Big GWS off San Diego - or is it?

And I quote.

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

Wow!

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

Or maybe, not so much.

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

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

Anyway.

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

Wow - again!

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

But I'm digressing as always. 

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

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

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

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

Shark Expert from Hawaii!

A 10-foot Galapagos Shark? Right! 
Pic by Terry Lilley.

Terry Lilley is absolutely correct.

As a spearo, he knows that spearfishing does attract Sharks to the coast - and where have I heard that one before?

But is the man a Shark expert as claimed?

Don't get me wrong.

The man is probably a real nice, personable dude who wants to do good - but why does he have to bloviate, let alone educate others about stuff he obviously hasn't got the slightest clue about?

Case in point.

See?

No not the Reef Whitetips - Rambo or Rambette the psycho-Shark, i.e. the horizontally striped species that is apparently an aggressive 10-foot Galapagos Shark that Lilley has been studying for months! Wow!

Opinions - the more as it is unequivocal and easy?

And so it goes...

Undercurrent on Shark Feeding!

Yes we feed Sharks - Terry-fic pic by Terry Goss!

Gotta hand it to the folks at Undercurrent.
Starting with the idiotic title, they have managed to post the by far most preposterous piece of utterly stupid anti Shark feeding shit published by a dive magazine, ever.

WTF has happened?
What has possessed Ms Richardson to provide a platform for the ramblings of the anti industry zealots instead of trying to remain impartial like in the past? Tell you what happened: she clearly doesn't have the slightest clue about Shark behavior (poor innocent Cristina's Caribbean Reefs are not solitary but gregarious) or the Shark diving industry and its protocols, and is obviously increasingly believing and parroting what the clowns she is interviewing are feeding her.

Case in point, Ralph Collier.
No Vanessa, Ralph is neither a researcher, nor a scientist.
He is the prototype of what the Swiss call a Sesselfurzer, as in "someone who farts from a couch", very much reminding me of the Shark-hating voyeuristic parasite. His claim to fame is to head his Shark Research Committee (are there any other members?) whose only research consists in recording GW attacks on the Pacific coast of the US and publishing the statistics in a series of forgettable amateur publications. Like Ritter with whom he shares an affiliation, or whatever, to the SRI and the GSAF, he is the ultimate Shark pornographer who professes to be furthering Shark conservation but then ultimately reduces Sharks and their life history to one single aspect, that of Shark/human interactions, meaning Shark attacks.
Having been elevated to rank of "Shark expert" by the misguided invitation of the Egyptian authorities, he is now obviously basking in the limelight and being invited to run his mouth on topics about which he obviously doesn't have the slightest shred of knowledge, let alone expert competence.

What Collier spouts is not new.
It's basically a textual rehash of his interview on the atrocious Red Sea Jaws where he asserts that feeding Sharks will lead to attacks on innocent bystanders. The "proof": one single video showing divers hand feeding one single OWT with Fish stored in a fanny pack - which according to Collier has led that Shark to subsequently attack the hands and buttocks of two victims, leading the great researching scientist to derive a general rule pertaining to all Sharks in the Red Sea!
Howz that for taking intellectual and methodical shortcuts!

So we're looking at a shark habituated to human beings for getting food, and humans had taught the shark where the food was. And this occurred frequently in the Red Sea. With overfishing in the area, sharks have to come up to the reef area to feed, and now associate food with the human form. It's very much like training your family dog. When it sees your hand, it sits up to get a bite of that treat.

Right!
That's EXACTLY what trained family dogs do: they sit up whenever they see a hand (notabene, a hand that does not hold any food!), meaning all the time, and when hungry, they run out of the house and randomly bite the hands (and very possibly even the ass!) of passers by!
Which obviously begs the question, does Collier own a completely crazy dog - or may he be simply pompously bloviating without the slightest knowledge about the behavior of either dogs or Sharks.
You be the judge of that.

The rule is simple.
To know about the specific behavior of an animal, you need to observe that animal when it is engaging in that specific behavior, and this over an extended period of time. If you unable to do so (and I betcha that Collier's personal experience with Sharks is limited to maybe a few cage dives with GWs at best), you need to talk to the people who do, or read what they publish on the subject.
The people who feed Sharks and who observe Sharks that are being fed are some divers, several Shark diving operators and a handful of Shark researchers - and thousands upon thousands of fishermen and spear fishermen!

Surprised about the latter?
Fishermen do not only feed Sharks by presenting them baited hooks; many of them attract and often end up feeding Sharks when they drag in struggling fish and when they subsequently clean their catch and throw the scraps into the ocean. Spear fishermen are notorious for attracting, and even conditioning Sharks when they shoot fish and often find themselves embroiled in a competitive struggle over their prey. These people number in the hundreds of thousands and if anybody should be examined for possibly causing an increase of Shark attacks on the public, it should be them - not the few dozen operators conducting baited Shark dives!

But I'm not here to deflect and obfuscate.
I'm certainly not about to give you the spiel about how we, the Shark diving operators educate the public and contribute to Shark conservation, as it got nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether divers feeding Sharks leads to an increase of attacks on people who do not partake in those events, like Collier asserts.
That is a testable hypothesis.

The first of the possible tests is simple.
A. Are there more Shark attacks on the public at or around Shark feeding sites compared to similar control sites.

Let me start with a pathetically trivial statement.
In order for there to be a Shark attack, a person and a Shark will have to be in the same place at the same time. Thus the incidence of attacks will inevitably depend on the following variables: the number of Sharks and the number of people present in a determined location; and also, the activity and behavior those people and the Sharks are engaging in.

