Feeding and Conditioning Sharks - Video!

Bingo.

 

Remember this? 

And I cite,

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 = all the time and everywhere!
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? 

Now watch, and listen = it's exactly like I said back then, and the impact of our industry is absolutely irrelevant.

Story here.

Just gotta love it how they then complain about a problem they themselves have created! 

And, here's another one- see what I mean?

 

Anyway.

Let's go Shark diving - sustainably!

 

Shark Attack Horror?

 

Really - have you seen this shit?

 

Andrew is obviously totally correct, the comments are total rubbish.

He was cornered by an eager "reporter" and like we always do lest there be any misunderstandings, asked that any questions be sent to him by email.

Alas, that obviously never happened.

So there, let me try to put things into context.

• First and foremost, Mark is apparently going to recover OK.
  He's a real nice kid and we wish him the best of luck and a speedy recovery.
  
  
• He was however not merely free diving, he was spearfishing.
  As shown in literally countless examples, this can frequently lead to shark bites. Like I said many times eg here and here, it is well known that the Sharks in popular spearfishing locations like Frigate Passage can get highly conditioned = aggregate at the mere noise of a speargun being fired, get highly excited by the vibrations of a speared fish, try to nab any catch and retaliate when poked and pushed away. This is most likely what has happened here.
  In brief, do not fight with a Shark over a fish!
  To cite myself (talk about being prescient!)
  

  And if you spear fish and are not careful, you may well end up having one of those close encounters described by Jonathan - not because of us but because that is what happens everywhere around the world, see here and here among many, many such examples!

• The Shark was most likely a Grey Reefie.
  But it could also have been a Silky (no that's not a Bronzie - nor is this one!) or a Galapagos - case in point here! Bronze Whalers however are essentially antitropical and not officially recorded from Fiji.

• The experts are not. Trust me I know.
  Once again, having an opinion does not equate knowing something, and I can certainly leave it at that. Google Ultracrepidarianism, Sesselfurzer and Dunning-Kruger and you'll discern where I'm coming from. 

• The Shark feeding dives have nothing to do with this, zero.
  Once again, we have actually collected the scientific evidence that clearly illustrates that with the exception of our small harmless Whitetip Reefies, our Sharks
  a) were never resident but have instead always spent most of their time roaming throughout Fiji, and most importantly,
  b) have never depended on our handouts but have instead remained wild animals that have always continued to normally hunt their prey away from the Reserve.
  
  In brief, the fact that we feed less (yes we do still feed) has no incidence whatsoever on the well being and/or the behavior of our Sharks = they are not going hungry nor being more aggressive nor roaming further afield or anything like that - and again, this is not my opinion but evidence = fact!
  Read the links!
  
  And one more thing.
  Some quarters have suggested that our fed Sharks may have lost their natural fear of humans and may therefore have become so-called beggar Sharks and thus, more dangerous. We do not observe any of that when we dive without bait in the Reserve, and it thus makes no sense whatsoever to assume that it may be happening further afield.
  
  Again, the people who have conditioned the Sharks to approach spear fishermen are not the Shark diving operators but... the spear fishermen themselves!
  

• And no, this is not about testing let alone predation!
  Those smaller Sharks simply don't prey on humans. Instead, the bites are most certainly agonistic = due to competition and/or aggression and/or self defense/retaliation - read this about agonism and this about Shark attacks.

There you have it.

In brief, Fiji's responsible Shark feeding operations have zero effect on the safety of the population at large - re-read this.

 

Long story short?

Sadly, this is nothing more than shoddy journalism that instead of bothering to engage in even the slightest modicum of objective research and fact finding, is merely repeating some random unqualified and unsubstantiated speculation and hearsay. And by being unnecessarily sensationalistic and misleading, it contributes nothing to the safety of the public and is also bad for the Sharks.

Not impressed, sorry!

Better next time Fiji Sun!

 

PS: really interesting comments section here = note how there's none of the usual gratuitous drama. And Setareki's reminder of the ubiquitous poaching and illegal selling is obviously spot on. Like I said back then, we know the perpetrators and also the enablers, and there will be a reckoning.

PPS - Bingo: watch this - fundraiser here.

Having actually gone and asked Mark

• He was indeed spearfishing


• It was indeed a Grey Reefie


• The Shark was exhibiting the typical agonistic display of this species and then attacked twice, as they do. This also tells me that it was probably not a tourism Shark as those are used to people approaching them and have never, ever displayed agonistically during any of our feeds.


