Selective Removal of Problem Sharks - Paper!

Click for detail!

Hah!

Remember this paper?

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

Well what can I say.

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

But that's the theory.

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

And in comparatively small areas?

Interesting to see Cocos and Reunion mentioned in the paper!

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

Anyway, all very interesting indeed!

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

To be continued no doubt!

 

GWS vs Kayak!

Watch - story here.

Scary as hell for sure - but getting those teeth in exchange is simply awesome!

Individual Shark Profiling? Yes and No!

Click for detail!

We're stuck inside waiting for Mona to unleash.

So there - have you seen this paper?

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

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

So let me clarify where I really stand on this.

I agree with the hypothesis, albeit with caveats.

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

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

But of course we can always speculate, see here.

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

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

And then there is XYZ (name withheld).

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

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

And remember this shit? 

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

Anyway, back to Eric's paper.

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

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

And in practice?

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

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

Detail detail!

But of course there could be exceptions.

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

Examples?

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

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

Or take e.g. Cocos.

Remember that Tiger and then, this subsequent event?

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

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

And finally, Reunion Island.

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

Or not?

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

And finally, what about this beauty?

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

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


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


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

Anyway, all very interesting indeed.

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

Let's go Shark diving!

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

Shark Bite!

Oh well - watch this.

PS - Hahahahahahaha - embedding has been disabled - but of course it has not been deleted as Freek wants to continue showcasing his heroic feat: you can watch it right here!
PPS - and now it has been retracted...
PPPS - and in case you missed it: here it is on another page!

Oh and here is the video - til it gets retracted again.... hahahahahahaha... seriously, how fucking pathetic is that!



Well what can I say.

That baited reefie snorkel where Doc weans his students and select visitors off their selachophobia has always been sketchy as all it took was some wrong movement and/or highly competitive situation and/or a particularly frisky individual to trigger a bite - and q.e.d.!

Not really impressed by the lack of proper first aid materials (QuikClot please!) on the boat, not really impressed by the absence of a medical professional and not really impressed by what appears to be a rather nonchalant evacuation protocol - but this is obviously not a tourist setup but a science lab, and the risk assessment and liability implications may indeed be different. But still - so let the learning curve be steep as shit will continue to happen!

And the dude?

I must say that he did handle it quite well, and that my personal impression that he was a bit of a wanker has improved accordingly - tho was there really any urgent need to show this to the masses at large? So here's to said masses learning that Sharks are never, ever puppy dogs, and that engaging in stupid behavior with wildlife is, well, stupid.

In diesem Sinne - Happy New Year everybody!

PS Shark bite here and here and here - til that gets deleted, too!
And... he really is a wanker for leaving that shit online!

GWS vs Seal!

Source.

Not a good day to be a Seal!

And not a good day and place for bathing and surfing, either - remember, and here?

Story here.

Shark Strike!

Watch.

There are Sharks in the ocean - and spear fishing and especially, trying to hold on to one's catch can lead to conflict.

Fundraiser and story here.

A Shark Cull in Reunion?

Source.
 

Spoiler: not quite yet!

I'm sure you've seen the news - if not, read this.

Kelly Slater had an emotional outburst, and the usual dipshits with an opinion and a keyboard have gone ballistic as they always do.
A prominent researcher writes - and no, no names but you'd be gobsmacked if I told you who she is!

This week Kelly Slater (surfer) posted on instagram that he thinks Reunion should implement a cull so that it is safe to go in the water again. As expected, he took some heavy hits from a lot of people for saying that.
And then this article comes out.

I'm starting to get a bit cranky on how "science" is used to beat down anyone that suggests a shark cull. Over and over "experts" and "science" are cited to drive home the argument that culls don't work...scientists have proven them not to work. 

I have to call BS on that. 
No one has ever done a controlled study to determine if culls work/don't work. And even if they did, each species and location are different. And then you have the hypocrisy of the shark conservation community always screaming about the 100-200 million sharks killed per year and that they are all going to die (and the oceans are going to die and we will die). If it is impossible for culling (fishing) to decrease shark attacks, then how is it possible for overfishing to bring down shark populations?

