Blog about "The World's best Shark Dive" by Beqa Adventure Divers.
Featuring up to eight regular species of Sharks and over 400 different species of fish, Shark diving doesn't get any better!
Showing posts with label Shark Diving Protocols. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shark Diving Protocols. Show all posts
I've been there a couple of years ago and can assure you that it is really like that, and even better, to the point that I've been trying to go back there ever since.
Many ages ago I landed myself a nifty little job as leader of exploratory dive expeditions and check-out diver for new dive destinations that led me to explore some of the remotest, most memorable and sometimes scariest dive sites long before the advent of organized mass tourism - and Fuvahmulah still conveys that rare feeling of exploring new frontiers where every dive is still an adventure harboring the possibility of unique and unexpected encounters - see e.g the other videos on this page.
And at a time where diving has been largely commodified that's just simply awesome.
Even Fuvahmulah itself is totally unique.
Dubbed The Galapagos of the Maldives, it sits all by itself, completely exposed to wind and offshore currents in deep oceanic water and thus acts as a beacon and pit stop for large ocean wanderers. It is also not your archetypical Maldivian tourism island that only sports a single sprawling hotel installation on a atoll motu, but is instead fully inhabited and merely features a few charming small family-owned guest houses along with a few modest eateries - but that too only adds to its charm.
The people to go with are these folks, hands down.
I had heard about the place from clients who mentioned a crazy Russian and her partner - but Tatiana and Panda are everything but. And this is me saying it so you better believe it!
Instead, these are smart, extremely knowledgeable, responsible and highly experienced people running a highly professional dive operation together with a great team of super motivated locals, and diving with them is both great fun but also super safe.
And lemme tell 'ya: the latter could not be more important.
The simply fabulous Thresher Shark dives are (drift) diving for grown ups in oceanic conditions and often substantial depth and challenging surge and currents, followed by open water decompression and live pickup - so you better have guides who know exactly what they are doing. And they most certainly do!
And when it comes to the world famous baited Tiger Zoo dives that often feature dozens of large Tigers, following the correct protocols is everything - and these guys sure have it down pat. And yes this would again be me saying it, the more as they've shown me the protocols that are spot on and exhaustive, including the all-important evacuation procedures and first aid training!
Which brings me straight to the title of this post.
It's much like what happened in Playa where Chino did all the pioneering work, only to have a hoard of moochers fly in and piss on his parade, or Bimini where everybody rushed in and as a minimum spoiled years of research by the Sharklab.
Now that Tatiana and Panda have done all the heavy lifting and pretty much single-handedly put it on the tourism map, Fuvahmulah is being overrun by dozens of local copycats and wannabee Shark whisperers with little more to their credit than a GoPro, an Instagram account, an opinion and a mouth.
And like last year in Playa, this can only end up in tears - especially at the Tiger Zoo which in the high season is already operating at the very limit of sustainability. When I see those arrogant idiots and their clients wanting to change those excellent procedures and even institute free diving, in baited conditions and at the entrance of the island's only harbor with scores of vessels zipping around overhead I can only shake my head in disbelief - but then again, this is so pathetically same old same old isn't it.
Rule number one: never, ever let the inmates run the asylum!
So folks, don't be fooled by the images and the hype.
Especially in Shark diving, there really is no substitute for experience, professionalism and quality - and being a local, and giving stupid discounts, and showing you nice pictures and video, and spinning some nice eco-BS are all no substitutes for that. Not in Fuvahmulah, not in Playa and also not here in Fiji where we too continue to hate on each other but at least have our own dive sites.
Incidentally, Playa has improved dramatically.
The pandemic has weeded out the worst assholes, and most others have finally discovered the virtues of cooperation, leading to a solid season with acceptable Bull Shark numbers (thanks Chino for the baiting!) and somewhat reasonable revenues for everybody.
And yes, Bimini has become much more orderly too.
When it comes to Fuvahmulah, it'll take a while.
Assuming the safari boats come rushing in as usual, the high season will likely be a bloody clusterfuck, after which business volumes will dry up and many of those folks will thankfully go bust and hopefully wander off in search of greener pastures.
And should you be on a safari boat, do insist that they do, too, instead of trying to do it on the cheap with some local pal, the more as the victim of that fiasco would be you!
Just sayin'!
Enjoy - because you most certainly will!
PS - Oh FFS.
I've barely posted this, and here they come - and it's even worse than I feared.
The inmates have already taken over and are free diving at the Tiger Zoo, and developing some inane pelagic Tiger Shark dive, obviously baited like their illegal dive in Hawaii. And they are obviously empowering women and helping the poor locals and fighting marine pollution - something that has already been done by others for years, and this without it being used for self-aggrandizement!
And of course it's all about Shark conservation - in a Shark sanctuary!