• And finally, beware of the charlatans and self professed experts on social media - really, what a sorry bunch of total losers!

More Sharks in Pacific Harbour?

Well well.

Somebody has apparently seen a Shark or two in front of Nanuku Resort and now there's a bit of a kerfuffle, with various quarters offering their opinions.

Thing is, opinions are like assholes: everybody got one. 

Look no further than Dunning Kruger and you will quickly discern that that's just simply not good enough. If you wish to be taken seriously, you really got to inform yourself before making public pronouncements - and no, educated guesses and random unrelated factoids do not qualify!

Case in point!

With all due respect, the premise of this posting is just simply 100% incorrect!

Tashi Blue has valiantly attempted to rectify the story with the media but apparently with little effect, the more as Fijjivillage has only published excerpts of her entire statement.

So there.

We look back on more than 15 years of scientific research into these specific Sharks, and our findings = the actual evidence unequivocally shows that.

• The big sharks are neither resident to the feeding sites, nor are they "territorial" = they have never only been hanging around Shark Reef or for the matter, Pac Harbour but instead, they have been visiting sporadically but have otherwise roamed all across Fiji, e.g. we have tracked them all the way to the Rewa, the Yasawas, Ba and even Vanua Levu. In fact, those mentioned Tiger Sharks are known to make astonishing trips of hundreds of miles that take them into open ocean where they then fall victim to the long liners = and you have all seen those jaws, and those of the Mako Sharks at the Suva handicraft market!
  But I'm digressing. In brief, nothing whatsoever has changed and our Sharks continue to roam the entire archipelago completely unperturbed, like they always have!
  Paper here, blog post with explanations here.


• But more importantly, their food intake on the Shark dives has always been negligible = they have never depended on our handouts and they have never stopped hunting and are not now having to change their behavior, let alone venture out of their nonexistent "territory" because we feed less and they are "going hungry" or such nonsense. In fact, we note no different behavior and/or increased aggression, or the like during our dives.
  Paper here, blog post with explanations here.

Again, this is scientific evidence = fact.

In brief, there is no factual basis for speculating that any increased Shark sightings on the beach are due to changes in the Shark feeding schedules - and please don't comment that you disagree as there really is nothing to disagree about = you may, possibly, be entitled to your opinion but you are certainly not entitled to your alternative facts unless backed by solid evidence!

And this?
Sorry, nope, that's not correct, either!
Shark populations reproduce slowly and take a long, long time to recover = a single year since the export ban is just too short to have had any notable effect. But more importantly, recent research shows unequivocally  that fishermen are targeting smaller Reef Sharks and also the riverine Shark nurseries  - not for the fins but for the meat!
Especially the latter bodes really ill for Shark populations = in fact, for what it is worth, over the past few years we've experienced less and not more Sharks!

So what about those mysterious Shark sightings.

• Firstly, that big blue expanse in front of the Nanuku Resort is called "Ocean". That happens to be where Sharks live, and an occasional sighting is only normal and should be no cause for alarm but rather, for joy as Sharks are an indicator for healthy marine ecosystems!
  In fact, the beach in front of the resort is a nursery for tiny baby Blacktip Reef Sharks that are actually very cute and perfectly harmless. Is that what the staff have seen? If so, go have a look as they are adorable! And in the past, there have also been reports of Tiger Sharks patrolling the shallows in front of the Pearl at early dawn.
  All that is normal and part of living on the coast, and it behooves us to act accordingly, see below.

• Secondly, it is important for a aquatic recreationists to make responsible decisions.
  The ocean can pose many dangers, from currents, waves, and undertow to encounters with species that can cause injury to humans, whether they be sea urchins, cone snails or even Sharks. Learning how to swim (!), not swimming in rough seas, not swimming early morning or at dusk and not swimming alone are some considerations. This is especially important now that the schools are closed and many children go to the beach = perhaps instead of being unduly alarmist, it would be a better idea to explore hiring/training life guards to monitor the most popular beaches?

But there could also be cause for concern.

I ignore whether there is really any actual increase in sightings, and if so, whether it means that there is a higher influx of Sharks  - or whether it simply means that there are more observations due to more people being on the beach.
And, are those Sharks small and harmless or big and potentially dangerous?

Anyway, let's assume the former = that there are more Sharks.

