Selective Removal of Problem Sharks - Paper!

Click for detail!

Hah!

Remember this paper?

Now Eric et al have doubled down with this further publication that specifies possible techniques for first, a) establishing a data base of potential perpetrators and then, b) identifying and removing individual problem Sharks after they have attacked a person.

Well what can I say.

Like I've already stated here, I am absolutely convinced that problem individuals do indeed exist, much like what has been shown with large terrestrial predators. And I'm equally of the opinion that removing them selectively (whatever that means) would ultimately be vastly preferable over indiscriminate broadcast culling - though having said that, there are obviously other solutions (like eg hazing, etc) that would need to be exhausted beforehand!

But that's the theory.

In general terms I remain unconvinced that individual profiling and selective removal is a practicable solution for large geographical areas featuring thousands of potentially dangerous Sharks, like, say, the USA or Australia. There methinks that one will need to continue trying to reduce the risk and mitigate the consequences - but by the same token, one will have to accept that the odd Shark bite is ultimately just simply inevitable and part and parcel of coastal living.

And in comparatively small areas?

Interesting to see Cocos and Reunion mentioned in the paper!

I've said what I wanted to say about both situations back then and really got nothing to add - maybe with the exception that Reunion looks like an ideal testing ground, the more as there is already an adequate scientific infrastructure allowing for the proposed broadcast DNA sampling and visual identification. So by all means, go for it - tho bon courage trying to establish a feeding station like suggested! :)

Anyway, all very interesting indeed!

Knowing Eric, something is likely brewing - and if so, godspeed, Fair Winds and Following Seas and all!

To be continued no doubt!

 

Cape Cod - Shark Attack Mitigation Alternatives!

And I cite - emphasis is mine.

Personal Shark Deterrents

A growing number of personal shark deterrent devices are commercially available. 
Some are intended to be worn while others are to be attached to surfboards or similar equipment . The deterrents fall into two main categories: electromagnetic (EM) devices and camouflage. 
The EM devices include active (battery powered) and passive (permanent magnet) types that are either worn or are attached to surfboards. Camouflaging patterns are either wearable (wet suits) or applied to surfboards (decals, paint).

EM shark deterrent devices are all based on the same general principal, but they are not equally effective. “Sort of works” versus “doesn’t work at all” are both real possibilities and independent evaluations and comparisons of EM devices that are superficially similar are important...

The evidence for the efficacy of camouflage, whether worn or applied to a surfboard, is limited and inconclusive. We note that claims for camouflage tend towards statements that the swimmer or surfer is less likely to be noticed by a curious shark that just happens to be swimming in the area. This as opposed to statements that the camouflage will prevent the attack of a shark that is actively hunting for a meal.

The existing research suggests that some of these devices may be somewhat effective some of the time....We would always keep in mind that none of these devices provide anywhere near 100% protection under any realistic circumstances.
Finally, from a large shark already on an attack trajectory, arguably none of these devices will provide any meaningful protection at all. 

Indeed.

In brief and with the exception of the Shark Shield some of the time, those Shark repellent gizmos and those ludicrous wetsuits etc are all bullshit, cold-hearted scams and profiteering by unscrupulous con artists - re-read this and this!

And did I just hear, Clever Buoy?

Of the shark detections reported by CB, only ~40% appeared to actually be sharks, while ~60% were other objects, most commonly the baited video stations, which were stationary, or schools of smaller fish, which were moving. Of particular note, when, according to the video record, sharks were present, CB accurately detected them only ~40% of the time and failed to detect them ~60% of the time.... 
Additionally, lifeguard divers swimming in the CB array to clean biofouling off the sonar transducers were continuously tracked and continuously identified throughout the dive as large sharks. Such misidentification might apply to swimmers or seals, clearing the water unnecessarily....

Unfortunately, the documented performance does not remotely approach the promise of the system.
This creates a danger that swimmers and surfers in the vicinity of a system will relax their vigilance and fail to consistently follow safe practices, assuming that this system is protecting them to a far greater extent than it does. It should also be recognized that, even if the system does provide an accurate warning, the shark is already very close to the beach...

Yeah totally not surprised!

And the list goes on and on and on - with the fake kelp being one of the better, albeit prohibitively expensive notable exceptions!
Maybe, sometimes, somewhere! :)

But look for yourselves.