With that in mind and considering that feeding Sharks will aggregate some species, one would indeed expect an increase in Shark attacks in the vicinity of Shark feeding sites - but when one analyzes the details, it is not quite that unequivocal.
In 12 years of feeding Sharks here in Fiji, we have witnessed

• a staggering increase in the number of Bull Sharks that roam wide ranges but regularly visit Shark Reef once they have discovered that it's a good place;
• a negligible increase in the number of the much more resident Greys, Whitetips and Blacktips, a species that does not roam and is thus not likely to be attracted from locations afar;
• but then, a decrease in the number of intermediate Sharks like the Silvertips, Lemons and Nurses, and possibly even Tigers;
• and with the exception of one single fly-by by a spooked Great Hammerhead, zero sightings of any other species, this despite of the fact that we regularly introduce 2-300 kilos of yummy bloody bait and despite being situated on the fringes of 300m deep Beqa Channel and of Beqa Lagoon that are all being prowled by a plethora of other Sharks like Zebras and Hammerheads but also pelagics like OWTs, Silkies and Duskies.

And what about Shark attacks?
There are only two Shark feeding operations in the country, Beqa Adventure Divers and the guys down the road, and we both conduct our Shark dives on the southern coast of Viti Levu facing Beqa Lagoon. Documented Shark attacks in the vicinity: a big fat zero, ever.
The few documented Shark attacks have happened in Taveuni where Tigers Sharks prowl the coast of the current-swept Somosomo Straights; in the mouth of the Sigatoka River where surfers insist on frolicking on a break despite of murky water and the occurrence of large Bulls and Tigers; and in various locations where spear fishermen have defended their catch, often at night.

Anybody wanting to venture a guess about the results from elsewhere?
More importantly, would any of the bloviating Shark attack experts please care to comb his collection of data in order to prove or disprove a causal connection? Maybe for once act like what they purport to be, forgo their idiotic ad hoc speculation and engage in the onerous task of following the scientific method instead?

B. What about the risk of Sharks biting people during Shark dives?

Let's go back to the above trivial statement and variables.
When it comes to baited Shark diving, the obvious, and equally pathetically trivial rule is this.

• the more Sharks are present, the higher the risk of a Shark bite
• the more divers are present, the higher the risk of a Shark bite
• the more dives are being conducted, the higher the risk of a Shark bite
• the closer the divers and the Sharks interact, and the more frequently those interactions occur, the higher the risk of a Shark bite

So, yes, unequivocally, Shark diving increases the risk of a Shark biting a person!
And the question of baiting versus non baiting? Yes, of course baiting increases the risk, as it draws in more Sharks and leads to closer interactions!
Duh!

The consequences? Please re-read this.
Some divers are happy to experience Sharks when and where they occur naturally. Others wish to predictably experience other species that are highly skittish and/or do not aggregate naturally and thus need to be attracted with bait. Assuming that baiting does not harm the animals, and so far, nothing indicates it does, it's not a matter of prohibiting baited Shark dives, it's a matter of ensuring a maximum of safety by adopting the best possible safety protocols!
Is there a residual risk - yes of course there is, especially for us in the front line!

But what about the motivation for those bites?
Please re-read this. It is, to the best of my knowledge, what we know about why Sharks bite people - and please correct me if you think I'm wrong.

With that in mind, I assert that nearly all of those bites are not predatory in nature.
Contrary to the plethora of bloviating Sesselfurzer, I look back on nearly 40 years of diving and on thousands of Shark dives, most of which in baited conditions. In all those dives with dozens of different species in different situations world wide, I have never been in a situation where I had the impression that a Shark was sizing me up as potential food, not one single time - and incidentally, everybody in the industry I have talked with shares the exact same observations.

I have however been subjected to multiple threat displays, this by Grey Reefs exhibiting agonistic hunch displays, by Silvertips becoming stiff and jerky and more recently, by large dominant Bull Sharks gulping and ramming me with their snout.

I have also witnessed several Shark strikes.
All but two were by Sharks biting the people directly handling the bait. All of them were characterized by one or more of these factors: competitive, frenzy-like situation; bad visibility; lack of concentration/distraction of the feeder; feeder being bitten in his left hand which was holding more bait; non-dominant, sub-adult animal barging in.
The two remaining strikes were retaliatory bites by Silvertips on people denying them access to bait, very much like the famous incident where a Silvertip bit Dinah Halstead in PNG.

Consequently, our procedures include the following

• all divers wear dark full body wetsuits and especially, dark gloves as pasty white hands sticking out of dark wetsuits may be mistaken for bait, especially in low visibility
• we maintain a clear separation between the customers and the Sharks
• the feeders wear chain mail gloves to minimize the effects of accidental bites
• we hand feed in order to always control the bait and to be able to withhold food once we deem that the animals are starting to behave competitively. In situations that become too tense, we temporarily interrupt our routine, retreat and wait for the animals to calm down again - which incidentally, they always do
• the feeder is flanked by bodyguards monitoring any dead angles and gets rotated out after ten minutes in order to prevent lapses in concentration
• there is only one feeder acting as the focal point for the animals, and he only ever holds a single piece of bait
• we do not feed in bad visibility of less than 10 meters and are particularly alert when the visibility drops, as we have observed that this is when the Sharks (who do not see through murky water any better than we do) tend to be particularly edgy as they have to rely on their other, less precise senses when approaching the feeder
• nobody but us approaches the bait bin, ever

Which brings me straight back to Richardson's stupidity.
It mentions two Shark attacks, that on Groh and that on Jimmy.