If it's not the Shark feeding dives: what may have changed to trigger such a phenomenon?

IMO look no further than Covid-19!

• When we did our tagging, one surprising result was that the bulls would aggregate in front of the Navua river (= receiver # 12) in the early evening, and this irrespective of tide. Only later did we discover the reason, i.e. people trying to avoid paying the rates by dumping their trash into the river, and that the Sharks had learned to take advantage of the windfall much like a pack of stray dogs would raid unsecured garbage bins.
  May this be an increasing phenomenon as money is tight, also with respect to the Qara-ni-Qio? And what about all the trash that is notoriously being left behind by the beachgoers, and then gets washed out to sea by the high tide? May this be attracting Fish and consequently, their predators, too?


• Have you noticed the many pop-up Fish vendors on the side of the road, and the many ads for fresh Fish in the social media, etc?
  All along the coast, many, many more people than before are fishing - for fun, for kanakana but also in order to supplement their income by legal small-scale commercial fishing but unfortunately, also by illegal commercial fishing and poaching in the MPAs including Shark Reef. We know the perpetrators and also the enablers, i.e. we know who fills the tanks of the gang of scuba diving spear fishermen, who sells them the spear guns and who fences the poached seafood etc - but tackling these things take time and for now, the shenanigans continue unabated.
  Anyway, all this massive ubiquitous fishing, spear fishing and cleaning the catch directly on the coast is bound to attract Sharks, like it does everywhere else.
  And if you spear fish and are not careful, you may well end up having one of those close encounters described by Jonathan - not because of us but because that is what happens everywhere around the world, see here and here among many, many such examples!
  
  Anyway, where I'm coming from is that fishing and spear fishing close to, or directly at the picnic beaches is just simply unconscionable, and must stop. You have all seen it with your own eyes  - next time, do something about it!

And there you have it.

More facts and action - and less opinions, speculation and idle claptrap!

Have a great day everybody!
  

White Shark Nutrition and Cage Diving - Paper!

Well well.

Remember Kátya's stellar paper?

As a reminder, it showed that despite of being fed one ton of  highly nutritious Tuna heads every week, our Sharks showed only negligible nutritional impacts, i.e. a) no evidence of bait incorporation by our non-resident Bull Sharks, whereas b) for some of our much more resident Whitetip Reefies, the Tuna incorporation was a mere 8–22%.
Consequently, we surmised that both species are not being harmed but instead continue to fulfill their ecological role practically unchanged.

Now, check this out.

I'm obviously totally not surprised.

All global cage diving regulations stipulate that the Sharks can only be teased but not fed, which far from being "good" let alone "eco", actually appears to harm them as they incur a metabolic loss as a consequence - and if our highly fed Bulls show no bait incorporation, there was never any way that the tiny amount of Tuna pilfered by those GWS would have any effect at all!

And then there is this, and I cite,

The provisioning attracts a number of animals, including birds, teleosts and other chondrichthyans, some of which are potential white shark prey items (e.g. yellowtail kingfish Seriola lalandi, bronze whalers Carcharhinus brachyurus, and rays). However, the shark's unaltered diet negates concerns that large groups of teleosts, encouraged by the presence of bait and chum, create additional feeding opportunities around the cage-diving operators....

Additionally, dive operators and scientists have yet to witness attempted predation on any of the species attracted by the bait and chum, despite close proximity and apparent ease of capture (pers. com. A. Fox and A. Wright). This combination of observation and dietary biomarkers negates the hypotheses that provisioning creates additional or unnatural foraging opportunities for white sharks around cage-diving operations.

Bingo - this is totally our observation, too! 

Those prey items obviously know that the Sharks are there and remain highly vigilant - and having lost the element of surprise, those Sharks don't even bother trying.

And there you have it.

Well done Lauren and Charlie for having added another piece to the puzzle - and I may add, for once again exposing all those irritating unsubstantiated reservations by our detractors as being just that, and pretty much rubbish to boot! 

Anyway.

Let's go Shark diving - sustainably!

  

Shark Bites - Dark Little Secret!

And talking of shit happening.

Michael has unearthed a great post by Eli.

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.

And if not, not - so let's not be stupid!

Anyway.

Let's go Shark diving - responsibly!

Enjoy Eli's post!

 

Hawaii - Shark Feeding and Shark Bites?

Yes this stupidity will eventually get you bitten - click for detail. Source.