This compendium by Woods Hole is the latest and greatest synopsis of possible Shark Attack mitigation measures, notabene with special emphasis on trying to minimize bites by the resurgent GWS' population on the US east Coast in general and Cape Cod in particular. I must say that I'm seriously impressed - with some notable omissions: where are the wooden spoon and the red broom?

Synopses e.g. here and here, great app here.

Anyway.

As Tashi Blue astutely observes, considering that there are next to no attacks there, it all seems much ado about very little indeed - especially when compared to say, Hawaii, where people get munched  orders of magnitude more frequently but where nobody seems to be unduly hyperventilating much.
That said, what please is  Swimming with sharks in Oʻahu, Haleʻiwa, approx 3 miles from shore?!?

Anyway, it was quite different in the past.

But of course the new attitude makes total sense.
Assuming one observes a modicum of common-sense precautions (and here - plus, don't jump on top of a hunting GWS! :) ), chances of becoming the victim of a Shark attack are really extremely small - and, if more water users get trained and carry some first aid gear, one's chances of survival are very high indeed. In fact, among the known causes of human mortality, I would not be able mention a single one that kills LESS people than Shark attacks!

But on the other side, life in general is certainly most deadly, and people entering the water must be willing to assume a modicum of risk, to wit.

No single alternative or suite of alternatives that can 100% guarantee the safety of individuals who choose to enter the water.

• Since no mitigation alternative can provide 100% safety, reducing the chances of unprovoked attacks on humans requires a strong commitment to education and outreach, which can result in the adoption of behaviors that may reduce the risk of an unprovoked shark-human interaction.


• If water activities are avoided, the risk of attack is effectively eliminated.


• If water activities are not avoided and best management practices and Shark Smart Behaviors are widely adopted, the risk of attack may be reduced, but not eliminated.


• All individuals choosing to engage in water activities should think carefully about the level of risk associated with their preferred activity, and be comfortable with that level of risk before choosing to enter the water.


• The decision to enter the water and assume the risk of shark-human interaction is made at the sole discretion of the individual. 

In diesem Sinne.

Enjoy the Ocean - responsibly!

PS - nice - and so true, too!
PPS - good reading!
  

GWS and Kelp - Video!

Click for detail.

Bingo - watch.

A while back, yours truly raised concerns about what I saw as questionable research supporting the asserted effectiveness of the infamous, kelp-bio-mimicking Shark Safe Barrier.

Well, so much for that - paper here.

I'm probably just just being my usual unscientific, badmouthing and party pooping ignoramus self - but if the original premise of the whole exercise in mimicking is essentially being shown to be a load of BS, then...?
But then again, when I read about wanting to deploy 5 rows, maybe that's irrelevant as the whole thing may ultimately just act as nothing more (but also nothing less!) than an effective physical barrier that contrary to the Shark nets and drumlines would however not be killing any sea life - and if so, it would be a good thing.

Anyway.

Considering the breathy (and liability-attracting!) claims of having a 100% success rate of keeping highly motivated sharks out, this is most definitely going to be continued.

Keep watching this space!

Individual Shark Profiling? Yes and No!

Click for detail!

We're stuck inside waiting for Mona to unleash.

So there - have you seen this paper?

In essence and if I understand it correctly, it hypothesizes that Shark strikes are not a function of Shark density but that they are instead caused by specific individuals that are so disposed, e.g. possibly particularly bold  - and that as a consequence, the adequate management response would not consist in broadcast culling but that instead, one should surgically remove such problematic animals, much like what is being done with terrestrial problem predators.

And yes that person mentioned at the end would be yours truly.

So let me clarify where I really stand on this.

I agree with the hypothesis, albeit with caveats.

Ages ago, I penned this post about Shark strikes which I believe is still valid. In brief, the causes for Shark strikes are manifold =  whereas some of the interactions are due to predation or happen out of aggression and/or competition and/or self defense,  others are purely retaliatory or not at all driven by intention but simple mistakes (= NOT mistaken identity which is completely something else and  controversial) - and for these latter two categories, Eric's considerations probably would not apply. 

And anyway, for the large majority of cases, determining the specific intention of specific bites is obviously impossible and possibly also ultimately irrelevant.

But of course we can always speculate, see here.