It's very easy for people who don't live in an area with shark problems, or don't ever go into the ocean, to scream and yell that sharks live in the ocean and it is not "our" place to attempt to manage them. Of course they are typing this from a comfortable human dwelling that required the killing of a terrestrial community that lived where their house now sits!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating managers to start putting culls in their toolbox...I just don't like the misleading rhetoric. At a place like Reunion, I think it is none of my business if the local authorities decided to try to reduce the bull shark population. It is their economy and quality of life that is suffering, not mine. It's their decision.
And...if they decided to do it, I personally believe it would work.

I almost wrote a piece about this, but thought maybe venting here first will keep me from committing professional suicide! 

Bingo - totally agree, see here and generally, here!

The good news being that Reunion Island's Shark attack mitigation measures appear to be holding (= the attack happened on a closed beach) and that the authorities are not advocating any cull - for now!

Anyway, this is not what riles me.

What does, is that like the lady above, an increasing number of researchers are voluntarily muzzling themselves for fear of incurring the wrath of the wailing Shark conservation hyenas.
This is especially evident in Australia where those Shark attacks are happening at the intersection of there being ever more aquatic recreationists but also more large GWS due to the successful protection of both the Sharks and their prey. Same-same for the US East Coast where IMO a fatal attack is all-but-inevitable - yet in both locations, the GWS researchers are treading very lightly indeed, lest the unwashed masses accuse them of being Shark haters, or whatever.

I say, this is not going away but will escalate instead.
And unless we allow the researchers to do their job and analyze, and then properly describe ALL aspects of the problem and explore ALL possible solutions, the strikes will continue to happen - and if so, the culling will eventually resume everywhere.

Is that what we want?

PS - not bad at all!
 

 

Shark Proof?

And talking of pied pipers.

My pal Jaap alerts me to this article.

I must say, I rather like it - the gist being that the Shark Shield is OK (albeit with caveats) whereas the rest is essentially crap.

Bingo.

And yes,

In reality, the best technology we have is probably first aid. Modern skills and medicine mean that the chances of shark attack survival are around 80%.

Absolutely!

Get a couple of these as having used quite a few, I can attest that they really work - and then, don't do anything stupid and enjoy the ocean!

Reunion - Complicated!

Source.

Watch.

Red Meat?

Watch.

Yeah that would be a Shark attack.

It happened because, and I cite,

"Sharks like to eat fatty red muscle...” David said.

Indeed - especially Whale Sharks and Angular Roughsharks!

I mean, seriously, that statement has the same truth content and educational value as if I professed that Mammals like to eat Eucalyptus leaves - meaning plus/minus zero! Like Cristina (brava!), it really bothers me that we put all ‘sharks’ into one pigeon hole and ascribe the same basic behaviours to them all, seldom realising that there are more than 400 species of different sizes, living in different environments and showing different behaviours!

And then, I read

So why do sharks bite?
Shiffman says it’s usually a case of mistaken identity. “Sharks aren’t used to things being in their environment that isn’t food. When a surfer cuts through the water on his board, wearing a white suit, he can easily be mistaken for a seal,” he says. But most of the time, once a shark gets a taste of his bony human dinner, he backs off in disgust. “The ‘hit and run’ is a common bite — they take one bite and realize it’s not what they wanted to eat,” Shiffman said.

Really.

Same old same old, and equally totally misleading - except that apparently, surfers now wear white garb! I can categorically assure you that the Blacktips and Spinners that strike surfers in Florida and the Bulls doing the same in Reunion Island are NOT mistaking them for seals!

Likely, the Floridian Sharks act in perceived self defense or are maybe caught up in a feeding frenzy (read this!); and equally likely, those Indian Ocean Bulls are engaging in predation - but of course we will never know for sure!

Bravo David for the laudable intention of wanting to put Shark strikes in perspective - but the stubborn ultracrepidarianism, and this from a self-proclaimed dragon-slaying myth-busting fact-based researcher is really irritating!