Here we go again...
Have you seen, and above all, watched this?

Yes those Sharks are definitely conditioned.

And like Michael, I am 100% certain that they are being fed, be it via suspended bait crates and/or by feeding surreptitiously off the bow like described here, and/or by chumming secretly via the bilge pump like I've been told on the qt.  But whilst I concur with most of what Michael has posted, there are still aspects where I strongly differ.

So there.

First things first: shit happens.

Baited Shark dives are risky and despite of even the most stringent protocols, bites do happen - yes, even to us! But as long as one carries the adequate first aid equipment and as long as the staff are adequately trained (in client relations, too!), those situations can most certainly be managed. In fact and in general terms, Shark dives remain orders of magnitude safer than SCUBA, and regulation is really the very last resort - so let's not get carried away, the more as attributing causality is always gonna be more than a stretch!

And anyway, let's never forget that the folks who generally feed and condition Sharks are not the few Shark diving operators but the thousands of fishermen and spearos - with the known consequences e.g. here and here among many, many such examples!

And in this particular case?

The above matters little as Shark provisioning in Hawaii is illegal both in state waters and according to Domeier, in federal waters, too - tho in view of little Marco's recent and ultimately aborted legislative attempt, I find the latter rather surprising? Be it as it may, it is shit legislation and back then I've been opposing it vigorously - but that was in favor of Stefanie's Hawaii Shark Encounters who keep their clients in total safety inside of a floating cage.

Nowadays I see things quite a bit differently.

Partly for these reasons - but I must also confess, very much also because of Ramsey and her retinue of self promoting Shark molesters!

I'm the first one to grant that her heart is probably in the right place - but for me to ever respect, let alone endorse them, the whole exercise is just too slick and vain and profit-driven, and there are just too many inconsistencies and outright falsehoods, starting with her own name, to her claimed academic credentials, to her claimed research, to her claimed conservation achievements (no they did not "introduce" that legislation, some senators did), and the list gets longer every time I bother to look.
 

But apart from all that misleading BS, the principal problem remains that those disrespectful media $tunt$ are making a whole generation of young people want to jump into the water and hug sharks - and that those folks continue to spawn and endorse copycat commercial undertakings, see e.g. the Florida troglodytes, or this stupidity featuring this absolute genius in French Polynesia, or the persistent illegal shenanigans in Guadalupe, or little Riley who still just doesn't get it.
 

And whereas I just personally despise all that gratuitous Shark molesting, I also personally believe that throwing unprotected snorkelers into open ocean is not long term sustainable tourism - especially not in baited conditions where they immediately become part of the food chain!

Which brings me straight to that Shark bite.

The victim has since outed herself in a highly scripted statement and all I can say is, q.e.d. - may she learn the obvious lessons, stop following pied pipers and above all, stop molesting Sharks!

Anyway.

Let's go Shark diving - respectfully!

Oslob - bloody Quagmire!

Source - click for detail!

The q being, am I gonna wade straight in?

You betcha I will! :)

But fear not - this is way too complex, inconclusive and also, way too agenda-driven for me to take a strong position and start unleashing.

Just this.

Alessandro Ponzo (che tutt'ora rima con stronzo) and his cohort of Shark huggers are still at it in trying to bring down the Whale Shark feeding industry in Oslob, e.g. here. My pal Mark Meekan and creepy Judi are pushing against it which is essentially a good thing. 

And there sure is a lot of controversy as per eg this thread.

Methinks that the truth lays somewhere in the middle.

Despite of their best efforts, the detractors have so far failed to come up with clear evidence that the Sharks are being harmed, period - and in that respect, invoking the precautionary principle and asking for the reversal of the burden of proof is just unacceptable, especially considering the consequences for the local community.

But that's obviously not the whole story.

The documented non-adherence to the protocols is a cause for concern and needs to be addressed - this especially considering that the financial success of Oslob is already spawning copycat procedures = feeding in other juvenile Whale Shark aggregations across the Coral Triangle. The massive demand for these interactions can easily lead to unchecked development and if so, it is certain to have deleterious consequences if not managed properly - so once again, people get your fucking act together!

And that's it.

Once again it's probably not the WHAT but the HOW - and whereas for now the what appears unproblematic, the how needs urgent attention!

In diesem Sinne.

Let's go Shark diving - responsibly!

Martin about Shark Feeding!

Ring a bell? Click for detail - source.

