark diving operator has to keep in mind.


• Location matters.
  Many Shark dives have been being established where there are already Sharks, meaning that objectively speaking, the risk profile is unlikely to change - but perceptions matter and like in the case of population centers like, say, Cape Town or Playa del Carmen in Mexico, the diving activity and associated increased publicity of sharks can lead to conflicts with the other local ocean users. Consequently, as a rule, the feeding locations need to be as remote as possible and should definitely not be established e.g. right in the middle of population centers or right in front of popular beaches etc.


• Feeding protocols.
  Like I often state, the problem is not what one does, it is how one does it! Shark provisioning creates its own risks, and those risks need to be managed - meaning that all protocols should be chosen in function of minimizing the impact on both the animals and the habitat, and on maximizing the safety for the participants but also the public. E.g., everybody will hopefully agree that creating humongous chum trails or dumping indiscriminate amounts of bait to create feeding frenzies is probably a bad idea. Or as another example, we here go to great lengths to condition the Bulls never to come to the surface, lest we get accused of endangering other aquatic recreationists. In brief, we need to be in a position to demonstrate that we are always striving to conduct our dives in the most responsible way possible.

Which brings me straight to the first question. 

From the outset, our principal aim was to further shark conservation and research, for which we established the Shark Reef Marine Reserve in Fiji in close cooperation with local stakeholders and the relevant authorities. 

When it comes to the tourism component, we want our customers to experience being in the presence of such awesome animals with a maximum of enjoyment and a minimum of risk, as provisioned shark dives will always remain inherently dangerous undertakings – meaning that we do not allow interactive encounters or what has been dubbed “extreme shark diving”. Instead, we treat them to a carefully choreographed show where they remain essentially spectators, and endeavor to instill a sense of awe and appreciation that will hopefully motivate them to become shark conservation advocates. 

Our experience has been overwhelmingly positive. 

In ten years of operation, our protocols have led to zero incidents with our customers, and only very minor ones with our staff that operate in the front lines, this owing to the fact that the feeders wear protective gloves, dispose of bodyguards and generally follow very rigid safety protocols. The clients appear happy, the reef and the sharks are thriving, and the local community and the authorities are highly supportive, meaning that we are really very satisfied.

Yeah I know I know - same old same old.

But maybe worth repeating, lest we get too complacent!