Jimmy was apparently bitten by a Caribbean Reef, a competitive, edgy and strictly piscivorous species, whilst handling bait in murky conditions. These to me are perfect preconditions for a mistake by the animal.

Groh was apparently positioned right next to the bait cage, meaning that the Bull Shark that bit him may have been engaging in behavior aimed at deterring a perceived competitor.
Furthermore, once the Shark destroyed the bait container and a lot of sand was kicked up in the process, it was trying to navigate in very reduced visibility and water saturated with fish juices, thus losing its sense of orientation and possibly mistakenly biting the first solid object it came across, i.e. Groh's leg. Was it really exactly so - dunno but it is certainly plausible.

And the Ritter attack?
The interpretation of what triggered it (= a stupid guy doing stupid things with macro predatory Sharks) keeps changing but to me, it's rather irrelevant anyway: this is clearly a predatory attack where the animal first tested and then devoured Ritter's calf.
Accident my ass!

C. Last query: are Sharks that are being fed by divers (and what about those that are being fed by fishermen and spearos?) more prone to bite people than unfed Sharks.

This is what Collier is asserting and Richardson is parroting - and of course what is being really asserted, is that fed Sharks will not engage in just any attack, but that they will be conditioned to perpetrate predatory attacks on humans.
This is of course a tricky one to document - notabene one way or the other!

There is of course no such thing as a generic "Shark" engaging in generic "Shark behavior".
Instead, Sharks are very different behaviorally both when it comes to species but to complicate matters, even when it comes to sex and age within the same species, all the way to pronounced individual character traits that can be shaped by individual experiences.
Also, the behavior of a species can be very different in different locations or at different times of the day, etc.

But having said that, I can share the following.
Our flagship species, i.e. the Bull Sharks that frequent Shark Reef have been fed for the past 12 years and are undoubtedly one of the most conditioned population of predatory Sharks on the planet.

Bull Sharks are very timid and hardly ever approach divers.
But we want our customers to experience them, and this is the reason why we resort to luring them in with bait, and to reward them whenever they approach one of our feeders in the way we like, i.e. from the left and slowly.
This is called training by positive reinforcement and I can assure you that contrary to all the pledges to the contrary that are meant to appease the tree huggers, all Shark diving operators feed the Sharks when trying to attract species that are shy and in locations where those species do not aggregate naturally. Teasing only just does not work long-term as the animals are not being rewarded and will simply stop coming.

It is thus fair to state that by feeding our Bull Sharks, we are conditioning them to approach people and thus engage in behavior they would not normally display.
But here's the catch: we observe that unlike Collier's demented family dog, our Bull Sharks will not simply approach just anybody: instead, they will only approach determined people, and this mainly only when those people are proffering food!

Example?
Look no further than when we are training a new feeder. For weeks on end, he will be standing next to the bin brandishing his treats - and the Sharks will look him up but never take a single bite! Talk about an exercise in total and utter frustration!
Eventually, a single animal who is very likely not one of the old-timers but instead a newbie who doesn't yet know anybody else will take a first offering and be forever linked to this one particular feeder. Only over time, some of the other Sharks will deign to come in for a snack, however really only when they have no other choice because their favorite human happens to have a day off.
Incredible - and yet, it's totally true!

Or here's another example.
I've been diving the Fiji Shark Dive since 2003, first twice and now, up to five times weekly.
I never feed the Sharks. What I do, is to observe and film them as part of our ongoing long-term monitoring. Over a very long period of time and by proceeding in very small increments, I have been able to attain a status whereby the Sharks appear to tolerate and at times largely ignore my presence, allowing me to roam freely among them without any discernible effects on their behavior.
But when people other than me or Rusi venture in front, the Sharks will inevitably retreat - unless we accompany them, and even then, their behavior will be decidedly more diffident!

And lastly, we observe this.
We frequently dive Shark Reef for other reasons, be it in order to service our moorings or because we are monitoring its health and changes in the composition of its population of Fishes.
The Bulls live deeper in the channel and when we don't carry any bait, chances of seeing them are extremely slim and limited to occasional fly-bys by single individuals. We have even mimicked the exact dive profiles of our Shark dives, as a control, and thus without any bait - again with the exact same result that the Bulls were simply not interested.

So much for the assertion that fed Sharks will approach and attack people - and this after 12 years of conditioning them to the presence of divers!

Granted, this only applies to the specific Bull Sharks that frequent the SRMR.
But until somebody comes and proves that a specific individual Shark that has been fed has increasingly attacked people in un-baited conditions, nothing will ever convince me that what I'm experiencing in Fiji does not apply to all Sharks that are being fed by divers anywhere!

There you have it, that's my take - thanks for your patience in trying to follow my rant.
Still think that Collier is an expert on Shark attacks in the Red Sea?

And what about Undercurrent?
Looking forward to reading Part number two - and very much hoping that Ms Richardson will start talking about the real problem that is besieging Sharks, i.e the global fishery targeting their fins! Not that I believe she will after this total fiasco.
But then, as they say, hope springs eternal!

Red Sea - the Experts have spoken!

Did you miss me?
I was marooned in Tonga and no, things there have not improved!

In the meantime, wondrous things have happened!
I’m alluding to my last post about the Red Sea Shark attacks: 28 comments and nobody has hyperventilated or insulted anybody! It’s really a good thread and I invite you to go read it as some highly experienced and intelligent people have shared remarkable insights and entertaining anecdotes.
Very cool indeed!

Also, the experts have published their expert opinions.