And that Blue Shark?

Judging from the head shake etc, methinks this is an attempt at predation - but again, who knows. But divers hovering next to bait bins whilst being obviously oblivious of the dangers and of their surroundings are a recipe for disaster. If this is a fun dive, then OK, shit happens - if, like it appears, this is a commercial dive with tourists, then those lousy protocols need to be changed, pronto!
Remember this shit? It gets triggered by stuff like that!

Anyway, just sayin!

PS: thread here - agree agree disagree who knows! :)

North Carolina Shark Attacks- Interview with Neil!

Good stuff!

But first, and I cite,

"Scientists believe that most shark bites are a case of mistaken identity. From below, a surfer in a black rubber wetsuit looks a great deal like a seal, for example," explains David Shiffman, a PhD candidate at the University of Miami's Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy. 

Really - and if so, who exactly?

Last time I checked, "mistaken identity" was an -incidentally untested and untestable- hypothesis proposed by John McCosker when it came to explaining why GWS attack surfers on surfboards - not some generic statement about any Shark in any situation!

And assuming that David meant "by mistake": is that even plausible considering the Sharks' preternatural senses that we're usually so proud to illustrate? What scientists do believe is that most Shark bites are not predatory in nature - which is only logical considering that the very vast majority of Sharks (like e.g. Caribbean Reefies) pursue prey that is orders of magnitude smaller than people! But there are heaps of other possible reasons, read that first link, for why Sharks could bite people - and genuine mistakes are probably the very last of them! And guess what: in most cases, we'll never know why, exactly, they did strike - which is one thing the majority of scientists will certainly agree upon!

Would this be yet again one of those stupid attempts at rehabilitating Sharks by asserting that they have no bad intentions, or the like?

Which brings me over to this.

It's part of this thread, already mentioned here.

Christopher Neff There is no scientific evidence to support this - Gruber (1987) notes that shark bites are not feeding events

Gruber (1987) huh.

Doc has sent me Gruber (1988), published in Naval Research Review and entitled Why do Sharks attack Humans. Therein I find this - the only possible explanation for it being that Doc did radically change his mind one measly year later! :)

Click for detail!

Anyway.

Whilst the young padawans need to urgently stop making public pronouncements about topics they obviously got no clue about, Neil (and, mostly, Lawrence) shows us how to do it right - especially when you're a scientist!

Enjoy - and well done!

Michael - telling it like it is!

Well done!

I must say that I'm impressed.

Following the tragic Shark strikes in North Carolina, Michael Domeier is warning Californians about the growing population of GWS on their coast. So far this is good news as it means that protection measures are having the desired effect. And so far, those are juveniles and small subadults, and thus rather harmless  - but one day those Sharks will reach an age where they will gradually switch to larger prey, meaning that the risk of predatory attacks on humans will undoubtedly increase.

This is of course totally in line with the recent statements by Burgess - and once again bravo to Michael for having the guts to tell it like it is!

And yes, I've, gasp, deliberately used the dreaded A word!

This is a Shark attack.

It is provoked and retaliatory.

And like I would do in the case of a Cat, or Lion, or Croc, I call it an attack because there is definitely no confusion and there is definitely intent - which in this specific situation is both totally understandable and perfectly fine!

The strikes in North Carolina?

Dunno and that's why I call them strikes - but by the same token, what makes Mr. Barrington state that the assumed Bull Sharks more than likely mistook those kids for Fish? Does he really believe that a Bull Shark is too dumb to discern the difference between snapping at a Fish and severing a human limb - or may this possibly be yet another misguided attempt at PR rehabilitation a la Neff and Hueter?

Seriously, could we please stop with the stupid whitewashing?

Can we please let Sharks be Sharks, meaning that we got to accept that some species are large predators that will from time to time both target and unless disturbed, consume a human? And that many of them will intentionally bite when molested? This makes them neither bad nor good but simply describes what they are = large predators that have every bloody right to predate, and complex animals with a broad array of behaviors among which aggression!