And talking about eco clap trap
for generations we have recycled the fish scraps into the sea to fertilize the fisheries
Seriously?
Literally all fishermen who clean their catch throw the scraps into the ocean, and this everywhere!
Recycle and fertilize my ass!
Lord have mercy...
And we're back to square one.
Like a wise man said years ago - incidentally about the very same folks
It stopped actually being "about sharks" a long time ago. It's about the individual and what the sharks as a vehicle to notoriety can do for them
And I can most certainly leave it at that.
Comments policy: please leave your comments here and not on FB.
Please be aware that this is not a public chatroom, and that comments we don't like will be deleted.
Mind you it is by no means terrible, the more as it correctly states that
The strict self-imposed management actions and limited number
of shark feeding operators at Shark Reef in Fiji, has resulted in
minimal long-term effects on bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas) behaviour
and diet, and is likely to have had no effects on health and fitness,
and that
Provisioning elasmobranchs, the activity deemed to have the most risk associated with it, can be effectively undertaken if appropriate management is in place (e.g. bull shark feeding at Shark Reef Reserve, Fiji)
But the paper is certainly also not good, either.
Like some of its equally irritating predecessors, it suggests that there is a problem urgently requiring third-party management = regulation, something I most strongly disagree with, especially when it comes to those forever maligned provisioned Shark dives.
It's same old same old.
Over the many years, I've blogged about the latterat nauseam and am actually tired tired tired of the bloody useless controversy - but here goes, just because this nonsense cannot remain unanswered.
Read the links!
1. Threats to Sharks and Rays (and their Habitats)
At risk of stating the obvious: the biggest threats to their populations are:
Overfishing (Targeted and Bycatch) Globally, overfishing of Elasmobranchs remains rampant due to widespread IUU and inadequate management, monitoring, enforcement and prosecution. Specifically, this equates to a yearly mortality of roughly 100 million Sharks that are being killed for the fins, their meat but also other products like e.g. squalene. That is clearly unsustainable and also means that whereas some local conservation efforts
have been highly successful, Elasmobranch conservation appears to be
largely failing at a global scale. And to add to the problem, we are additionally threatening Shark and Ray populations by equally overfishing their prey.
Global Warming and Ocean Acidification whose impacts are both direct but above all indirect (= just a small example) as every single marine ecosystem in general and all Elasmobranch habitats in particular are being severely affected, and this generally negatively. And of course no Shark or Ray will survive if we destroy their habitat!
Pollution Need I elaborate? And it's by no means only the plastic!
Human Encroachment This results in habitat change and degradation, and also in conflicts all the way to triggering large and indiscriminate responses that may indeed threaten some local populations like e.g. in Australia, South Africa and possibly, Reunion Island.
And Shark and Ray tourism?
Yeah, right.
Think that in comparison, tourism is in any way a relevant factor?
Actually, on the contrary!
Not only does Elasmobranch tourism not endanger Shark and Ray populations - but in the overriding majority of cases, it contributes substantially to their protection all the way to being its principal driver!
Of course not, see e.g. above - but it is certainly not catastrophic, either!
Specifically:
A.Overcrowding and Competition.
This can be a cause for concern.
Especially in multi-user sites, the competition between too many uncoordinated and/or unmanaged tourism
operators can lead to excesses that can inconvenience or even harm the
animals.
And if so, and only if the industry itself is not able, or willing to cooperate and to self-regulate, then the authorities may indeed have to step in
with some common-sense regulations, like limits in the numbers of
tourists and/or operators and/or vessels, or e.g. licenses so that the
authorities can obtain some data and/or income for monitoring, or common sense codes of conduct, etc.
But regulation should always be the exception and not the rule lest it becomes stifling or even counterproductive!
B.Shark Feeding.
This is what we have learned over the many years.
Shark feeding appears unproblematic at the ecosystem level All 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 are no described major negative effects impinging on the viability of those populations.
However, there are certainly effects at small spatial and temporal scales. Shark
feeding often aggregates the animals, and this can have local
consequences. As an example, take the increased aggression of those Lemons in Moorea; or the observed competitive exclusion
of other Sharks in South Africa and possibly Fiji (= much has changed since that paper, and many of the intermediate Sharks are back, for reasons unknown); or those postulated
local behavioral changes and marginally increased residency in Southern Australia. That said, the effects are clearly rather minor and don't appear to at all threaten local populations.
And some of the other marine life may be affected insofar as they, too, may aggregate and partake in a meal = incidentally much like they do in countless other occasions ranging from organic waste being pumped into the oceans by discharges and e.g. rivers all the way to targeted feeding - and now please do tell me which has the by far greater impact!
Plus, let's not forget
the impact of the thousands upon thousands of people who feed and condition Sharks and other Fishes on a
daily basis, i.e. the fishermen and spearos! Case in point:
And this is being repeated, mutatis mutandis, countless times wherever there are fishermen = always and everywhere!