Haven’t heard much from Doktor Ritter (hear hear Biminibill!)
All I’ve found is this interview where he has looked at some pics and come to the following spectacular eco-behavioral conclusions

To call this an attack would be wrong. I would call this an accident.
The bite marks I’ve seen on the pictures look like the Sharks were defending themselves. The accident might have happened as follows: first, the Sharks took a bite in order to test the smell (sic) of that creature – in the same way that we touch something to test its consistence. Then, the victims defended themselves, at which the Sharks took a harder bite because they felt threatened.

Meaning that next time a Shark bites you, let him nibble and do not fight back!
Wow!

But then, as I’m about to post, I find this !
Again: Wow! Talk about armchair sniping from way out there in left field! And no, I’m not gonna waste my time, and yours, in commenting on the content, the arrogance, the bullshit. If by now you haven’t caught on to this particular con, there’s nothing I could possibly say that will sway your mind anyway!

Which leaves the other three musketeers.
Quite honestly, I was looking forward to their statements with considerable trepidation: after all, if the only PhD (this is wrong) has already come up with this kind of rubbish, what was I to expect from the lowly naturalists?

So there.
In a private post, George Burgess says this.

From Sharm El Sheik, Egypt.

….. For those of you disturbed by the unscientific nature of the subject do not read on (or wait until these results appear in a scientific journal). Others may find the results of my investigation of interest. ……...

From Cairo

..... The attacks were unprecedented in scope – five in five days (two each on Tuesday and Wed., one on Sat.); major trauma, the last a fatality; all from nearby locations; unlikely attackers for shallow-water attacks.
Three of the non-fatal attacks involved major injuries (loss of limbs) and the victims were very fortunate to survive.

Here’s the kicker: two of the attacks were by an oceanic whitetip and two by a mako (likely a shortfin).
Note the use of “an” and “a” – there is conclusive evidence that a single individual whitetip was responsible for two of the attacks, including the fatality, and a single mako almost surely was involved in two separate attacks. The fifth attack was by a carcharhinid - it may have been a whitetip, perhaps even the same one implicated in the other two, but not enough evidence at this time to say for sure.

The whitetip incident is, I believe, the first documented case of multiple attack by a single shark, although others have been suspected.
Will check on this more when I return and can access the ISAF database. The oceanic whitetip was identified by distinctive color patterns and a bite mark on its upper caudal lobe in underwater photos of the shark taken just before/after one attack and other photos taken from shore during another attack. The attacker also was tracked to other dive locations post-attack via photos taken by divers. It was a big one - 2.5 m – that also threatened other divers prior to its first attack.

The similarly-sized mako first attacked a wader (!) in hip-deep water then bolted back over the top of the reef into blue water only to reappear a minute later and perhaps 10 m away from the first incident, attacking a snorkler.
The first victim got away with some lacerations; the second was not so fortunate, being mauled on both arms, losing one.

All five attacks occurred in depths no more than 20 m deep.
A very strange situation indeed. It appears that the disposal of sheep carcasses by sailors bringing a load of live sheep in through the nearby shipping channel may have played a part in this, as may have unseasonably high water temp’s.

More to come as we sort through some other data.

In the past, I’ve not been very kind to Burgess.
He does come up with some highly speculative and also, irritating statements - but to his credit, like him or not, he is the go-to man when it comes to Shark attacks. And this time, I must really say that I am impressed! This is interesting, refreshingly factual and also, it does not dwell on gratuitous speculation.
Well done!

Which brings me straight over to this.
You may want to notice that the press release is authored by Collier, an amateur US West Coast GW attack investigator and by Levine, a travel agent, plus 3 unknown Egyptian (?) officials - and no Burgess!
There’s much I could say here about professional qualifications, fake academic affiliations, ongoing feuds and jumping guns & stealing shows – but then again, is anybody in the know surprised?
So, for a change, enough said!

Let’s instead focus on the merits of what is being said.
First and foremost: well done for not having tried to whitewash this – these were indeed genuine, and very likely predatory attacks and not accidents or mistakes or the like!
I also like the reference to the increase in the population of aquatic recreationists augmenting the chances of encounters, and to the specific topographical features whereby the water gets very deep close to the shoreline.

The remainder? Hmmm…

• The sheep carcasses? Indeed, maybe. But then again, the only confirmed occurrence appears to date back to the end of September which makes for a rather tenuous causal connex to events unfolding two months later. Or not?

• The depletion of natural prey due to overfishing? First, from everything I hear, the species most targeted and thus depleted in the Red Sea are pelagic Sharks rather than pelagic Fishes, thus leading to the exact opposite conclusions – but granted, I don’t dispose of the numbers and may indeed be wrong. Which of course begs the question whether this assertion is supported by any specific data? Second, I’m hearing the implicit assumption that “Sharks” will go anywhere and eat anything if they are hungry, very much like the proverbial Bears and Wolves are said to approach human dwellings during particularly harsh winters and the like. But Sharks are not Bears and Wolves. With the exception of a few large generalist feeders like Tigers, most Shark species occupy very specific ecological niches where they have evolved to be successful hunters of very specific, in this case pelagic prey. Conversely, individuals that would stray to hunt outside of their ecological niches would be comparatively unsuccessful, meaning that evolution would have selected against this kind of behavior (and incidentally, one could argue that anyway, those Bears and Wolves would still be roaming well within their original habitats from which they were displaced by our invasion). Look at the Med and the North Atlantic: well before the comparatively recent craze for Shark fins and according slaughter of Sharks, fish stocks in those waters were severely depleted - and yet, I don’t remember witnessing any consequent notable increase in Shark attacks. I remain skeptical.