We don't blink an eye about properly describing the equally rare predatory attacks by the Big Cats, Bears and Reptiles - so why this obsession of trying to exculpate Sharks by coming up with lame excuses and trying to introduce politically correct lingo?

Which brings me to this further comment by Michael.

Spot on! Read the testimony, and read this further account, and even the most rabid Shark hugging apologist should clearly discern that this was most definitely a predatory attack - curiosity and testing with their mouth because they got no hands, yada yada, my ass!

Same old same old - especially the pronouncements by the increasingly irritating Neff! This nonsense fatally reminds me of someone else - and we all know how that one ended!

Anyway, having asked, Doc replies

In an article I write way back in the eighties, for Naval Research Reviews entitled why do sharks bite humans, I made it perfectly clear that some sharks actually consider humans as legitimate prey. We all know which ones these are.

Bingo.

I say, the serial breathy couch farting and ultracrepidarianism are bad enough - but misrepresenting Doc is just simply unacceptable!

But enough of that.

Good to see that some within the research community are finally speaking up against the creeping Dolphinization of Sharks. They are certainly not monsters - but by the same token, some of them can be extremely dangerous and need to be treated with the utmost respect and circumspection.

Nothing to do with those recent tragic events mind you - when humans and Sharks share the same space, these things are unfortunately bound to happen. But if we ever want to succeed in mitigating the consequences of this increasingly uneasy cohabitation, we must address all sides of the issue: ever more people encroaching into Shark habitat but also, in some places, more Sharks - some of which will sometimes regard people as food!

Shark Conservation and Shark Strikes?

Bingo - and I cite.

Shark attacks around the world are generally on the rise, thanks to shark conservation efforts that began in the early 1990s combined with increasing numbers of people enjoying saltwater recreation.

All I can say is, bravo!

Finally a researcher has the guts to say it as it is.

Human and Shark population growth are on an intersection course - and only if we acknowledge both sides of that equation will we be able to properly address the issue and find prophylactic solutions in order to avoid the inevitable conflict that will ultimately, and equally inevitably harm the Sharks. Case in point Florida - with GWS sightings clearly on the rise, it is only a matter of time til somebody will get hurt. And incidentally, same-same for further north where those rebounding Seal populations are attracting big GWS to the coast - are the aquatic recreationists in New Jersey and the Hamptons being adequately educated?

Anyway, if you're in Florida, go to George's talk.

 

Shark Strike in the Azores - Debate!

Oh for crying out loud!

Have you seen this?

Spare yourselves the 40 bucks - in essence, the article recounts how a Blue Shark bit the fin of a pal of the authors, and this thusly.

An Unprovoked Attack by a Blue Shark Prionace glauca (Chondrichthyes: Carcharhinidae) on a Spear Fisherman in Terceira Island, Azores, Northeast Atlantic

On July 24, 2013, near a shallow water rocky reef approximately 50 m from the coastline, a 48-year-old spear fisherman was surprised by a blue shark that bit his right flipper. The incident occurred on the South coast of Terceira Island, Azores, Portugal, Northeast Atlantic, where a shark attack or conflict is a very rare phenomenon, having only 3 minor incidents previously recorded...

Late afternoon the spear fisherman entered the water and swam away from the adjacent fishing port, now converted into a leisure summer area, toward the tip of the adjacent rocky reef. 
There, he saw a school of Atlantic Bonito, Sarda sarda (Bloch, 1793) and immediately dove to place himself in a position suitable to target one of the fish swimming in front of him. As he descended to a depth of approximately 10 m, he felt his right foot being pushed and turned his head to see an approximately 2.1 m total length blue shark biting his flipper...

At the same time, he reported that at least 5 more similar-size blue sharks were close by, and he was able to chase the first specimen away simply by touching it with his left leg. The sharks disappeared, and the victim continued to fish in that same area with no further sightings.

And then the authors have the audacity to attribute the incident to Shark feeding as follows.

