IUCN - Media Media!

Wow - and not in a good way!
Wait til Randy sees it!

Watch this.

With all due respect - this is embarrassing.

I've now watched it four times and am still distracted by the amateurish editing, horrible images and clumsiness of the narrators. The shark conservation universe is awash in incredibly talented editing outfits for whom producing this PSA, for free, would have been both an honor and an opportunity - especially considering the importance of the paper and the prestige of the authors!

Seriously, you may want to consider soliciting expressions of interest for producing a v2?

Anyway.

More when I got time to read the paper.

18-Foot GWS!

And it ROARS!

Finally!

Behold the PROOF that Sharknado is scientifically correct!

Which  brings me to a glaring omission in yesterday's list!

• Control you media.
  You got to carefully screen the productions you host - and be very wary of those ad hoc so-called experiments (and here!) that are inevitably total and utter crap!
  Especially those producers of Shark porn are very good at identifying the newbies who would do anything for the perceived fame and marketing advantages of being "featured" on Shark Week. Those productions are always a losing bet, and the operators are then left to clean up the mess long after those people have moved on to greener pastures.
  And then, there are all those customers with cameras that will gleefully post any mishaps to YouTube if not managed!

So what about the above.

Is this in any way conducive to allaying the reservations of the detractors - or instead, may Peter Scott just have foolishly handed them more anti Shark feeding ammunition on a golden platter?

Does Shark Week harm Conservation Efforts?

Maybe!

But IMO it's more of an ethical than a practical issue.

This new article in Scientific American echoes the known reservations by Chris Palmer and many others about the widespread fakery in wildlife films that has just reached a new ignominious peak in the Megalodon fabrication. I've already blogged about this topic years ago and invite you to go and read it here - and here is one of several posts about the best way to go about when producing advocacy films, that is to showcase the positive and fascinating aspects instead of trying to shock the audience, especially if we wish to reach out beyond our own circles and not continue to preach to the choir. Love not Loss!

That's the theory, and the arguments are I believe impeccable.

But what about the practical implications?

Will people who love the film vote in a positive way for senators and congressmen who will vote in a more sustainable manner like Palmer asserts? Yes, maybe - but if so, that would be a tiny interested minority, the more as I don't recall one single political campaign focusing on marine conservation, let alone on the conservation of Sharks?

Like I said, it's more of an ethical debate.

And in that sense, those programs are a total abomination!

para_sight is of course absolutely correct in his observation that as long as the ratings remain so stellar, Discovery couldn't give a shit and will continue laughing all the way to the bank. But what about those fake conservationists who enable and endorse that shit - think they are equally impervious to criticism?

We shall see - and I may add, so far so bad!

And in the big scheme of things?

There, I would surmise that this conversation is totally irrelevant!

I can promise you that the thousands of fishermen in Indonesia, India, Spain, Taiwan, Argentina, Mexico, United States of America, Malaysia, Pakistan, Brazil, Japan, France, New Zealand, Thailand, Portugal, Nigeria, Islamic Republic of Iran, Sri Lanka, Republic of Korea and Yemen do not kill those Sharks because they hate them owing to having watched Jaws or for the matter, the Shark porn on Discovery! And by the same token, I can equally promise you that they will not stop killing them because of the latest inane video clip of the token bimbette swimming loops around a perplexed OWT!

I mean, seriously - that argument is so stupid, it is frankly embarrassing!

I'm not saying that good wildlife programming is not beneficial.

It is very much so, especially in the long term. It may indeed sway voters and possibly change the political discourse - tho considering that An Inconvenient Truth failed to spark any substantive policy despite of an Oscar, plus a Nobel Prize for Gore and the IPCC I'm alas rather skeptical. 

But those excellent productions will undoubtedly again arouse a new generation of advocates, conservationists and researchers, and those will hopefully make a contribution for the better. As an example, I'm convinced that we would be still condoning the killing of the big cats for trophies and fur coats, and that we would still be purchasing ivory trinkets and tortoise eyeglass frames were it not for those past stellar wildlife documentaries!

So by all means, keep at it!

But can we please stop those stupidities.

All those pathetic shark videos by those desperate self promoters with big cameras and small talents that are being pushed around the film festival circuit, to be acclaimed by the vegan organic cotton and Birkenstock mob. All those atrocious Shark conservation edits on YouTube that are an insult to one's intelligence. 