--> C'mon, seriously: do you really believe that the incremental effect of a few dozen Shark feeding operators is in any way relevant to the health of Elasmobranch populations?
So let's please be crystal clear about the following:
Elasmobranch tourism does in no way threaten the survival of the populations of the Sharks and Rays it showcases - period!
2. Threats to People
Again, this is obviously about Shark Feeding.
As per the below table, the authors considers it to be extremely dangerous, and also postulate the urgent need for regulation
owing to widespread lack of management.
Click for detail!
But if so and Shark feeding is so damn dangerous - how come that actually, we are not drowning in horrible injuries and fatalities?
There is no geographical correlation between Shark feeding and Shark strikes. Re-read this.
In brief and with maybe the exception of SA, the vast majority of Shark
strikes occurs in locationswhere there are no Shark feeding operations
(like e.g. Florida, California, Western Australia, Reunion or Recife, Brazil) - which is even more surprising if one considers that most of those
dives have been established in places that are known for their
healthy Shark populations! And even if there were some correlation, it certainly does not equate causation = there is a grand total of zero evidence that Shark feeding endangers the public at large!
And again, let's not forget the fishermen and spearos, see above! Re-read this (yup that would be more than 10 years ago!) - case in point e.g. here, and then e.g. here and here for the spearos, among many, many such examples! Think that in comparison, a few Shark diving operators are in any way relevant ?
But of course there are some caveats.
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, 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.
Obtaining the required social license and stakeholder involvement are crucial. The
local stakeholders need to become an integral part of these projects -
and this not only through regular awareness, education and consultations
but also by letting them partake in the financial windfall, both
indirectly but very much also directly. This will help avoid unnecessary risks (eg by having locals avoid the feeding sites), help protect the animals and ensure crucial
local support when the inevitable problems will arise.
Get in the research. The best argument against many of the
intuitively plausible reservations of our detractors are strong
scientific data. As an example, when people got bitten
by Bull Sharks in Cancun and everybody tried to blame the Shark feeding
operations in Playa, the operators there had the data showing that they
were only feeding females whereas the Bull Shark population in Cancun
was only comprised of males. Or in our case, our Bull Shark data show
conclusively that we are neither causing residency nor any dependency on
our handouts - which right now is helping us make the argument that the present reduction in Shark feeding due to Covid-19 is not endangering our beachgoers!
B. Safety of the Participants.
This is a different matter altogether.
Contrary to the public at large that may be unaware and/or unsupportive of, and thus be subjected to Shark provisioning, anybody partaking in Shark feeding dives knows what they are getting themselves into, and is thus implicitly approving of the activity and possibly even assuming the associated risks.
Still, we strongly advocate that the operators of commercial divesneed to keep their clients (and their employees!) safe - and if not, they need to be held accountable.
The following considerations apply.
Feeding protocols. Like I often state, it is often not about the WHAT but about the HOW. 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 at large. 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. Here at BAD, we run a tightly choreographed dive with stringent safety protocols that is often hailed as a template for sustainable Shark feeding, see the citations at the top. Or as another example, we 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 safest possible way - think, Airline Industry!
Shark bites will nevertheless happen. As Sharks feeding is risky, the risk will sometimes eventuate - and there is really nothing whatsoever we can do about it apart from protecting ourselves (= steel mesh!) and then dealing professionally with the consequences - and if we do, I am convinced that the consequences will be minimal. Case in point: it didn't quite happen like that - but a client did get bitten
despite of arguably the industry's most stringent protocols, and no
degree of management would have prevented it. And he obviously survived
because we were prepared in terms of training, medical supplies and evacuation protocols, as everybody should be!
There are Shark strikes and Shark strikes. Whereas
Shark provisioning is certainly a dangerous undertaking requiring skills and circumspection, everybody in
the industry agrees that the cause for bites during provisioned dives is
either a) self defense, b) competition or c) mistakes - not predation = those bites can be serious, but the consequences of a fully fledged predatory attack would be something else altogether! Exception - but the guy was certainly asking for it!
Yes we certainly condition the Sharks, and yes they learn, and this very fast indeed - but they learn to eat bait, not humans!
It is also absolutely plausible to assume
that provisioned Sharks may have learned to e.g. associate the boat noise
with a subsequent
feeding opportunity, and will thus aggregate when they hear the vessels, or when the operators rev the engines in order to "ring the dinner bell". But "turning up" does not equate "attacking"!