These offshore, mainly pelagic species do have coastal habits when in close proximity to oceanic islands, as happens to be the Azores. Moreover, they are attracted by tourist operators with feeding stimuli and may be already in the process of associating these stimuli with humans, namely, divers. Contrary to well-known coastal sites where this practice is common and local sharks seem to have residential habits while becoming conditioned by specific diving sites, Azorean targeted species roam vast areas and far away from the open water zones where they are mainly attracted.

In spite of the fact that some of the most dangerous species are seldom seen in the Azores, we believe that this practice of proximity and feeding stimuli to open water nonresident sharks is potentially dangerous and may well lead to more, possibly very serious, accidents in Azorean waters in the future.
In our opinion, close proximity of large predatory vertebrates to humans may well lead to accidents that sometimes may even be lethal. Apex predators, when accustomed to being enticed with food by humans, either for tourist purposes or from simple curiosity, are known to increase attacks.
Changes in shark behavior due to touristic activities such as “shark diving” were also documented by Hammerschlag et al.

We do think that care and common sense must surely prevail in these cases, while dealing with situations than can easily get out of control and lead to serious risks and overwhelming panic situations, which, if nothing else, will inevitably affect tourist activities as a whole.

Not so fast, says Juerg.

Here is his reply, unabridged.

Shark Attacks and Shark Diving 

To the Editor:
It is with great astonishment and concern that I read the letter to the editor by Barreiros et al in which the authors report an attack by a blue shark on a spear fisherman in the Azores.
Whereas the first part of the article accurately details the circumstances of the accident, Barreiros et al, in the second part,devise a far-fetched and illegitimate connection with shark div ing, in particular with shark feeding.

Shark-induced human injuries are among those inter actions between humans and wildlife that arguably receive the most media and public attention.
The general arguments of shark feeding critics are that 1) luring or feeding sharks over a period of time has the potential to condition them and that this conditioning could lead to sharks associating the presence of humans with food; and by insinuation, 2) make them aggressive toward humans. This in turn could lead to 3) an increase in accidents (eg bites)at shark feeding sites when no food is provided. Concern also exists that 4) regular shark feeding at ecotourism sites may increase the risk of shark attacks on ocean users in surrounding areas.

The first argument is beyond scientific controversy.
There is ample empiric evidence that elasmobranchs can be conditioned and are capable of learning to associate, for example, specific locations with food rewards. Recent studies looking at long-term trends in shark abundance at such sites have found numbers,at least of certain species, increasing over time,which further supports the quite unsurprising conclusion that sharks can learn to associate specific locations with food. It is this very capability shark diving operators capitalize on to set up profitable and sustainable businesses. No empiric evidence exists that would support the other 3arguments.

If shark feeding critics implicitly deduce them from the first argument,one has no other choice than to assume that what critics mean is not sharks “associating” humans with food, but “regarding” them as a food source. This could be viewed as semantics, but they are the very arguments on which authorities have based the implementation of legislation on shark feeding bans.
For example, in 2 highly publicized cases in 2002, Florida and Hawaii banned the practice of shark feeding while diving or snorkeling in their respective state waters.

Barreiros et al use a certainly tragic but single shark accident to fire an unsubstantiated broadside at the nascent shark diving industry in the Azores.
If shark feeding critics are serious about their assertion that sharks regard humans as food, then it is time to come up with fact sand figures. In doing so, the results of the respective studies will add to the objectification of the public discourse about feeding sharks as a tourism attraction. If shark feeding critics continue to refuse to address the respective questions by applying the scientific method, then their arguments remain what they currently are: tendentious and uninformed.

Juerg Brunnschweiler, PhD ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

And this is the riposte by the authors.

In Reply to Shark Attacks and Shark Diving

To the Editor:
 In his letter, Dr Juerg Brunnschweiler expresses both astonishment and concern regarding our paper when stating that it “devises a far-fetched and illegitimate connection with shark diving, in particular with shark feeding.”