And as somebody who has named, personally knows and spends an inordinate amount of time diving and interacting with individual Sharks and can thus observe their behavior, I can unequivocally confirm that they display great individual behavioral variability - and this very much including the propensity to bite!

In fact, among our Bull Sharks there is e.g. one particularly haughty lady who does not like to be touched and will always retaliate by trying to bite us when we do so; or there is another one, a small male, who despite of many years of hand feeding, appears just simply too stupid to understand the proper etiquette and always comes in too low and too fast, and is thus a constant safety risk to the feeders. Same-same for a specific Gray Reefie who has repeatedly bitten the hands of our feeders - and thank you for bodyguards and especially, for steel gloves!

And then there is XYZ (name withheld).

This is a very large female Bull Shark who can only be described as being sinister and dangerous, this insofar as she is extremely assertive, will frequently approach us closely and not in what we perceive as a friendly way, and needs to be fended away and dominated.
And one day, and I believe because she was cranky for having lost a dominance confrontation with another big female, she has already bitten one of our staff who was incidentally not in the slightest inconveniencing her; this in what I personally interpret as Übersprungverhalten or displacement behavior, or maybe simply the venting of accumulated aggression. Again, we will obviously never really know - but she is certainly an animal of concern.

And when it comes to those predatory strikes.
They are fundamentally different from the examples above as IMO predation = feeding got nothing to do with aggression and/or boldness, and why would it.
But I absolutely believe that some Sharks will sometimes target and consume a human; and I also absolutely believe that given what we know about their learning capabilities, ontogenetic dietary shifts and their individual behavioral variability, we can also absolutely not exclude that this or that individual may develop an individual propensity (or reduced aversion) for targeting humans, which is what Eric appears to postulate.
Yes this is obviously speculative and so far unproven (and likely untestable) - but it is I believe at least plausible - and as long as it is, and as long as it not actually disproven, it is also not false! 

And remember this shit? 

It mentions, and even depicts that ominous OWT who has been alleged to have bitten no less than three people - and this by so-called Shark experts in a so-called peer-reviewed scientific paper !

Anyway, back to Eric's paper.

Yes in theory, there could absolutely be individual Sharks with as propensity to bite humans; and yes in theory, selectively eliminating those would absolutely be preferable to indiscriminate culling!

So I absolutely support it as a theoretical approach to mitigating Shark strikes! 

And in practice?

Unfortunately, there prospects for success look totally unrealistic.
In terrestrial habitats, identifying, monitoring and managing individual animals is comparatively easy - but doing so in the ocean is obviously a completely different matter as the territory is immense, there are thousands of Sharks leading a life that is essentially cryptic as for human observers, everything happens "out of sight" - and thus, identifying, monitoring and then eliminating the individual perpetrators as suggested would generally speaking be extremely expensive and logistically extremely onerous if not outright impossible.
With that in mind, the suggested list of measures aimed at identifying problem individuals, albeit certainly erudite, is more pie in the sky than a viable recipe for success. Or should we e.g. really try and catch, tag and tissue sample every single large predatory Shark in Australia - and then try and catch a single individual perpetrator after a strike?

And, when, exactly, would one effect the removal.
After a first bite? After two or even more? Lethal bites or not? Or would one remove the Shark preemptively already upon identifying a problem in behavior, or e.g. undesired levels of testosterone or cortisol?
And before the removal, whatever the latter means, one should obviously first try other approaches akin to e.g.the hazing and/or other deterrents and/or protections and barriers one would be using in terrestrial situations - correct?

Detail detail!

But of course there could be exceptions.

Specific circumstances obviously vary, and there could be individual, albeit probably rare conditions favoring Eric's approach.

Examples?

The situation with our above-mentioned XYZ could e.g. escalate to the point whereby despite of our best efforts in trying to deter and/or train her, we would have to come to the conclusion that she is becoming too much of a safety hazard. 

Then, we could be forced to choose between either closing down our Shark viewing operation or selectively removing her.

Or take e.g. Cocos.

Remember that Tiger and then, this subsequent event?

Yes this is completely speculative - but considering how well the good people of GSD member Undersea Hunter Group know their Sharks: what if they were able to determine that it was the same, individually known individual? 

If so and considering the risk of further attacks vs the tourism income: could this maybe escalate to the point where the park authority would have to make a decision?