• Fish feeding attracted the Sharks? Maybe – and if so, I would suspect that the attractant might have been the commotion rather than the fish bait (what was it anyway: bread and the like?). Then again, I have the exact opposite experience here in Fiji. Shark Reef sits on the edge of Beqa Channel that drops down to 300m and where given determined meteorological conditions, there are regular sightings of both Tuna and OWTs – and still, in more than 10 years of baiting with massive amounts of food creating a huge commotion, no OWT has ever visited the reef! See above, reef habitats are simply not the ecological niche of pelagic Sharks, full stop! In brief, way before attracting any pelagic Sharks, the Fish feeding on the coast would have first attracted the local coastal Sharks, among which the ubiquitous Tigers – and obviously, it has not! Again, I am highly unconvinced!

• Shark feeding? Do I once again hear that Sharks fed by humans will learn to feed ON humans? This is boring – but if you insist: please, do re-read this! Having said this, there is however one caveat: shark feeding does aggregate Sharks and if conducted in the wrong place, e.g. in the vicinity of swimming beaches and the like, it will contribute to increasing the chances of encounters between the Sharks and the aquatic recreationists – and if conducted in the wrong way, e.g. by triggering feeding frenzies, all bets are off anyway! Is this is true and the guys were feeding the Mako, they were really asking for it! As Richard points out, it is very much the responsibility of Shark diving operators to choose the correct locations and procedures, and rogue operators need to be taken to task! Again: snorkeling with large predatory Sharks is just plain stupid - and talk about this having been prophetic! Alas!
  
  

This is plenty dangerous enough!

• Temperature and metabolism? Yes most Sharks are poikilothermic - but it just so happens that the Mako as a Lamnid like the GW is not! Plus, despite the intuitive plausibility of such a hypothesis: are there any data supporting the assertion that Sharks will eat more when ambient temperatures rise, and if so: concerning which species? My personal observations certainly don’t support that hypothesis. Rather, they lead me to the conclusion that instead of falling into a feeding frenzy, Sharks that feel too hot will re-locate to where the ambient temperature is more to their liking, and that different species prefer different ambient temperatures. For instance, in Cocos, the Hammers will always be found just above the thermocline, meaning that in an El Niño year, they will stay deep and during a La Niña, very shallow. Or to take another example, Juerg’s research on the Bulls seems to indicate that they prefer to reside in water between 25 and 27 degrees Celsius. Conversely, our Reef Blacktips seem completely adapted to the much higher temperatures on the reef top. Different Sharks have evolved to function best in different habitats and temperatures and when those parameters change, they just do not behave like mechanical automatons but instead, re-locate to where conditions are best for them. And then, there’s this: many pelagic Fishes like Tuna are highly migratory and fishermen know that both they and the pelagic Sharks that follow them are associated with specific thermoclines, both in terms of depth but also in terms of how warm water expands from the Equator in Summer and contracts back in Winter. With that in mind, would it not be much more plausible to assert that the unusually elevated sea temperatures may have contributed to aggregating both the Sharks and their prey in the Northern Red Sea?

Yes I’m speculating – but so are they!
The fact is that two different species of pelagic Sharks (forget Ritter) have attacked several snorkelers and a wader (!) on the coastline.
This is truly absolutely exceptional and cannot be suitably explained by the usual generalist sound bites about Fish feeding and overfishing – if causal, both would have led to attacks by coastal Sharks first.

So bear with me if I come up with my own set of wild speculations – and let there be no doubt that my guess is as good as anybody’s and that we’ll never know what really went down anyway.

• An environmental effect, likely the unusually high temperatures, caused pelagic Fishes and the pelagic Sharks that prey on them to wander into the Northern Red Sea

• An “event” caused the Sharks to approach the coast, the most likely being that their prey went there (think Sardine Run), or that indeed, a Sheep carcass floated there - or the prey dispersed or was consumed and the Sharks approached the coast when swimming one of their typical search patters

• The stimuli (think splish-splash) sent out by the snorkelers attracted the Sharks who then attacked

And after these simply brilliant deductions (If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit), I herewith end my posts about the Red Sea attacks!
Hopefully!

About Shark Attacks

Undoubtedly, one of the Mossad Sharks!

Time for a preliminary post mortem.
Like everybody interested in Sharks, I’ve been closely following the news tidbits trickling out from Sharm El Sheikh and the various opines in the media and the blogosphere.

There’s much of the usual fluff and idiocy - but there’s also some stellar stuff.
Take the “experts”. Whilst many prate and pontificate, I found this remarkable interview with Avi Baranes. Now THIS is the kind of person you gotta consult, a highly reputable Shark researcher who has been investigating those very waters for a very long time – and accordingly, the interview brims with factual information and quietly addresses and dispels the usual myths. Bravo!
Equally noteworthy are the posts by Richard, by the SOSF and by Michael Scholl - however with some caveats that I’d like to address below.

The way I see it, in this specific case, one needs to try and answer the following queries

• What species are involved. Apparently, the species implicated are Oceanic Whitetip(s) and Mako, both pelagic as opposed to coastal species, which is certainly surprising. I’m particularly surprised to hear about the Mako, because this is very much a specialist predator of fast pelagic Fishes like Tuna and Billfishes, features a very specialized dentition aimed at grabbing rather than cutting, and is exceedingly rarely implicated in attacks on humans. OWTs on the other hand appear to have a much broader feeding spectrum and have the typical generalist dentition of “grabbers” in the lower jaw and “cutters” in the upper jaw, like the equally pelagic and generalist Blues and most Carcharhinids in general. Consequently, OWTs (not Makos) are frequently found feeding on floating carcasses, mainly of cetaceans, where they are able to cut out chunks of meat. They have a well deserved reputation for being highly inquisitive to the point of chasing people out of the water, and have been implicated in a plethora of attacks mainly on shipwreck victims.