And finally, with one single fatality (or possibly two) recorded in thousands upon thousands of Shark feeds, baited Shark dives are many orders of magnitude safer than SCUBA! This is because contrary to ordinary diving where people are routinely being thrown into situations that can prove to be treacherous, baited and provisioned Shark dives are nearly always supervised and choreographed = help is always quickly at hand. Also, and provided that
(!) we act responsibly, yours truly and every single Shark diving
operator I've ever asked have made the observation that the conditioned Sharks
become positively tame, meaning that the risk of a bite is lower not
higher! Case in point: look no further than Florida and Tiger Beach, home of troglodytes, Shark molesters and media whores, and scene of ever stupider shenanigans by self-promoting Shark whisperers and awareness raisers - and yet nobody is being killed as those poor Sharks are quite obviously unendingly tolerant and forgiving!
And there you have it.
When it comes to those Shark feeding dives, I remain convinced that regulation makes only sense in those multi-user sites suffering from overcrowding, and this only when the industry is not able, or willing to cooperate and self regulate, like what is quite possibly happening in Playa.
Other than that, any incidents are already suitably covered.
Since the participants are most certainly willing, those ubiquitous liability waivers should be allowed to stand in minor cases. And any grossly negligent harm to customers can be adequately prosecuted under existing local legislation, whereas existing OHS regulations will suffice to deal with any failure in training and protecting one's employees.
Free diving with large predatory Sharks in baited conditions used to largely be private undertakings but it is now being increasingly offered commercially. From this vantage point, this is bringing about a whole new set of specific risks (= foremost of which the great vulnerability of the customers at the water surface) that the paper appears to completely neglect.
This is novel territory that needs to be closely monitored, the more as those operations are mostly shoestring and largely improvised (and IMO highly sketchy), and with no relevant assets = nothing much to be had should the obvious risks end up eventuating.
But then again, nobody so far has died despite of all the stupid shenanigans, so who am I to say!
3. Long story short?
What really disappoints me is this.
We are in the middle of the sixth, anthropocene mass extinction requiring all hands on deck in order to try and stem the ongoing catastrophic loss of biodiversity - and yet some quarters find it fit to continue wasting scarce resources in terms of time, brain power and possibly also money on these irrelevant trifles.
The actual physical footprint of our industry is tiny.
And yet, we punch way above our weight in terms of outreach but also Shark and Ray conservation and research, and as such are an important agent for positive change = far from being a problem, we are very much part of the solution!
So why this exasperating fixation on wanting to meddle with what we do?
Yes, sure: we need to operate responsibly.
As ecotourism operators, all of us need to strive to have the smallest possible negative impact on the animals and their habitat, and we also need to operate safely - and the vast majority of us actually do!
Furthermore, we continue to learn from our mistakes, and continue to improve and refine our procedures, like we always have. In fact, we now even have an association of industry pioneers, leaders and trend setters that routinely discuss issues and develop solutions - like right now, we are developing Covid-19 protocols!
And if not, the market will do what markets do.
This is a small community where there are no secrets, and notorious transgressors will be
quickly weeded out as no travel agent and/or tourist will book dives with operators that are
known to be unsustainable and/or exploitative and/or life threatening =
which is why I continue to strongly support the establishment of a rating system
akin to what has been proposed here!
But enough said - like I said, I'm tired of this shit.
We did not ask for this - and all this incessant nagging and lecturing
by people who ultimately have no clue about, and zero investment into
our industry is frankly becoming terminally irksome.
There is now a
whole cabal of incidentally mainly female researchers whose academic
niche (and thus career and thus income) is predicated upon being
considered ecotourism experts, or whatever, and who appear to be
operating with questionable agendas and also appear to desperately want
to meddle instead of waiting to be asked.
Anyway.
When it comes to the global Shark diving industry in general, there are now one excellent paper and one good one (both, incidentally, by experienced Shark divers!) and several that are not, see e.g. here and also here, and here with links. And now there is this.
That's plenty enough, thank you very much. And now, please, why don't you just fuck off - because we actually got work to do, salaries to pay and tourists to wow!
No hard feelings, love you all! :)
2025 - PS!!!!: Talking of Tiger Beach, you may want to research this and watch this.
In brief, a SharkSchool participant was literally ripped to pieces. In my professional judgement it was 100% due to the lousy procedures by the operator(s)- and yet from what I can discern, there has been zero introspection and the lousy procedures continue completely unchanged, with an ever-increasing complement of demented Tiger-redirecting free-diving sharkitarians, courtesy of the teachings of Ramsey & Co!
Yeah that would be the absolute genius I referenced here.
And like all those other self promoting media whores in Ramsey's pathetic Ohana, or whatever, he is obviously a Shark whisperer. And he is obviously not molesting those perplexed Tigers for personal vanity and for camera = $$$. Instead he is, reluctantly, literally putting his life on the line for conservation, in order to dispel the myth! And to calm them down because that's obviously necessary! For the Sharks!
And incidentally, all this invaluable whispering, Shark conserving and myth-dispelling is
happening smack in the middle of one of the few well enforced Shark sanctuaries where all Sharks are already fully protected!