And especially all those media featuring those Shark-molesting scantily clad bimbos who are doubly pathetic once one realizes that they are merely being pimped, for profit, by those very same producers and camera-toting dudes! Seriously, conservation is literally awash in incredibly smart, committed, hard working and emancipated women who are quietly doing terrific work for Shark conservation, largely away from the public eye - and not a single one would demean and embarrass herself in that way, ever! 

Any names come to mind?

And if so, why are we tolerating all that bullshit?

And Shark Weeek?

Meh. Up to you. 

Watch it, or don't - it doesn't really matter one way or the other.

Christine - stellar!

Apologies!

I obviously did not due my due diligence.

When I wrote that I frankly don't quite know what she is currently doing, I should have taken the time to go and check! Turns out that Christine Shepard is very much the person behind Neil's stellar media outreach - and more than that, she has even found the time to describe her work in this brilliant little video!

Once again, this is really as good as it gets.

Not only because of the great images and because it really motivates people to follow, and even participate in those research ventures; but above all, because I discern none of the ego, agendas and primadonna shenanigans I bemoan in so many others - and let there be no doubt that this is WAY more professional and WAY more appealing, too!

Anyway.

Enjoy!

Singapore - the Shark Fin industry strikes back!

Infographic by the SOSF - read this!

Gotta hand it to the man.
Dr Choo-hoo Giam (BVSc, MRCVS (England), Member, Animals committee, UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is crafty.
From the document.

By repetition and media advertorials, the world is misled into believing that

• 73 million sharks are killed specifically for their fins

• Most of the fins are cruelly taken from live sharks.

The world is repeatedly told that sharks are endangered, and in a dire strait. The shark status is posited as equivalent to that of the orang utan, panda, gorilla, elephants, and caviar. An examination of the facts, and practices of countries, shows otherwise.

• 1. There are more than 400 shark species.
  It is wrong to say that sharks are endangered. It is akin to saying birds are endangered. Some cockatoos are, but not crows and house sparrows.

• 4. It would seem that no country considers sharks to be globally endangered.
  No country has proposed to list sharks in CITES Appendix I after the listing of the sawfish in 2007. This is not the case with other wildlife. At the last CITES Conference of the Parties (COP), Qatar, 2010, Monaco proposed that the Atlantic blue fin tuna be in Appendix I. This proposal was supported by many countries. Only a few sharks were proposed to be listed in Appendix II. They were all rejected by the meeting.

Of course he is right.
The only verified number we currently dispose of is 38 million (plus or minus) for the number of Sharks whose fins were being traded more than ten years ago. Now, that trade is probably larger and there are obviously also Sharks that are being killed but whose fins are not being traded - but at this point in time, that's all we can really say.
It is also true that not all Sharks are threatened with extinction etc.

The lesson?
We need to stop bullshitting because we will get caught out!

But the man is of course a total moron and hypocrite.
What he says sounds right but is of course bullshit - at best disingenuous and actually nothing more than (crafty) denialism and classical disinformation, and very likely paid for by the Shark fin industry.
A friend informs me that

Despite the "CITES" credentials, Giam and Jenkins are shark fin trade lobbyists with a major conflict of interest. They claim that CITES listing determines whether or not a species is threatened, yet have used their positions within CITES to actively lobby against listing for every shark species (and other marine species) ever proposed for CITES listing.
Not because the species don't meet the criteria --- but because they say that CITES should not regulate ANY marine species.

I actually happen to concur with the latter part as I also think that the best forum for managing, and thus regulating fisheries are local governments and RFMOs - but that's certainly debatable and another story altogether.

The story here is this panel discussion in Singapore.
I've done some digging and found this transcript that depicts a narrative which is, very much unsurprisingly, completely different from the sloppy (or maybe biased?) reporting by the journalists. Much of what has been actually said has merit and that, not the article will be the basis of the following.
And check out this remarkable video.

Prof. Steve Oakley's presentation here!
Now, compare that to the article!

There have also been some reactions.
I must confess that despite of several valid points he raises, I did not like the undertone of David's post - alas!
Sorry buddy, you know that I really do like you - but in the softest possible way, framing the debate in terms of class warfare does not address the problems and just adds another layer of unproductive acrimony. Do we really want to establish fair trade practices that will make it more appealing for those poor people to target Sharks? And what's wrong with managing stocks and advocating sustainability?
But such is the nature of rants - sometimes one (not me!) gets a bit carried away ! :)

Conversely, I am totally impressed by this post by Shark Savers!
Awesome! This is a must read, and the different fact sheets are as good as it gets - do keep them handy as they provide for excellent arguments for any such debates!
Anyway, the post completely dismantles Giam's propaganda and pseudo-arguments and for once, there is really nothing I could possibly add to the debate about this particular event!
Huge kudos!