• What induced those pelagic Sharks to come close to that coast where the attacks happened. In the Red Sea, OWTs are normally regularly sighted hundreds of miles further south and I would have expected them to move north, if at all, following their preferred temperature gradient, often in line with migrations of their habitual pelagic prey. Yes they are also known to follow ships but with the above in mind, my gut tells me that the most likely explanation might be environmental, as in weather/temperature/currents/movements of prey rather than the much cited paucity of natural food due to overfishing or selected anthropogenic interventions like chumming and baiting that would only draw in Sharks from a much smaller radius. Of note, the cited dumping of sheep carcasses happened at the end of September and cannot be credibly considered to be causal for events occurring in December.

• The cause for the attacks, and their interpretation. This may sound trivial but to me, the immediate causes are obviously location, opportunity and stimulus. Firstly, it has to be noted that the coastline drops off precipitously, meaning that snorkelers and swimmers venturing away from shore quickly find themselves in very deep water indeed. Secondly and due to the massive increase of the local tourism infrastructure, the ocean is teeming with aquatic recreationists, greatly increasing the chances for such an encounter. Thirdly, people splish-splashing at the surface send out the exact stimuli that predatory Sharks will consider worth investigating. As to the interpretation of what happened once the Sharks encountered the victims, see below.

• What can be done so that this will never ever happen again. Barring the complete prohibition to swim and snorkel, or the complete fencing off of areas where people swim and snorkel: nothing at all! As long as people will frequent the Ocean and Sharks will hopefully exist, occasional attacks will continue to occur - but one can certainly minimize the risk by following a set of sensible recommendations, the first one being don't be stupid!
  

Which leaves the interpretation of those attacks.
Whilst the mainstream media revel in the image that all Sharks are indiscriminate man hunting killers, the pro-Shark faction claims the exact opposite, that Sharks never prey on humans and that all attacks are the result of mere investigation or mistakes.
Both I believe are wrong.

Shark attacks can be defined as incidences where Sharks bite people.
The term thus covers a very wide spectrum of species, behaviors, motivations, triggers etc and any generalizations will inevitably lead to mistakes – thus, please correct me if you think I’m wrong!
Also, barring a personal interview with the perpetrators, the exact causes for these specific attacks will never be known, so whatever conclusions will emerge will only be (hopefully) plausible but ultimately always untestable hypotheses.

In very general terms, Shark attacks can be divided into the following categories.

1. Attacks associated with feeding events, i.e. predation and scavenging.

The most notorious species implicated in this category of attacks are the large predatory Sharks Great White, Tiger, Bull and Oceanic Whitetip.
Whilst large adult GWs appear to be specialist hunters of mammal blubber, the other species are generalists with a broad spectrum of prey and consequently, hunting techniques. It should thus not come as a surprise that the track record here is unequivocal: these Sharks will sometimes attack and prey on humans!

Granted, these events are exceedingly rare.
It is obvious that humans are not the primary prey of any Shark species and let me spare you the long winded and pathetically trivial explanations as to why evolution could not possibly have selected for it. Also, granted, sometimes the Sharks appear not to like (whatever that may mean) what they have attacked and either spit it back out or not bother to come back to completely consume the meal. In GWs, this may be linked to the fact that we may indeed be too lean for a specialized hunter of blubber. In other species, it may be an indication of the fact that the Shark was not very hungry, or that something disturbed it whilst it may have hung off waiting for the victim to stop struggling.
But when limbs go missing and Sharks hang on, those are predatory attacks, period!

Which brings me straight over to the whitewashing.

Yes we love Sharks, yes Sharks are much maligned and we need to work at improving their reputation: but the fact is that large predatory Sharks are dangerous and that they need to be treated with respect and with circumspection!
That makes them neither bad, nor good – that just makes them large predatory Sharks! I’ve said it before – we need to remain fact based and refrain from creating our own unhelpful stereotypes!

The common pattern of predatory Shark attack has been called Sneak Attack whereby a Shark suddenly turns up (in fact, many survivors claim that they never saw the Shark prior to the attack) and persistently attacks, very much like what happened in Sharm is being described. This is not surprising and only consistent with most attacks by terrestrial predators who relay on the element of surprise in order to approach their prey.

Great Whites sometimes attack Seals and Sea Lions which are close to the surface by sneaking up close to the bottom and then attacking more or less vertically at high speed, resulting in the much publicized predatory breaches.
Some surfers have been attacked in the same way, leading John McCosker to develop the hypothesis of Mistaken Identity, meaning that the GWs attacking a silhouette at high speed may have mistaken a surfer for a Pinniped, especially in murky water. This is certainly plausible, the more as GW are being routinely induced to attack decoys in the same manner.

BUT: this is strictly GW lingo!
This cannNOT just simply be applied to other species! Specifically, this is not how Tigers prey on Turtles (and no film maker goes potting around Hawaii towing Turtle decoys) and it does not apply to each and every “mistake” a Shark may make! Thus, asserting that most Shark attacks are due to Mistaken Identity is a fallacy and as such, nothing more than pseudo-science!

The same applies to Investigative Bites.
Once again, this is GW lingo, as Great Whites are known to test objects and people by (more or less, see Rodney Fox) gently nibbling at them. Rather than being a strictly predatory behavior, this is probably linked to testing food when scavenging and may, or may not result in subsequent feeding.
Other species known to investigate people, snorkelers and divers alike, by mouthing are Tigers and I hear, Lemons – yes, as in TB!