And incidentally, where Shark feeding is currently banned.
And yes once again this umpteenth Shark stupidity would really be nothing new - or do you believe that those Tigers would approach the dude sans bait in the water?
I mean, seriously!
But worry not, it is merely a continuation of the same old tired and disrespectful shenanigans, and there really is no need to elaborate - just follow the link at the very top and for the record, for once I agree with David 1000%!
And how about the following.
It looks like shortly after my recent post on the subject, the victim of that Tiger Shark bite has posted a third and much more graphic video of the incident.
Before the usual couch farting apologists start boring everybody with their interpretations and excuses: this is bad bad bad, and the dude is incredibly lucky that the tank took the brunt of the abuse and that he got away with only minor lacerations.
And because people don't stop asking - no it was most definitely not us, nor was it the guys down the road!
Really - what a fucking disaster.
And to think that for years, everyone there has been personally Schooled in ADORE-SANE!
I'm pretty sure that it's going to harm us commercially - but it must be done.
So there: this shit really needs to stop.
Big Tiger Sharks are not harmless pets, and the stupid global fad of wanting to push them around is just fucking disrespectful, and a recipe for disaster to boot. And anyway, even the most rudimentary knowledge of basic physics should amply expose the foolishness of trying to physically manhandle and dominate an animal that is several times one's weight - or not?
And how about utilizing some basic protective gear starting with black gloves for the clients so that their pasty white hands sticking out of dark wetsuits don't look like bait; to have your staff wear chainmail; to using poles in order to create separation with the Sharks - and when you have one, don't throw it down but fucking use it, see below!
To wit.
And no, no need to mention names: do your own research.
And how about these beauties. Close calls anybody?
And how about this eye gouging and slamming into coral.
See what I meant about basic physics = the hopelessness of wanting to successfully steer such a large Shark - especially whilst one is swimming where one has no leverage like when one is standing firmly on the ground?
And finally, over to that much-publicized shark bite.
Again, no need for names the more as the whole fiasco has been amply negotiated in the public domain from newspaper articles to scathing reviews to social media to the following two videos. FYI the victim was successfully evacuated and patched up which is hopefully a testimony to there at least being a good evacuation protocol.
First the bite, then how it came to it.
Once again, check out the basic physics - etc. etc. etc.!
Where I come from, the saying is that A Fish rots from the Head down, meaning that this is essentially a management issue. Guys, formulate sustainable protocols and then train, protect and above all, fucking supervise your staff - and STAHP stoking them by calling them warriors and gladiators!
Protect you clients, and fucking always control your dive - this is commercial Shark diving, not some adventure where you try to wing it and hope for the best!
AND!
If you publicly claim that you've created an MPA, and that you are giving money and are providing jobs for the village: bloody train fish wardens and then invest time and money into anti-poaching patrols, preferably at night when the poachers go poaching; and bloody pay the village and employ their youth like you've promised - and if not, stop lying!
And just to be clear.
This is not about making others look bad, let alone about trying to suggest that we are "better" or the like.
We too have had our fair share of cock-ups, scares and bites like everybody else - but
contrary to what appears to be happening elsewhere, we try hard to
learn from those experiences whereby we continuously adapt and tighten
our Shark diving protocols, continuously improve the protection of our
clients (see here) and of our staff, and also continuously repeat our emergency response training and continuously optimize our emergency protocols and gear.
But
we equally firmly believe that the inherent risks of baited Shark dives
can very much be managed. And we also believe that it also actually *IS* being managed, to wit the fact
that there are orders of magnitude more pro-rata fatalities in ordinary diving
compared to Shark diving - and yes I'm very much repeating myself.
PS: Comments policy: please comment here and not on FB. Also, please be aware that comments are being monitored and that I reserve to delete anything I don't like at my full discretion = my blog my rules!
Yes indeed, Shark feeders get bitten all the time - not because those Sharks want to eat them but principally due to errors by feeders and Sharks alike; and much more rarely, because the Sharks do it intentionally, this mainly due to agonism = when they are frightened and/or frustrated and/or cranky and/or aggressive - to wit.
I've heard about this first hand.
This is the old Shark feed in Avatoru, Rangiroa, and the dude had it certainly coming for his inane habit of provoking the Silvertips by literally sitting on the bait and poking them with a metal pointer whenever they would approach - until one day, one of the Sharks decided to show him who is boss!
But I'm digressing as usual.
The fact is that in the vast majority of times, the feeders get away completely unscathed, this mainly because the smart ones are suitably protected - and if not, or should the protection fail, some good hemostatic dressing, a good emergency tourniquet, well-trained emergency responders (!) and a good emergency and evacuation protocol (!) will most likely avert the worst.
Check this out.
I would have never thought that I would have to say this about a paper co-authored by Juerg and Adam, ever - but I find it pretty much shite, and pretty useless to boot. Alas!