There's one lesson to be learned however.
Media control is incredibly important! When getting the message out always submit written materials etc - especially when confronting crafty opponents!
The good news: in all the brouhaha, this has ended up by generating excellent pro-Shark media and Giam is now definitely outed as the shit he is! :)

But what about the big picture?
I very much concur with Oakley and Louis: long term, the solution can only consist in strict sustainability and proper management!

Please, do re-read this post - seriously, please do!
So there.

• Like those of most big predatory Fishes, the stocks of most of those Sharks that are being targeted commercially have crashed.
  That's a well documented fact and no amount of rhetoric will ever detract from it. Other Shark populations are equally greatly diminished by wasteful fishing practices like bottom trawling that is ravaging the demersal Sharks, and others have been practically wiped out by too much pressure by too many artisanal fishermen. In that respect, I do not at all subscribe to so-called "indigenous rights" or whatever if it means that those fisheries are not to be managed.
  The above effects are often local/regional rather than global and thus each local/regional fishery must be examined separately.
  
  
• Those depleted stocks must be allowed to recover before we can even begin to start talking about sustainability.
  That recovery will take many years and until that happens (which is unlikely as fishing is certainly not the only threat Sharks face), we the conservationists must continue to push for Shark conservation by every strategy we can possibly think of - including Giam's hypocritical if campaigners want to protect sharks, they should get their governments to ban shark catching!
  We may sometimes differ about what are the best strategies, but certainly not about the ultimate goal!
  
  
• We must also invoke the precautionary principle and turn around the burden of proof.
  Instead of us having to do all the heavy lifting, let the fishermen prove unequivocally and attain independent certification that a particular stock has recovered (not so easy: read this!!!) and that it can be fished sustainably. Doing so is in their very own interest as only sustainable fishing will ensure that the industry (and the jobs and the income) can survive in the long term.
  
  
• Sustainability has to be defined in the broadest possible sense, meaning that the definition has to encompass all aspects of the fishery like population & management parameters but also e.g. fishing techniques (no finning!), bycatch mitigation and collateral effects on the habitat etc - and yes, why not also David's fair trade!
  
  
• But once the criteria have been met, there is no objective reason to prohibit Shark fishing and if by then, people in Asia still want to eat the fins, they can certainly do so.
  Right now, the BC Spiny Dogfish fishery is certified and despite of the widespread reservations against the MSC, at least one researcher deems that the certification is OK. If so, I really see no reason why the fins cannot be consumed - but let the fin traders, not the authorities, prove whether the fins they are selling are legit!
  
  
• Some countries may still opt not to fish for Sharks even if it could be done in sustainable numbers. I'm thinking about those highly tourism dependent island countries where other considerations may prevail, like in this case study from Kiribas. But of course, I'm principally thinking of those countries that have already established sanctuaries and are already reaping the benefits of having done so.
  If so, kudos to them for looking beyond the strict short term!
  

Anyway.
As always, just my two cents!

Trackback.
David's riposte here - now I'm embarrassed! :)
Patric on developing new talking points whilst ditching the old ones here.

Mega Jaws - Pop or Porn?

Have we all been screwed?

Meaning myself, BAD, Kristina from Niuwave Media who acted as the local facilitator and put her reputation on the line, as did Papa who mediated the contacts to a storyteller in Rukua, the Tui Cacau who graciously agreed to being interviewed, the Fiji Audio Visual Commission who facilitated the shoot – and above all, Fijian ancestral beliefs and traditions?
I hope not – but things sure look suspect!

I’m talking about Mega Jaws by Yap Films.
It has just aired on History Channel Canada and is slated for SyFy as part of Beast Legends , a series about mythical creatures that are being re-created through computer graphics. The episode explores the legend of Dakuwaqa, Fiji’s best know, albeit by no means only Shark God.
And yes, we were part of it!

From our initial correspondence.

Day 2 - The bite force test - we have obtained a Gnathodynamometer from the University of Oklahoma. The Gnathodynamometer measures the bite force of sharks. We would like to have Steve dive with it. Is that possible? We can bring it and have you and your team check it out.