And finally, Reunion Island.

There, the comparatively small territory and likely comparatively small number of potentially dangerous Sharks that could thus be potentially identified individually may well warrant trialing Eric's approach - this particularly in view of the ever-persistent calls for more Shark culls!

Or not?

But again, these are rare exceptions.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, Eric's suggestions, albeit intellectually interesting, are just not sufficiently practicable for them to constitute a viable alternative strategy.
Alas!

And finally, what about this beauty?

I can only note that Neff the token Shark attack apologist remains as predictably irritating as always, the more as his arguments are little more than straw men.

• Yes the hypothesis by Victor Coppleson of there being "Rogue Sharks" has not been proven - but a) as per above, the fact that something has not been proven does not necessarily mean it is false, either and b) Eric expressly differentiates his hypothesis from it. 


• Yes as per above Eric's hypothesis does not apply to all Shark bites - but that does not invalidate it a priori!


• Yes often when asked, the public does not support Shark culls - but a) they continue to happen and b) more importantly, Eric does not at all advocate them but on the contrary, he very clearly and unequivocally sees his approach as an alternative to them!

Anyway, all very interesting indeed.

And in the meantime, Mona has come and gone. And we are doing just fine thank you.

Let's go Shark diving!

PS - Bingo...
PPS - Michael here - thanks!
 

Shark Eyes?

Butterfly eye spots: likely not mimicry but rather, aimed at startling and distracting - source.

Watch.

I'm sure this may surprise you - but I kinda like this?

There's a website with some info, some of which quite good - but some probably not so much, as in the whole treatment of (Batesian?) mimicry in general and eye spots in particular, as the scientific  interpretation  of the latter is at best inconclusive. 

But of course we all know that those predatory Sharks are highly opportunistic, and that when they try to sneak up on us, they will generally veer away once we look at them - so the analogy to those Tiger deterrent masks from the Sundarbans may actually be quite fitting!

Any caveats? Most certainly!

• First and foremost, I wonder whether the likely target species, i.e. the archetypal GWS attacking a surfboard would even properly discern those eyes = assuming that it would be attacking from below and thus aim for a silhouette, the underside of the surfboard with those eyes would likely be too dark? Any way of having those eyes glow?


• Secondly, like in all those cases, caveat habituation whereby even those Bangladeshi Tigers did apparently stop being fooled after a while?


• And lastly (but this is by far not exhaustive!), here's to those surfers refraining from feeling bite-proof and negating the benefits of the deterrent by engaging in riskier behavior!

Plus, were it me, I would a) not buy a decal but paint my own eyes onto my board instead, and b) they would be much bigger as I would position them lengthwise!

But, I generally like it!

It is non-invasive, cheap and certainly plausible, as are those mask straps - the latter certainly not for Shark nerds like us, but maybe for other water users like abalone divers etc. 

So godspeed and all.

I obviously doubt that there will ever be (and here!) any conclusive science - but it is surely worth a try!

Reunion - Complicated!

Source.

Watch.

Reunion Island

Beautiful in so many ways.

I must say, I was really touched.

Story here - and especially here!

Enjoy.

Clever Buoy - another Scam?

Source.

You be the judge of that!

Have you seen this?

Yup that would again be SCAMS SAMS, inventors and breathy promoters of those ludicrous Shark repellent wetsuits. I've gone snooping on their website and more than one year after the breathy announcements, the featured field tests still amount to a staggering n=1! Wow!

But Bear Grylls has worn one, likely in Shark-infested waters, and is still alive - so it must be legit!

And now we got the buoy, and I cite.

The idea for Clever Buoy was the brainchild of advertising agency M&C Saatchi, ranked second on the BRW Most Innovative Companies 2014 list, which decided to take a non-traditional approach to the brief from the telco to promote its ­network coverage.
Instead of creating an ad campaign about the Optus network at work in some far-off corner of the country, the team decided to bring to market a new product that would showcase the network.
“We got the idea of producing something fairly quickly, but that wasn’t innovation, it was just a smart idea, the innovation comes into it when you make it a reality,” M&C Saatchi chief executive and group innovation director Jaimes Leggett says.

Right. A marketing campaign for Optus.