To me it smells like some student needed some grades and was told to compile some lists - and like many such meta-analyses, the result is everything and nothing, however very unfortunately with a subliminal anti-industry message at its core, as very much evidenced by the stupid title.
Mind you, methinks that had it not been for my friends, it would have been even worse; plus, there is nothing inherently inaccurate about its findings, and the recommendations are probably formally correct - but it still annoys the heck out of me.
But maybe it's just me.
Thing is, it fatally reminds me of the overwhelming hostility displayed by most researchers and NGOs when we embarked into the Fiji Shark Project 13 years ago.
There was no specific criticism - just a widespread aversion against messing with nature, something that has continued hounding us til today whereby some quarters continue to try and nitpick on what we do despite of the clear benefits the SRMR has brought to Fiji and its Sharks.
Yes of course any wildlife tourism will have an effect (dooh!), and of course those effects need to be analyzed and mitigated which is precisely what we've been doing and also blogging about (yup those would be 100+ posts, and counting!) for years - but to even hint that we may be the problem is just simply unconscionable.
Who is killing them are first and foremost the fishermen and hunters, and the people who destroy and pollute their habitat, and humankind that emits too much CO2 etc etc - and far from being complicit, marine ecotourism is one of the factors that is counteracting that unholy trend and slowing down the biodiversity loss by creating alternative income and employment opportunities, and by instilling a sense of awe and love in the public!
Or am I missing something here?
Which brings me straight over to this opus - press release here.
First and foremost, it's always nice to see one's work being publicly acknowledged along with the honorable mention of the GFSC; also, being one of the (recalcitrant) industry representatives who have been consulted, I'm partially responsible for the final product.
This has been in the making for a very long time indeed.
I did blog about it here and very much stand by what I said then, i.e.
Nice to have academia and the NGO intelligentsia look into our industry
and hopefully give us some valuable unbiased pointers for improvement -
but any such code will only succeed if there is considerable industry
buy-in. And for that to happen, any such rules will not only have to
reflect some eco wish list but also be flexible and above all, factually
and economically practicable!
So how does this rate by those metrics?
I can say that it is much improved compared to its initial versions where there clearly was a don't mess with nature undertone as per the above, and where the overall gist was much more geared towards the need for regulation (re-read this!).
I can also say that I did submit it for review to GSD and got back a polite average score of 7 out of 10 - but I can also equally unequivocally state that nobody was highly impressed let alone enthused, and that most certainly none of us is now gonna run and follow the suggestions to e.g. (re)define his business core values or get certified by some tree-hugging agency, or the like.
And on a more personal note.
Despite of clear improvements, Tool 7 remains highly irritating because of its largely negative bias. Precautionary approach my ass! And, we have actually chosen (!)to hand feed as provided that it is done responsibly, we find it highly selective and actually safer than the alternatives. And no, we're absolutely not gonna change our feeding times = opening hours on a daily basis - I mean, seriously!
And then I find other stupidities like e.g. that fucking flash photography ban which is apparently vital when snorkeling with Whale Sharks but not with equally surface-dwelling Mantas and Baskers, or when cage diving with GWS - let alone with the other Sharks at depth whose pupils will be comparatively more distended????!
But now it's me nitpicking.
Overall the guide is quitenice - and nicely presented which will make the donors happy! :)
Long story short?
A. Although this is well meaning and certainly not terrible, the Best Practice Guide is also not great.
With that in mind, I very much doubt that there will be the abovementioned substantial industry buy-in, the more as I don't see any mechanism for encouraging adherence e.g. via an own rating system or failing that, by using one's outreach to strongly endorse and promote Rick's SSD. Yes Project AWARE I'm looking at you!
The good ones among us don't need your help but very much conduct their own research as evidenced by the bylaws of GSD
whereby research is a precondition for membership; and failing some
form of gentle coercion (and again, I'm looking at you PADI!), the bad
operators will simply refuse to cooperate as e.g. already evidenced by their obvious boycott of SSD.
All of which obviously begs the question, cui bono = and could those resources have been invested into something more useful?
B. We are not the problem.
Instead, even the worst ones among us are a part of the solution, see above! But yes we always need to learn, evolve and improve - and this ideally via self regulation. And if not, then regulation is certainly both opportune and necessary!
C. When it comes to the whole fucking never-ending controversy about provisioning.
People who feed and condition Sharks are called fishermen - not a few dive operators! And anyway, this is one of the safest underwater activities by far = with one single fatality during thousands upon thousands of baited dives, it is orders of magnitude safer than ordinary SCUBA!
Yes there are effects on the animals, the principal one being conditioning - but they are largely short-term, localized and sublethal, and in no way comparable to the threats Sharks face otherwise! But yes there too we need to minimize our impact - and guess what, most of us largely do!