"Experiments": as already discussed, I believe that kind of "off-the-cuff" stuff to be utterly useless, scientifically irrelevant and in the present case, a disservice to sharks which are once again being reduced to "teeth", if you get what I mean. I actually blogged about just such a "feat" here. So, the bad news is that the answer is "no thanks".

I assure you that we are not reducing sharks to merely "teeth."
In fact, we are hoping to work with Dr. Sam Gruber to show just how intelligent sharks are. We have had extensive discussions with him already and I am very hopeful that we will be able to work with him.

Day 4 - Final Sequence - Dakuwaqa prevents a modern day pirate ship boat from pirating.

Dakuwaqa preventing piracy etc.
Look, in the softest possible way, some tribes here really believe in the Shark God and one must be culturally sensitive. You would also not dream about re-writing the Holy Bible and staging some bogus miracle by Jesus Christ which you just happen to make up on the fly - right? Thing is, there's no piracy in Fiji and even if there were, D just doesn't do those things. D helps members of selected tribes by guarding their boats during ocean crossings and by saving those people (and no others) when they may get shipwrecked. He apparently also punishes miscreants on Taveuni. He also will not attack the people of Kadavu as he lost the fight with Kadavu's guardian spirit, the Octopus. He apparently also helps corral the fish during fish drives on Beqa. Full stop.
What you propose is going to be viewed by some as sacrilege and the last thing we want is to be the operation that has enabled that stuff. So, if you want to re-enact anything, do re-enact what people will tell you when you interview them whilst you're scouting.

Piracy – Your notes are completely understandable.
The problem that I am having is that we are operating without knowing exactly what we will hear from the tribal leaders. My hope is to have Kristina from Niuwave visit them this week so that we have a better idea of what we’ll hear about DW from them. Once this happens we can start to write the scenes of our show based directly on what hear from the tribal chiefs. This is quite urgent as there are computer graphic portions of our show that need to be confirmed and approved as soon as possible. We also don’t want to offend anyone and want to describe and portray the legend accurately.

Keep in mind that once again, people here really do believe in the legends as part of their unique cultural heritage and that it is not automatic that they will be willing to share them with outsiders - this requires a lot of respect and cultural sensitivity and needs to be approached accordingly.
I cannot emphasize enough that Fiji is not Hawaii with its bogus "traditions" and that the indigenous population are proud of their heritage and thus need to be treated with respect and not as some actors in some kind of "native soap opera". Having said this, there's no need to embellish anything anyway: you will be able to record fascinating stories against the backdrop of a fascinating country, people and huge predatory sharks: more than enough for great programming! Are we on the same page regarding this?

I hope my answers above show that we are on the same page.
If you have any concerns or comments please let me know and it would be great to keep the lines of communication open as we move forward. I am really looking forward to working with you.

Light blue is yours truly, dark blue is Jeff Thrasher of Yap who acted as Director.

The Fiji shoot was not easy.
During our research, we came to understand that the legend of Dakuwaqa is complicated and that different traditions are in part contradictory. Untangling the confusion is difficult as people won't easily share with strangers, the more as they have been convinced that upholding their ancestral beliefs may be regarded as being un-Christian.

As a minimum, there’s one Dakuwaqa who may be living in the village of Rukua on Beqa but who may have also left when the Fisherman Clan of Rukua re-located to the islet of Benau near Taveuni following a dispute over a sweet pudding.
Then, there’s also a Dakuwaqa who was born as a human being but went to live in the sea whereas his brother became the first Tui Cacau, or Paramount Chief of the province of Caucadrove encompassing parts of Vanua Levu and Taveuni.
And then, there’s also another Dakuwaqa of unknown origins that likes to engage in fights and is mentioned in the legend about why Sharks don’t attack the islanders of Kadavu.
And yes, there's more!

Anyway, Jeff arrived with Associate Producer Alex McIntosh, likeable hosts dashing Steve Leonard and Kathryn Denning (beautiful, majestic killing machines??? Really???) and filmed on the Shark dive, in Rukua and on Taveuni.
Apart from the inevitable clusterfuck and raw nerves, the shoot was uneventful, the animals cooperated, the team was genuinely pleasant and everybody seemed very happy with the results.

Once they were back in Canada, we had the following exchange.