Read this.

Very nice, and thanks!

The part about Shark feeding mostly echoes what we've been asserting for now many years, to wit this rather random collection of posts. And check this out, too - or if you really got too much time on your hands, feel free to peruse this about Shark feeding in particular and this about our industry in general!

Yes it is complicated - but then again, maybe not so much!

And the conservation aspect?

Yes some of us very much including Martin's Shark Diver are deeply embedded into conservation, and there is even a global alliance of Shark diving operators whose members must have a track record of being active in both conservation and research.

But I would argue that we are the exception.

Yes nowadays everybody is "Eco", and everybody is raising awareness and dispelling the myth, and all of that nonsense.
But the Shark diving industry is obviously a business where one needs to make a profit - and whereas those breathy pronouncements that one is doing it For the Sharks are cheap, pun intended, actually devoting resources to conservation (and research) is costly and time consuming - even if in the long term, protecting one's principal business asset would obviously be a great business strategy!

And all those awareness-raising media?

I will even concede that even when prima facie it's all about personal vanity and $$$, the heart is often in the right place. But as per the comment of JoySeaGal, I can categorically assure you that when advocating Shark conservation with the Authorities, those narcissistic media count for less than nothing! 

Oh and incidentally, this is how you do it correctly = this is strategic, intelligent, focused, targeted and with zero personal ego involved!

Anyway.

Ultimately, one has to look at real track records.

Ultimately, the only thing that counts are tangible benefits for Shark populations - and there, the overall impact of Shark diving operators is rather dismal, especially when compared to the awesome potential.

Alas!

But I'm digressing as always.

Thank you Martin - and yes I will gladly confess that we are mighty proud of our achievements.
Shark tourism is certainly not the be-all and end-all solution to Shark overfishing, and much remains to be done, also in Fiji - but we're certainly working on it, and we're even collecting funds for implementing some forward-looking local remedies.

In diesem Sinne - let's go Shark diving!

And please, Adopt Your Shark Now, the more as Valentine's Day is beckoning!
Hint hint!

Vinaka Vakalevu.

SHARKNADO SHARKDIVING in Japan!

Source - click for detail!

Just saw this today.

Very cool.
Those are Banded Houndsharks - story here.
Enjoy!

You Are What You Eat - Paper!

Our Whitetip Reefies - happy, well fed and healthy!

And talking of Shark feeding.

And I cite,

The suite of studies available for this site is likely the most comprehensive body of work to date comparing the impacts of tourism on a predator species' behaviour and fitness with conservation and economic benefits.
The various studies address a range of potential issues (e.g. residency, habitat use, consumption of bait, energetic value of bait and diet) and provide a good example of how site-specific information, obtained from multiple methods, can contribute for an effective, evidence- based, management of the predator tourism industry.

Similar multi-methods approaches can be applied to other aquatic and terrestrial wildlife tourism species/operations, to move beyond our current understanding of tourism-driven behavioural and ecological changes, and provide a more holistic understanding of the effects of provisioning on the health and fitness of the target species.

Indeed - and we're mighty proud! :)

And here comes the latest, but by no means last paper investigating the effects of what we do!

I must say that I'm really happy.

This time, we've looked at the consequences of feeding non-resident Sharks, i.e. our Bull Sharks vs feeding much more resident ones, i.e. our Whitetip Reefies.

As a backdrop, keep in mind that we don't merely tease our Sharks like the GWS people do: our Sharks have been fed approx 1 ton of Tuna heads per week (!) for more than 20 years, meaning that they may well be the most, and I may add, best fed tourism Sharks on the planet - and not only that: our research has also shown that far from being junk, those Tuna heads are also highly nutritious!

And with that in mind, the results are simply spectacular.

Stable isotope analysis reveals that there is no evidence of bait incorporation by Bull Sharks; and even for some of the much more resident Whitetip Reefies, the results suggest a mere 8–22% importance of bait, this based on individual preferences - or as the paper states,

Results from the present study, particularly when combined with information from previous studies at this feeding site (Brunnschweiler et al., 2010, 2014;Brunnschweiler and Baensch, 2011; Brunnschweiler and Barnett, 2013;Brunnschweiler et al., 2017), suggest that current levels of provisioning lead to no detrimental long-term impacts on the behaviour or diet (and probably health) of sharks at the Shark Reef Marine Reserve site.

Bingo.