D. And finally, to those researchers and NGOs.
We did not ask for this - and all this incessant nagging and lecturing by people who ultimately have no clue about, and zero investment into our industry is frankly becoming terminally irksome. There is now a whole cabal of incidentally mainly female researchers whose academic niche (and thus career and thus income) is predicated upon being considered ecotourism experts, or whatever, and who appear to be operating with questionable agendas and also appear to desperately want to meddle instead of waiting to be asked.
Anyway.
When it comes to the global Shark diving industry in general, there are now one excellent paper and one good one (both, incidentally, by experienced Shark divers!) and several that are not, see e.g. here and also here, with links.
And now there is this.
That's plenty enough, thank you very much.
And now, please, why don't you just fuck off - because we actually got work to do, salaries to pay and tourists to wow!
Nautilus Liveaboardsare a member of GSD and owner Mike Lever is a friend who genuinely cares and is trying to do the right thing - but I cannot just pretend I haven't seen this.
Once again it appears that Mike is being torpedoed by his own staff.
If you watch at the very beginning, you can discern that some fucking moron trying to emulate the Deep Blue moment (where the diver also had no business being where he was and doing what he did) climbs to the top of the cage and starts gesticulating to, and then manhandles the Shark who then obviously targets him on the second pass - and what follows, including the injuries to the animal, is the direct consequence of that one idiot's gratuitous bravado.
Trip report here.
Allowing people to experience these majestic animals raises awareness that these are calm and curious animals enticed by the scent of tuna, not humans, and has influenced advocacy efforts worldwide. With a set of jaws selling for thousands on the black market, the sharks are also at risk of poaching, which is greatly deterred by the presence of the shark dive boats. In going on a trip like this, we all must accept that there is an element of risk to ourselves.
But incidents like the one in my video are unacceptable...for the sharks. As a group of ocean-loving environmentalists, we should not allow this to happen. Whether it's a redesign of the cages, prohibiting "chum bags" in the submersible cages, or ending wrangling, it's time to start a serious conversion about what can be done to better protect the sharks, the divers, and the future of Guadalupe operations.
Totally agree, well said!
It's not about the wrangling that is perfectly OK if conducted properly; it's about recognizing that this is not some kind of "adventure diving for adrenaline seekers" but a product in Mexico's ecotourism industry. If conducted properly, it is a fantastic wildlife encounter, has close to zero ecological footprint and endangers neither the animals nor the tourists - so bloody keep it that way!
Follow the bloody rules - to the letter and in spirit, too!
Put the people into the bloody cages and keep them inside, including their heads, arms, hands and bloody cameras. Abolish the balcony. And when it comes to your staff, you know what to do - theirs is a job, not "fun" = the dive is not about them but for the clients!
Out of many, read this defense by Martin, and then this and this by some ultracrepidarian chick at Nat Geo, and this misleading piece (the Nautilus did not break, but did certainly bend the rules correction: the video evidence now shows otherwise; and the Solmar has a history like many others) by some other ultracrepidarian chick on Earth Touch News.
Nah don't worry.
I'm not going there - but if you really care, feel free to consult my 50-odd posts on the subject. Or if you cannot stomach that, simply do re-read this one from 4 years ago.
Just this.
Burgess needs to comb the data he has been hoarding for decades and come up with evidence about a causal connection between Shark provisioning and unprovoked, let alone predatoryShark strikes. There is none - but until then, he really needs to shut the fuck up. Pavlov my ass - or did those dogs bite and devour unsuspecting bystanders?
Provisioning has effects, albeit overwhelmingly (!) only locally and temporarily, and those effects need to be identified, investigated, understood and then mitigated and managed. Our best players know that and have started to associate in order to promote a more long-term sustainable product; and the others need to reform and failing that, they need to be exposed - and now there is a public tool for that.
So don't whine - rate!
And finally.
We are not the problem.
Commercial and recreational overfishing, climate change, ocean acidification, pollution and habitat destruction are. But we are certainly part of the solution - even the worst ones among us!
This is not our usual kids content and Gabe and Garrett did not go on this trip, this video is from my trip to Guadalupe Island (I'm their dad). On a recent great white shark cage diving trip we experienced a very rare event, a shark breaching the side of the cage. What might appear to be an aggressive great white shark trying to attack the cage, this is not the case. These awesome sharks are biting at large chunks of tuna tied to a rope. When a great white shark lunges and bites something, it is temporarily blinded. They also cannot swim backwards. So this shark lunged at the bait, accidentally hit the side of the cage, was most likely confused and not able to swim backwards, it thrust forward and broke the metal rail of the cage. There was a single diver inside the cage. He ended up outside the bottom of the cage, looking down on two great white sharks. The diver is a very experienced dive master, remained calm, and when the shark thrashed back outside the cage, the diver calmly swam back up and climbed out completely uninjured. The boat crew did an outstanding job, lifting the top of the cage, analyzing the frenzied situation, and the shark was out after a few long seconds. Everyone on the boat returned to the cages the next day, realizing this was a very rare event. The boat owner, captain, and crew are to be commended for making what could've been a tragic event into a happy ending. I'm sure God and luck had a bit to do with it too! I want to return next year for another great white shark adventure!