As per today’s conversation, I’m giving you my footage for free.
I know that you and Alex understand that Dakuwaqa must be treated differently than, say, Dragons as this is not a legend but a living God. We’ve talked about it before, you can thus just not “add” to the story by inventing stuff like the “pirate attack” etc, the same as you can also not “add” to the Bible. I also know that you understand that I’m a Shark conservationist and as such take exception to people reducing Sharks to teeth, aggression and attacks. Hence the following conditions: you may NOT use my footage if in the final edit

• Dakuwaqa turns into some toothy aggressive monster, etc (he is essentially a protector)

• The Sharks are being depicted along the usual stereotypes, with mention of attacks, testosterone , aggression and the like. You have now witnessed yourselves how timid they really are despite of their size.

Also, that footage is for this show only and must be destroyed upon the completion of the show.

I assure that we meet the requests that you laid out in your email and are not painting sharks and vicious, predator machines.
We have acknowledged your requests and have a copy of your email with the materials release that you signed while we worked together in Fiji. The show is coming together quite well and I think you'll be very happy with it. The underwater cinematography is impressive across the board and the shark feeding/dive scenes are amazing. I am sure you’ll also be happy with how our story is respectful of the Fijian people and their culture.

So, I hear you ask, what’s the fuss all about?
Why I’m increasingly concerned is that I literally stumbled across a synopsis of the episode on the Beast Legend website. As far as I can remember, it explains that after Fiji, the team travels to Florida to meet Burgess who assists in reconstructing the jaws of a Shark that is larger than the Megalodon to serve as a template for the Shark God. They also travel to Bimini where they meet Doc who explains the various Shark senses.
The final reconstruction then apparently displays computer graphics of a gigantic Dakuwaqa attacking a nuclear sub (!) wanting to perform illegal test in Fiji waters!

Having asked Yap for clarifications, they have all gone AWOL.
Not only are they playing ostrich, they have also deactivated the link which is http://www.beastlegends.com/episode-guide/mega-jaws/ – not quite what I would call being transparent and accountable, and trying to address my concerns!
So, what are we to believe?

Thing is, I do have some understanding for poetic license and the constraints of wanting to produce a successful program. In that sense, a larger-than-life toothy Shark God may be regarded as Pop culture and not strictly Shark Porn.

But the buck stops at the depiction of real Sharks and above all, at Fijian culture - and when it comes to that, I’m increasingly becoming apprehensive!
Or am I just being a paranoiac sissy?

So here’s the deal.
I’d be very interested in any feedback from viewers in Canada. The episode can also be viewed online once it is not anymore not currently available.
Opinions?

As to the good people over at Yap.
I shall send them this post so that they have yet another chance and clarifying the matter – as in living up to one’s claims of integrity, high standards!
Fair?

Anybody taking bets?

PS taken up by Patric here. What can I say - he's a Canadian!
Just kidding - as is he!

PS2 just had a good talk with Jeff who being a freelancer cannot officially speak for Yap. Very good convo that has gone a long way in assuaging my fears. Kudos for having chosen to respond!
More as I get to see the episode.

PS3 read Diving Discoveries' comments here.

Shark Week - Prologue

Quite a coup by Discovery!

Craig Ferguson is one of my favorite comedians.
He must be one of the most pleasantly witty people out there and I was happy, and surprised to discover that has signed up to be this year's host for Shark Week.



I must also agree with George that so far, the promo we get to see is admirably neutral and like the South African clip, hinting at some genuine nature programming as opposed to the usual Shark attack garbage.



And yes, I did also like the idea of the video contest and look forward to the submissions. Shark NGOs: make us proud, here's the chance at getting out some great pro-Shark media!

Still, the whispers about Shark Porn are not going away.
Will it thus be a bag of mixed programming?
As always, we shall see!

Poetic License!

43m/30', two deco stops and 7 Bulls circling overhead?
A client assisting the feeder?
Really?

No, really not!
Tom Neal Tacker must have been madly, truly, deeply confused!
The Fiji Shark Dive is this - without exception and also, without any deco apart from the customary 3' safety stop. But with heaps upon heaps of Bulls!

Apart from that, always nice to get a honorable mention in the mainstream Ozzie media!
And: I did like the Shark conservation sound bites!

Reeling in Great Whites

One would think that all Shark researchers love the Sharks they study.