In brief, our feeding does certainly not harm our Bulls - and it equally does not harm the environment as they continue to fulfill their ecological role by quasi exclusively relying on their normal prey.
And when it comes to the Whitetip Reefies, we are actually presently investigating whether instead of feeding them too much, we may actually be feeding too little like what has been shown at Osprey Reef!
 
And not only that!
This is a strong indications that all other global Shark feeds that feed less, less frequently and have done so for a shorter period of time are likely to be unproblematic, too!

Long story short?

Time after time after time again all the evidence points to the fact that the reservations against Shark tourism in general and Shark feeding in particular are largely unfounded and that in the big scheme of things, far from posing a problem, we are one of the safest and most responsible ecotourism activities and as such, very much a part of the solution!

So well done team - this is just awesome!

My particular gratitude goes to Kátya for being so proficient and rigorous in her analysis, and for never losing her faith and her charm despite of the challenges of essentially working pro bono whilst raising a family, and of having to weather a grueling peer review process.

Thank you!

And our detractors?

Ultimately, they cannot be reformed and will surely continue to come up with ever new unsubstantiated hypotheses, and criticize and nitpick whenever they can.
But at this stage in the game and in view of all the unequivocal evidence, it is for them to finally come up with some fucking evidence, see Juerg's comments here - and failing that, they really need to shut the fuck up!

Anyway.

Enjoy Kátya's paper - this is an author's link so make sure you preserve the text as it may well disappear behind a paywall in the future!

Let's go Shark diving!

The Impact of GWS Cage Diving - Paper!

Source.

Bingo, and I cite,

"Best practice" among cage diving operations apparently consists in just teasing, but never actually handing any bait to the Sharks.
Were I a Shark hugger, I would immediately object that letting the Sharks waste precious energy on fruitless "hunts" is to be rejected as it is likely harmful to the animals.

Yup that would be yours truly a whopping ten years ago!

And now Charlie has concluded his investigation and comes to the following conclusion (emphasis is mine)

Although sharks are enticed to the cage-diving vessels with baits, industry regulations do not allow operators to feed white sharks and strict limits on the amount of bait and berley are now in place in South Australia and at other white shark cage-diving locations (Bruce, 2015).
Energy burden from the increased activity is, therefore, not rewarded by regular bait provisioning.

Some baits can, however, be consumed when sharks approach the baits using high speed or stealth (Huveneers et al., 2015).
The baits used in SA are composed of gills and stomach lining of southern bluefin tuna and are not as energy-rich as white shark’s natural prey while at these sites (e.g. pinnipeds). Whether the infrequent consumption of these baits provide sufficient energy to compensate for the increased energy expenditure associated with sharks interacting with the operators would depend on the calorific value of these baits and the frequency of white sharks successfully feeding on the baits, both of which are currently unknown (Brunnschweiler et al., 2017).
Spending time interacting with cage-diving operators might also distract sharks from normal behaviours such as foraging on natural, energy-rich prey like pinnipeds.
Combined, these suggest that the increased energy expenditure associated with cage-diving interactions might not be compensated for by either bait or natural prey consumption.

One could, therefore, argue that white sharks should be able to feed on some bait to compensate for the energetic losses resulting from interacting with cage-diving operators.
Bioenergetic models (e.g. Barnett et al., 2016) would, however, be necessary to accurately assess the likely effect of cage-diving on white shark energy balance and whether such compensation is necessary or beneficial. Beyond the potential for short-term energy intake, other aspects of food provisioning (e.g. quality of food, potential for changes in foraging behaviour) would also need to be considered.

Good one - and obviously, totally not surprised!

This is now the second paper (re-read this!) stating that NOT feeding is probably not a good idea - and whereas I concur that further investigation into the precise energy balance, etc may be beneficial, we should really not caught up in minutiae and finally do the right thing.

So what's it gonna be?  

Now that the evidence is in, will the regulators in Australia and elsewhere do the right thing and allow for proper feeding of those Sharks - or are they going to continue cow-towing to those in the populace who will contend that it would lead to more Shark attacks, and the like?
Remember that when it comes to feeding and conditioning Sharks, 99.999% is being perpetrated by the fishermen and not us - so assuming that it really is a big problem (spoiler = it aint: these are the real problems, with overfishing being the principal threat to Shark populations) let's maybe first look there! !

Anybody taking bets?

Anyway, enjoy Charlie's paper!