6.8 The permit holder shall ensure that the bait line is immediately
removed from the water if the white shark following the bait
approaches within 6.5 feet (2 m) of the vessel. 6.10 Bait shall be thrown from port side or starboard side at the stern
in an angle of 45° from the cages to the outside of the boat.
Bait line will not be shorter than 40 feet (12 meters) and it shall
not touch the cage or pass over the top of the cage.
And now you know why!
Anyway.
Shit happens, and like in this much publicized, and likely equally preventable case, the crew did react admirably - but it is equally clear that competitive pressure continues to tempt some operators and their crew to push the boundaries of legality and good old common sense, instead of all agreeing on sticking to the rules and offering a safe, sane and sustainable tourism product.
I've said it back here: this is just simply bad business.
Oh well.
Like I said, shit happens - provisioned Shark diving does carry specific risks that will sporadically eventuate, and this despite of one's best efforts to manage and mitigate them - incidentally, just like in, say, the airline industry!
Compliance to the required minimum distance from the shark was investigated during the 1,082 complete focal follows. During 907 focal follows (84%) at least one snorkeler or boat-holder was observed being less than 2 m away from the whale shark, inconsistent with the code of conduct (Table 2). On average there were 1.9 snorkelers or boat-holders (S.D. = 2.6) and 0.2 scuba divers (S.D. = 0.9) within 2 m of the whale shark recorded every 5 min. The maximum number of snorkelers and boat-holders around a single shark was observed on 7 September 2013 when 19 people were recorded within 2 m of a whale shark and, respectively, on 10 December 2012 when 10 scuba divers were closer than 2 m from the shark.
Data on the number of guests within 10 m of sharks was missing from 62 focal follows in 2012, the remaining 1,020 focal follows showed that in 56.1% of the surveys the maximum number of snorkelers allowed per shark (i.e., 6) was exceeded. The maximum number of snorkelers and boat-holders within 10 m of a shark was 33. Records of the number of scuba divers within 10 m of a shark only started in July 2013. During these 406 focal follows, the maximum of 4 scuba divers was exceeded on 79 occasions (19.5%). Twenty-one scuba divers within 10 m of a shark was the highest number of divers recorded per shark. From May 2012 to January 2013, researchers systematically counted the amount of active touches from guests and feeders on sharks. A total of 4,832 active touches were recorded over 545 focal follows. Feeders pushing away sharks with their feet or petting the sharks with their hands accounted for the majority of these active contacts (97.6%); while guests were observed touching sharks 117 times. During the 2013 and 2014 survey seasons, feeder touches were no longer systematically counted, because of the lack of reaction observed in the whale sharks. On 114 occasions guests were recorded to actively touch whale sharks during this same period...
The assessment of the compliance to the code of conduct revealed very low adherence to the regulations in place in Oslob. Most worrying was the decreasing trend of compliance from 21.4% in 2012 to only 3.4% compliance in 2014 in terms of minimal distance to the whale shark. Our numbers are conservative because only people within 2 m of the shark were included in the count, whereas the code of conduct regulating the whale shark watching activities in Oslob dictates a minimum distance of 5 m from the side and tail of the sharks, which means that the real compliance might have been even lower. Free swimming, snorkelling guests tended to have lower compliance than guests holding on to the boat while watching the shark underwater. Snorkelers can control the distance to the shark by either actively approaching the animal or swimming away to keep the required distance; nevertheless 85% of snorkelers were too close to the shark in 2014.
Seriously, WTF?
I've been a staunch supporter of Oslob's highly controversial Whale Shark feeding encounters, but this only provided that there are good interaction protocols, and that the rules are being followed - and this is just highly disappointing, and pretty darn stupid to boot.
One may question the usefulness of certain prescriptions - but if so, they can be changed. Simply ignoring them is reinforcing the arguments of the many detractors and will undoubtedly precipitate some unwelcome reactions by the Authorities.
C'mon people!
And the other effects?
Yup, there's conditioning by positive reinforcement, leading to a higher tolerance towards people by the WS, more vertical feeding etc etc. This deviates from the behavior of non-fed, non-conditioned "wild" WS - but that's all one can say at the moment, meaning that the concerns by the researchers about possible associated risks to the WS' well-being are so far undocumented and thus merely speculative.
So far, not to worry.
But the non-compliance sucks big time.
I say, follow the bloody rules or you may spoil it for everybody.
This is not rocket science - so just fucking do it!