Well, think again.
Marine CSI researcher Dr. Michael Domeier goes fishing for endangered Great Whites. He hooks them, drags them aboard and then uses a drill to attach satellite tags to their dorsal fin. The following was apparently filmed in Guadalupe for a Nat Geo documentary and now, Domeier is planning to do the same in the Farallones, equally a marine preserve, once again documented by the inevitable film crew.
Check it out, it's a brutal procedure.



Some of the blue bloggers, namely The Dorsal Fin and RTSea have picked up the story and voiced their concerns, citing the "stress" this procedure could inflict upon the animals. Others seem to be more on the fence.

Me, I'm simply appalled and outraged.
Great Whites can be easily lured next to boats and hundreds of them have been successfully tagged using a pole spear - and yes, one can also easily take DNA samples and with a little bit of ingenuity, blood samples as well. Granted, some of the tags costing thousands of bucks will detach themselves and be lost, but -and this is what counts!- the animals are neither "stressed" not otherwise negatively impacted.

Here, the Shark is hooked and then left to fight a couple of buoys until it is completely exhausted, then dragged onto a hard platform where its own body weight can easily crush its internal organs and potentially kill any unborn fetuses, then completely removed from the water and left to lay semi-comatose and desperately fighting asphyxiation for a good 20 minutes whilst somebody uses a drill and other implements to make holes in its body. You can check it all out in this, I believe shocking image gallery.
It thus comes as no surprise that some specialists assert that some of the Sharks are likely to die as a direct consequence of this treatment.

How about if anybody did the very same thing to a Dolphin, notabene an animal that is not highly endangered and that can breathe outside of the water?
Yes, no catching with nets, none of those purpose-made, body-hugging cradles preventing the animal from hurting itself (check out the fresh cuts on the Shark's caudal fin and the lack of chafing gear on the rope), no padded water tanks supporting the body weight, no exquisite care administered to the animal in order to prevent dehydration of its sensitive skin - just the same nasty fishing hooks, the same brutal and heartless treatment and a comatose Dolphin left to fight for its life on a hard naked wooden platform whilst somebody drills holes into its body?
Still think that this is maybe OK?

I've said it before: this is not the seventies.
Since then, the public's sensibilities and the rules about what is acceptable in science have thankfully changed- and this is just not acceptable.
Do I really need to spell out that the "objects of research" are really not objects and must be treated ethically? Does Dr. Domeier really need to be reminded that Sharks, and GW in particular are particularly vulnerable and that hurting them and endangering their life is just not on?

Why MCSI has chosen to abandon its own successful, tried-and-tested non-invasive techniques and to resort to such brutal and heartless manhandling will always leave me baffled. I understand that the tags may be some novel gizmo requiring this kind of deployment - but then, the gizmo is faulty and needs to be re-designed or the protocols, to be drastically changed. Always keep in mind that nothing of this is either necessary, or urgent: not for the advancement of scientific knowledge and especially not for the survival of the species!

Full stop.
No data set is worth torturing animals in this brutal and heartless fashion!

Guys, Please: show the Love and the Respect!

PS Underwater Thrills have weighed in on this and further emphasized the need for controlling the associated media output. That's a valid, although I believe, secondary point. Those "fun" images of "cool" guys posing next to the comatose animal are certainly highly inappropriate.

We'll be keeping an eye out - for the Nat Geo program but above all, for reports of any tags having been "lost" (as in Sharks having perished) in the research paper.

Not a Bull Shark!

Compare the shape of the snout! This is Adi, our small princess.

Stumbled upon a strange piece of news.

A Shark was "found floating" and was then "captured".
Upon inspection, it contained body parts of somebody who had gone missing.

An "attack"?
Maybe - but the Shark is definitely not a Bull Shark, but a Tiger Shark!
Check out picture #2 and you'll be able to notice the typical patterns on the tail and the equally typical large pupil.
Don't we just love our media!

Brazen!

I’m honestly of two minds about this.

It concerns how we should react to this post by Fijigirl on Wetpixel concerning the recent Discovery shoot in Fiji. I was really gonna follow the advice of a friend to just let it go and wait until Deadly Waters would air, after which the truth would be known anyway.
But our staff are very angry indeed and have asked me not to let this go unanswered.

So there:

The way I read that document, it basically claims that Brandon did this and that, loves Sharks, was unaware of the contents of the show, did nothing untoward and finally got "tricked" by us who just wanted to rubbish him.