Not Oceanic Whitetips!
They are the picture child for investigation via bumping. They will circle ever closer, the frequency of bumps will increase and if not countered vigorously or if the affected person does not leave the water, this will likely result in a predatory attack, sometimes referred to as Bump and Bite attack. Check out the video here: this is typical behavior and it is pretty obvious that this Shark would not suddenly slow down to apply a gentle test bite! The same apparently applies to Bull Sharks.
Of note, this is different from the ramming with snout mentioned in Martin 2007 that is related to aggression, not predation. Incidentally, Martin does not cite ramming with snout as an agonistic display in OWTs, a further confirmation that in this species, that behavior is linked to predation!

Once again, attributing Investigative Bites to species other that GWs, Tigers and maybe Lemons is mere whitewashing and pseudo-science! It also looks like an attempt to exonerate the Shark from having had bad intentions or the like, something that I find rather peculiar to say the least!

2. Attacks associated with self defense

You may want to go and re-read this: several species of Sharks display behavior that is called agonistic and is linked to self defense. Failure to identify and adequately react to that behavior may lead to what are generally open-mouthed, slashing bites that result in cuts rather than missing tissue.

Attacks on surfers and bathers by small piscivorous Sharks like Blacktips and Spinners (see Volusia County) or the frequent nips on the feet of waders by subadult Blacktip Reef Sharks are commontly referred to as Hit & Run attacks and generally result in mere harmless cuts. They, too, are believed to be the result of self defense as the Sharks may simply have been startled and may have wanted to fend off a perceived attack, or may have previously displayed agonistic behavior that was never noticed by the victims.
These are, by far, the most frequent Shark attacks on people.

Finally, there are the Provoked Attacks, where the people have touched the Sharks, as in the retaliatory bites by Wobbegongs and Nurses that get dragged out from their covers by the tails.

3. Attacks associated with competition

Typically associated with spear fishing, Sharks may bite people when competing for the speared fish. These attacks are thus not aimed at preying on the person but rather, at chasing away a perceived competitor.
Incidentally, the same happens between different Shark species (but apparently not between individuals of the same species): I’ve personally witnessed a Silvertip biting a Nurse to dislodge him from some bait, and filmed one of our Bulls biting away a Lemon who wanted to approach a feeder.

Consequently, when referring to site fidelity in Sharks, one should always talk about residency as opposed to territoriality. The latter implies defense against conspecifics, a behavior that has been observed in many Fishes but apparently, never in any species of Shark!

This is again different from aggression associated with rank.
Sharks do display behavior that may be interpreted as “posturing” and there are even anecdotal accounts of actual bites on conspecifics in the context of social interactions.
Yes, it’s complicated!

4. Attacks associated with mistakes

Sharks make mistakes.
Considering the impressive array of senses they dispose of, this may seem surprising: and yet, they hunt, attack and bite a vast array of objects like boat propellers, metallic structures, decoys, and ingest completely inedible items like the famous number plates and car tires - and most often and fatally, they will be fooled by fishing bait and lures!

Mistaken attacks on humans are mostly associated with Shark feeding and baiting.
Many species of Sharks (and Fish!) are highly competitive and uncontrolled Shark feeding events can quickly develop into Feeding Frenzies where the animals get highly agitated and may end up biting other Sharks or the human spectators by mistake. Equally, Sharks may accidentally bite the feeders’ hands during hand feeding shows, etc.
Again, these are genuine mistakes and neither competitive nor predatory in nature – the latter much contrary to the opinion of the anti-feeding lobby.

Talking of which, you may want to check out these latest statements by Burgess: apparently, the perpetrator of at least two attacks is one and the same Shark! Amazing!
Plus, there’s this: "These are open-ocean sharks that are living in an environment that is food-poor," says Burgess. "So when you do find food, you darn well better take advantage of it. Do they remember things? Sure, they remember where the good places to eat were, and they'll come back." Surprise surprise: I happen to totally agree - re-read this! But... Sharks that may have been conditioned to come and feed on Tuna heads learn to… feed on Tuna heads! Not humans!

There you have it I believe - and again, if I'm factually wrong, feel free to correct me!
Long story short: if we want to be credible Shark advocates, we got to do our homework and first of all, be informed about the animals we love!
Science is always in flux and today’s insights may quickly become tomorrow’s fallacies, meaning that we must keep abreast of the latest research results and not base our knowledge on old publications and approximate hearsay. Most importantly, we the amateur naturalists should never make up things on the fly, nor should we idly re-interpret what is considered to be the accepted consensus.

This does not mean that we should not challenge the current status quo, as that is precisely the process by which knowledge is being advanced!
BUT: the only accepted technique for doing so is the Scientific Method and as always, let me warn against the siren calls and intellectual shortcuts of the self promoters, quacks and charlatans!

All researchers I’ve ever met have always been eager to engage in informed discussions and to entertain different hypotheses, if adequately supported by according observations. Those researchers are not omniscient and also, not omnipresent and often, observations by common mortals like us have greatly contributed to the advancement of scientific insights - so even if you have no academic background, don’t be shy and speak up!
But do your home work first!

In diesem Sinne!

PS read this brand new report - so, how do you interpret it? :)

Undercurrent on Sharks

We knew this was coming.

Vanessa Richardson contacted Andrew a while ago asking for his take on the Shark Diving Industry and whether we had changed anything after the Bahamas accident - the answer to that being, No why should we.
The result of her interviews, Death of a Shark Diver, Redux is a free, public article and you can read it right here .

And you should.
I must say that all-in-all, I like it. Not that I would agree with many of the opinions expressed therein - but still, it offers a largely unbiased overview of what is happening within the Industry, and that in itself is a good thing.