Trust the ever crafty Hamish and Craig to have identified the financial windfall and come up with the usual mix of breathy announcements, crafty marketing, heaps of media exposure and zero proof. Check out this link and like with those wetsuits, you will consequently find zero evidence of rigorous testing let alone conclusive results.

Next, another self-promoting TED talk!

Wanna bet?

Shark Nets in Western Australia?

Shark barrier in Old Dunsborough - source.

Read this.

And this.

Yes they are planning to install up to 20 nets.

And I cite.

The state government is now considering installing shark nets on a number of metropolitan beaches as well as others in the South West and further up the coast north of Perth. 
According to a review of the Dunsborough Beach Enclosure Trial compiled by the state government, no by-catch was recorded as part of the net trialled in Dunsborough. 

A spokeswoman for the Premier told Fairfax Media that while the net announced on Friday was not the same type of net used in Queensland and New South Wales, it was made up of a mesh type netting. The state government's review said the planned net for Busselton would be more of a "beach enclosure" deployed to create "an impenetrable barrier to sharks".

So calm down people.

Before going out and pandering to the whacks by lamenting about wildlife traps and the linke, do your bloody due diligence. This is good news as it a) keeps the Sharks out and people within the enclosures safe whilst b) not harming the Sharks and the Fishes, see links under the picture at top and below.

Capisc?

Source.

If you want to rant, rant about this! 

Rogue Sharks are as real as Megalodon, Sharknados and Godzilla. 

But if a large Shark should linger in some spot, which they certainly do, evacuate the area til, being migratory, it moves on. No need/sense to remove, let alone kill it.

That simple.

And then, there's this.

Philopatry teaches us that those Sharks, far from being distributed randomly/evenly, favor determined locations. Identify those locations (which are but a few and may be determined by telemetry and/or past sightings and/or past strikes) and tell people to stay away during the GWS season which is only relatively short anyway.

Once again, not rocket science!

Scientists about Shark Mitigation Measures!

Watch.

97% of those polled scientists are against lethal control measures.

Incidentally, those would be the very people that were picketed, heckled and insulted by Lesley Rochat and her Shark Warriors.

Vindicated my ass!

That whole project, or whatever, is increasingly becoming bizarre and frankly, rather sad.

What a shame.

 

A Revolution in Shark Control - two!

Source.

Bingo!

And I cite.

The Shark Monitoring Program of Recife has been developed specifically for the local conditions, which involved specific taxa (mostly tiger and bull sharks) and environmental characteristics. Therefore, replicating this strategy elsewhere may depend on a number of adaptations that must be carefully considered. 

Indeed!

Hazin and Afonso are the authors of the Recife Shark mitigation paper.

Quod erat demonstrandum!

A Revolution in Shark Control?

Shark cull in Reunion - source.

Hmmm...

Have you seen this?

I must say that I'm irritated - intellectually that is.

So, the cull in Hawaii did not reduce the incidence of shark bites. Indeed, because those are highly migratory Tiger Sharks, and new Sharks moved in and took the place of those individuals that were removed by culling - correct?

The target species of the WA Shark cull are those highly migratory GWS.

So if lethal removing of migratory Sharks has been shown not to work in Hawaii - what leads us to boldly state that non-lethal removing of migratory Sharks in Western Australia will?

Can't have it both ways!

And why did the relocating work in Recife?

Because those were Bull Sharks = a not highly migratory species! The Sharks were dragged offshore and released, after which they likely settled somewhere else on the coast and/or may have learned to avoid the region were they had been subjected to such a traumatic experience.

Which begs the question, would this strategy work in Reunion?

Alas, methinks not - because the island is so small that it likely does not feature any "unproblematic" coastlines for the Sharks to relocate to, and because it is too isolated for the Sharks to swim somewhere else! By the same token, in Reunion, culling is likely to reduce the incidence of Shark strikes as it will gradually whittle down a discrete resident population of Sharks.

Not nice - but people are working on alternative solutions!

The good news?

The data from Western Australia's Shark Bay are much more ambiguous, meaning that a good portion of those WA Tiger Sharks are likely not highly migratory - remember this post? Tiger Shark migration appears to be mediated by the geographical location insofar as closer to the equator, temperatures vary less, prey migrates less and thus evolution has not selected for Tiger Sharks to go walkabout.

And if so, relocating those WA Tiger Sharks may well work!

Detail detail!

Or am I missing something here?