To be continued no doubt!

Shark feeding in Bora Bora - Paper!

Oh well.

Eric keeps cranking therm out, and I am irritated.

This time it's about those Lemon Shark feeds in Bora Bora, and several Shark bites that ensued, which is incidentally much like what happened with those Lemons in Moorea. 

The description of the events is probably correct and like I said back here, much if not all is a direct consequence of those being multi-user sites with poor and/or not commonly observed feeding protocols, and with competitive pressure and bravado leading to unsustainable practices.
Once again it's same old same old and as such, really quite boring - the more as barring a miracle, those French Polynesian dives are very likely a thing of the past anyway!

But I remain irritated.

This is because Table 1 appears to want to expand those species-, location- and context-specific observations to Shark diving in general, and appears to suggest that especially hand feeding will inevitably lead to bites as per the annoying depiction at the top - click for detail.

No don't worry I'm not going to unleash.

In their generalization, those assertions are simply not correct - and I will gladly leave it at that as we Shark divers know better, and as the naysayers cannot been swayed anyway.

Just this.

Despite of all the breathy punditry, ranging from frankly idiotic to simply frustrating, Shark diving remains orders of magnitude safer than SCUBA - and from a human safety perspective, that is really all one has to know. Choose a responsible operator with good safety protocols both in the water and especially also when it comes to managing potential accidents (= first aid gear and training? Evacuation procedure? Ask!!!), and you should be just fine.

And when it comes to the other real and perceived potential effects of Shark diving, you may want to re-read e.g. this or any other post I've written on the topic.

And anyway.

Let's go Shark diving!

Herwarth and Vreni - simply epic!

Source.

Remember this post - sure you do! :)

Well here they are in all their glory.

This was just the beginning as the gals were then coerced to mouth feed whilst topless - and of course the whole thing then ended in tears. And yes talk about Déjà vu huh = nihil novum, especially not the bikini bimbettes!

Huge H/T to the Saffron Pimpernel for having unearthed this gem!

What Rebecca said!

Still one of the very best feeding pics from the SRMR!

You really must read this.

Bravo Re - this is exhaustive, balanced, insightful and truthful.

Could not have said it better myself - and you are so much more objective, and also charming (!) than I will ever be - to wit you did not use the f word even one single time! :)

Kudos!

No more Shark Feeding in French Polynesia?

Problematic - unregulated Elasmobranch feeding with snorkelers. Source.

Remember this stupidity?

Alas, it ain't going away - on the contrary!

According to this piece, the new Environmental Law of French Polynesia is targeting both Elasmobranch feeding and Whale watching, see page 2416ff. The law has been published without any proper scientific backing and zero consultations with the concerned stakeholders, and the operators are said to be in a state of shock. Both activities have been a mainstay of French Polynesia's tourism industry for many decades, and in the case of Shark diving both in baited and unbaited conditions, many constant refinements that have taken place of the years make this one of the most sustainable, exhilarating and safe such activities anywhere.

The rules are still to be translated into specific regulations. 

So here's to cooler heads prevailing, and that this will merely result in better management and supervision, which is probably a good thing - this NOT because of the infamous Tiger Shark dives at the Vallée Blanche that are actually extremely well conducted and very safe indeed, but because of the many unregulated snorkeling tours with Reefies and Stingrays in baited conditions, see e.g. here that are definitely a cause for concern.

So I remain hopeful - for now!

French Polynesia is awash with excellent Shark researchers who have collected a plethora of data and can easily inform the authorities. Right now as a friend remarks c'est bien n'importe quoi - and one can most certainly do better.

To be continued no doubt - keep watching this space!
 

Bulking up at Shark Reef - Paper!

Great stuff - and I cite,

With provisioning occurring 3–4 times per week at the SRMR and focal individuals consuming an average of ~0.74 heads per provisioning day, we estimate that these sharks consume ~2.6 provisioned tuna heads per week, which is similar to our estimate of food required to meet their weekly energy budget (2.3 heads per week).
As such, it appears that our focal sharks may be fuelling their energy requirements exclusively from provisioning. However, considering that encounter rates vary widely among individuals and between months and that electronic tracking data show that individuals intermittently leave the area for a few consecutive days, weeks to months throughout the year before returning to the feeding site (Brunnschweiler et al., 2010; Brunnschweiler & Barnett, 2013), at the most this may only be the case for some individuals at certain times of the year (e.g. at the beginning of a calendar year).
....
The foremost limitation to this study is that data and inferences are based on 10 individuals observed on 36 days. 
These 10 individuals may be bolder than other bull sharks encountered at the SRMR and thus predisposed to take food and, hence, the patterns found for these individuals may not reflect all the bull sharks in the area. Given the variable number of sharks at feeding events and days individuals are absent from feeding events (Brunnschweiler & Baensch, 2011; Brunnschweiler & Barnett, 2013), further work is needed to determine the importance of tuna heads compared with natural prey in bull shark diets, for example, stable isotope analysis.