I particularly appreciated hearing something from Jimmy Abernethy.
Me, too, I've never witnessed a Shark acting as if divers were potential prey and although I remain skeptical about his procedures, he really is a master of his trade and certainly among the best operators offering cageless macro Shark encounters in the Bahamas - especially after having witnessed the unspeakable mayhem and stupidity perpetrated by other operators and facilitators last year. Yes I know, "somebody" will object to my take, and there's still the open question of why Tiger Beach is not being protected - but that's what I believe and I stick to it.

Burgess being Burgess, I didn't expect much else from him.
I certainly concur when he says that when Shark accidents happen, the culprits are not the animals but the people who attract them - hence the need for the strictest possible protocols if one decides to do so. Shark feeding is controversial and poorly researched and barring the publication of unequivocal data and results (keep watching this space!), everybody is entitled to an opinion - as long as it's not outright ludicrous and the person proffering it has some standing.
Which of course leads me straight to the world's foremost shark expert, and only professional shark-human interaction specialist! Hilarious! This is really the one time where CDNN got it right - on Ritter and incidentally, on Discovery's bite shows as well!
And I'll leave it at that!

As I said, good reading - the links, too!
Enjoy!

The proper Way

I've recently ranted about frivolous and heartless science and about Shark "experts" proffering ludicrous opinions instead of doing what is to be expected from proper scientists, and that is, to use the Scientific Method:

• ask Questions
• make Observations
• develop a Hypothesis (that is, a theoretical Explanation)
• make Predictions and then
• collect, analyze and interpret the necessary Data (that is, the Evidence, often via Experiments) in order to verify or falsify (that is, to test) that Hypothesis.
• only then, publish the results (as a Model or Theory) and have them re-tested, often by peers.

That is the only acceptable Technique to separate Truth from Belief, Science from Opinion, Superstition, Myth and Religion, fact from fiction, wheat from chaff. Worth keeping in mind when confronted with yet another piece of unproven conjecture.

Apart from "our" very own Juerg and his research on Shark Reef, here are some institutions and individuals who do serious research on the topics of the past rants:

Mexico: Dr Leonardo Castillo from Mexico's National Fisheries Institute has begun equipping thousands of Sharks with satellite, radio and plastic tags to better understand the cause for a recent spate of incidents on the Mexican Pacific Coast. I look forward to his explanations after the results have come in, as it should be. Much more tedious than taking a quick trip to Mexico in order to give a few interviews - but oh so much more credible!

Greenland Sharks: Canada's three Oceans are frequented by up to 41 species of Sharks.
GEERG, the Greenland Shark and Elasmobranch Education and Research Group is currently conducting Research on 3 of them, the Greenland, Basking and Blue , and planning research on the four Lamnids Great White, Shortfin Mako, Porbeagle and Salmon Shark. As far as I can discern, no frivolous killing involved.
The Canadian Shark Research Laboratory conducts research on some of the same Sharks, mostly by examining catches by local fishermen.
Both websites are a treasure trove of information, along with a nifty interactive Shark identification key.




And then, there's of course TOPP, the herculean effort of trying to tag, and thus record the movements of the Pacific Predators, be it cetaceans, fish, Sharks, birds or reptiles. It never ceases to intrigue and amaze me, be it by its sheer scope or by the wealth of information it regularly unveils.

Plenty to discover, plenty to learn.
Enjoy!

Shark Diving - some interesting Thoughts

From Shark Diving - "Vocation" or Sustainable Business? , a recent post by Patric Douglas, CEO of Shark Diver and Shark Diving:

"Shark diving is a study, a long term study of animal behavior.
Those in the industry who come to it looking to create a business quickly realize they are little more than wide eyed students-learning intricacies of shark behavior on a day by day basis. The teachers can be ruthless, but more often they reveal to us moments of grace and power based in lesson plans that were created over 100 million years ago. It's study that never ceases, school's never out for us, we learn from these animals each and every time we encounter them.

This is the nature of the business of commercial shark diving.

To make the bold statement that one is a "professional shark diver" is to infer that you have reached the peak of your career, that you know more about these animals than anyone else, that you have attained the level of "professional". It's a fools bet. Sharks always have something to teach us and while commercial shark diving operators have come to "understand" the animals they seek - to call us professionals would be incorrect. To be self styled even worse.

Do Buddhist monks ever call themselves professionals and carry business cards that boldly claim the same? No, they are monks, they continually grow and learn to become better monks, it's a lifetime understanding.

I submit to you that commercial shark diving is a similar lifetime understanding.
We are lucky to encounter these animals more than most folks, but we can never stop learning. If we do, if we declare a "shark vocation", then we divorce ourselves from what these animals have to teach us - and in the end will make critical mistakes that will lead to the darker teachings these animals are capable of."

Mexico: Big Shark!

Two surfers have been killed and a third one injured in an recent spate of Shark incidents on Mexico's Pacific coast. The token Shark "expert" believes the reason may partially be "unusually cool sea-surface temperatures due to the La Nina phenomenon" bringing the Sharks closer to shore.

Well, yes: "may be".

Then again, "may be" not.
TOPP's fabulous real-time tracks sure point otherwise. And there have been plenty of "eventless" La Ninas between 2008 and the last recorded Mexican attacks in 1972-1973.
Aint "science" by experts just a wonderful thing.

In the aftermath, following a ceremonial shark massacre and community panic one expert described as "everything you saw with the movie 'Jaws,' only in Spanish," mania still flares.

Because as always, the locals know best: there's one helluva Big Shark lurking out there, chomping on Mexican flagged ships.
And on the token expert trying to flee the scene.