Cleverly worded, it however contains a lot of factual "errors".
Some are well within the scope of the usual Aqua-Trek "mythology" but surprisingly, some is pretty brazen - actually, very unlike the Fijigirl who is Aqua-Treks consummate spinmaster!
Which begs the question, is she been lied to - too?

Anyway, the facts are this – and I’ll keep is as short as I can.

“Aqua-Trek” is a conglomerate of dive shops in Fiji with varying histories and shareholders.

Brandon worked for Aqua-Trek Beqa (ATB), did set up a Shark feed on Shark Reef in 1999 and resigned from ATB in 2002 to go and work for Aqua-Trek Management (ATM) in Garden Island Resort on the island of Taveuni. As is customary, a reef fee was paid to a village but the site was not protected and fishing continued there until 2004.

Shark Reef was formally protected on 8.4.2004.
A lot of people spent considerable time, money and effort to achieve this – but it had nothing whatsoever to do with either Brandon or Aqua-Trek who never assisted in that effort.

Beqa Adventure Divers (the “other Shark dive company”) was created by James Beazeley and ATBs senior staff in order to manage the reserve as ATB had breached some of its obligations and the villages wanted them out. The protocols for the Shark dive within Shark Reef Marine Reserve were developed by BAD in collaboration with scientists and Industry professionals and are very different from what Brandon was doing back then in ’99.

The “Ultimate Shark Encounter” on Lake Reef was established by the then manager of ATB, Petero Niurou, who negotiated with the village who controlled that reef, and who set up the dive with the other staff of ATB. Brandon was not there.
Brandon only returned to Pacific Harbour in 2006 when ATM acquired ATB.

Thus, ATB and Brandon can rightfully claim to be the pioneers of Shark diving in Pacific Harbour and ATB also developed a Shark dive and set up a marine reserve on Lake Reef.

That's all pretty awesome and very honorable - and way more than what most other operators in the Shark Diving Industry have done.
No need to re-write history and to claim credit for other people’s hard work!

But back to the matter at hand, Deadly Waters.
As I've mentioned in a previous post, I was away and upon coming back to Fiji, I've been busy doing the post mortem on this unfortunate matter. As Drew suggests, we’ll all see it when the episode airs – or better, hopefully not!
The show is currently being edited so let’s not pre-empt anything, shall we.

But Fiji is very small indeed and people always talk.
When it comes to Fijigirl’s fairy tale, what I can say with absolute certainty is this.

• Brandon knew of the contents and intents of the show.
• He willingly and knowingly completely surrendered his site and its Sharks to the crew of Gurney, to the point that his own staff was relegated to the role of mere spectators.
• ATB delivered chum and bait to the Fiji Peter Hughes vessel that the production company were using as their base and that vessel remained on site for several days during which the film crew conducted multiple dives with and without ATB.
• A chumsicle was deployed in total breach of established procedures.
• They conducted night dives in baited conditions, again a total breach of protocol.
• Clients were taken to Lake Reef to witness the film crew flailing around bait in the attempt to excite the Sharks – in total breach of protocol and the most basic safety procedures (one guest witness was so upset by what he saw that he demanded a refund and was given a free dive on the next day).

You be the judge of whether "They came and filmed our dive as we run it everyday. They conducted no experiments. The filming was about Les with a scientist swimming amongst large sharks. We only show sharks in a normal state of feeding, no chumsicle feeds. All very calm" is an adequate description of the above.
As I said, pretty brazen!

As to our despicable role in this fiasco... we did indeed not call ATB directly.
Brandon and his bosses have historically made it abundantly clear that they do not seek dialogue and co-operation with BAD and it would have been an exercise in futility. As it turns out, he knew everything anyway.

Plus, before Les Stroud turned up in our dive shop, Aqua-Trek was simply not on our radar.
We were working on keeping Gurney out of the country and were completely focused on talking to the relevant authorities and to the folks of Peter Hughes in Fiji and the USA. But as soon as Les left our office, we called and informed the Dive Commission which is the competent authority in such matters. They are part of Fiji Island Hotel and Tourism Association (of which we and ATB are members) and FIHTA did inform Brandon (who already knew) - precisely as per what I wrote in my original post.

We and many others are now trying to sort out Brandon's mess, as it's not about Brandon or Aqua-Trek. In the big scheme of things, they are frankly of no importance - and nor are we!
To us, this is about the Sharks, the reputation of Fiji and how the Shark Diving Industry needs to handle the media.

Please wish us luck in making this "go away".