So there you have it.

Very surprisingly indeed, those Tuna heads we feed are not at all rubbish but instead a valuable supplement that can help bulk up our Sharks when they come back all exhausted and emaciated after the pupping and birthing season - and I can fully confirm that we've seen many an individual Shark become chubby and happy again after only a few visits!

But what about the potential negative aspects?

Could we be overfeeding them, and could we be subtracting them from the regulatory role they got to play in the environment?

Likely not, as a) the feeding frequency is not uniform but highly individual and determined by individual dominance and/or boldness, b) our observations tell us that those same dominant Bulls do not simply gorge themselves but clearly stop feeding once they got enough and c) our Bull Sharks are not resident but only sporadic visitors whereby individual site fidelity and thus residency is by no means uniform let alone increasing but instead varies greatly from year to year - re-read this post and paper!

But that's obviously not hard evidence but (highly) educated guess.

Hence the suggestion that one examine the Bull Sharks' diet via e.g. stable isotope analysis - and without wanting to preempt anything, I can state with great confidence that you will need to keep watching this space! :)

And this stupidity with its even stupider title?

Re-read this: the actual problem is not the provisioning per se but the disturbance of the Whitetips' diel rhythm, and not the fact that they are being fed but instead, the fact that they are not getting enough food and are incurring a metabolic loss as a consequence! 

Incidentally, much like at those cage dives where in their collective wisdom, the regulators have decreed that the GWS must chase teaser baits without ever being fed - and even more so in e.g. Shark Alley where they are being lured into wasting heaps of energy on fruitless breaches so that the photographers can get their shots!

Detail detail!

But I'm digressing as usual.

Enjoy Juerg's paper (and here)!

Tiger Shark Movements at Tiger Beach - Paper!

You can visit the iconic Tiger Beach with GSD members Jim Abernethy Scuba Adventures and Epic Diving.

Good one!

Read this.

If I understand it correctly, it appears that the effects of provisioning at Tiger Beach are, if at all, minimal insofar as the Shark diving schedules appear to have an only negligible influence on overall Tiger Shark movements, and as the large majority of individual Sharks did leave for their annual migrations as already described many years ago.

And the four homebodies?

Maybe they just like it there, maybe they're in love with Jimmy or Eli, maybe they're just lazy or maybe that's just the "right" amount of Tigers in that area, who knows - plus, as our own research has shown, residency may be completely different in another year!

Long story short?

This is once again evidence that Shark tourism in general and Shark provisioning in  particular appear unproblematic at the ecosystem level whereas at finer scales, effects are, if at all, clearly sub-lethal. Granted it's merely a data point - but the evidence is certainly mounting!

And our increasingly irritating detractors? Like I never cease to repeat, come up with some fucking evidence or shut the fuck up! 

But I'm digressing as usual.

Enjoy Neil et al's interesting paper!

 

Pétition: à la Poubelle!

Shark diving in French Polynesia - quite safe and totally sustainable. Source.

Have you seen this?

Seriously, don't sign that shit.

It got zero foundation in fact and is nothing but the old tired anti-industry fearmongering - and no I'm not gonna repeat myself, the more since as a reader of this blog you know exactly what I'm talking about, e.g. here, with links.

Just this.

The disappointing oblique endorsement by the Shark Girl whose career has been predicated upon being depicted clowning around on dozens upon dozens of provisioned Shark dives smacks at best of naivety and at worst, of total hypocrisy.

And, gents.

This is the moment to look at the big picture, and your presence and contribution to the IPFC 10 (especially to D and H) is going to be a great chance to address and debunk this stupid controversy.

I'm sure you understand - je vous fais confiance! :)

 

Are we killing them with Kindness?

No we are certainly NOT!

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 quite nice - 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!
 

No hard feelings, love you all! :)