We do not agree with Dr Brunnschweiler’s comments, because 1) our paper is not a “criticism” of either shark diving nor shark feeding but yet a description of an attack that might have had some kind of connection with the growing industry of shark diving in the Azores; 2) we clearly expressed a legitimate concern that, contrary to shark species with residential habits, the blue shark that caused this attack has pelagic habits and roams coastal areas of oceanic islands, and is the only species targeted by the Azores commercial shark diving companies; 3) the possibility—although rare—of interactions with humans and eventual attacks are real and may cause collateral damage to man upstream and downstream areas of maritime tourism in the Azores; and 4) panic and disproportionate fear, something that is worldwide associated with sharks, are critical issues and may lead to other types of accidents.

We understand and respect the diving operators’ will to capitalize on this specific niche of tourism. 
However, we think that it is our duty and even a responsible obligation to describe well documented events and discuss them within the scientific community. Throughout the world, many accidents presenting several degrees of gravity do occur. However, it is known that many remain unreported, either because they occur in remote areas or because there are many types of political pressures to avoid their knowledge precisely not to harm some types of touristic initiatives. That is one of the reasons why Dr Brunnschweiler’s comment when asking for “facts and figures” is so difficult to achieve.

And yet,in his last paragraph, DrBrunnschweiler expresses a very inelegant affirmation when he doubts our ability to use the “scientific method.”
We are certain that he knows perfectly well that we did use it, but numbers do not appear—and probably that will remain as it is for a long time simply because (and may we add, fortunately) shark attacks are rare.

Our arguments are precautionary and cautious.
Enticing predators and especially apex predators with food will lead to conflicts between humans and wildlife, and these happen all the time and in many places. This is not the first time that the description of an attack with a discussion on possible causes is criticized, and we thank Dr Brunnschweiler for doing precisely that. Discussing these aspects, however, may well lead to more caution and common sense when dealing with these types of animals. That will certainly improve human-wildlife relations, reduce conflicts, and certainly diminish high degrees of intolerance toward wildlife—and that will ultimately be of great help in protecting precisely these animals, including sharks.

In conclusion,we would like to add that, apparently, Dr Brunnschweiler expressed his legitimate concern for the industry of shark diving. We express our deep concern on behalf of the welfare of both humans and sharks.

Deep concern huh.

My take?

• First, there is ONE scenario whereby the authors would be correct.
  That is, if some fool had been feeding Blue Sharks on that reef 50 meters away from the adjacent fishing port, now converted into a leisure summer area. I've said it before: location matters, and establishing a Shark feeding dive right in front of a tourist area would be utterly reckless and negligent, and the authors would be absolutely correct in asserting likely causality and being deeply concerned.
  But I don't think that's the case as every single picture of Blue Sharks from the Azores has been clearly taken in open ocean.

And if so, the assertion by the authors that they did use the scientific method is just plain ludicrous. Yes n=1 really does generally not allow for any deep insights, and Shark strikes are rare and thus elude science - and in fact, had they attributed the strike to the alignment of Mars and Jupiter, their finding would have had the exact same degree of veracity!

With that in mind, it would have been perfectly OK had they simply reported the incident - but once they started to speculate about the likely cause, then the scientific method would have mandated to examine all the possible scenarios and not simply jump to conclusions and blast what is obviously their pet hate, and this without a single shred of evidence.

So there.

• Blue Sharks are big, bold and potentially dangerous.
  Yes they do not figure prominently in the Shark attack statistics - but that is both a figment of those statistics and also due to the fact that they are epipelagic and that there are usually not a lot of people perambulating in the open ocean. But as those gruesome shipwreck tales from WWII amply illustrate, large epipelagic Sharks will certainly investigate and eat people and thus, the surprise of the authors that a Blue Shark would approach, investigate and nip their pal is rather naive.


• Incidentally, that's also not how a conditioned Shark would approach a person.
  As anybody that dives with fed Sharks can attest, they don't sneak in and then take a nip - that's typical of wild Sharks. Sharks that expect to be fed approach openly from the front and linger waiting for a handout.

• But what were those half-dozen Sharks doing there in the first place?
  As the authors assert, the species is known to frequent coastal areas of oceanic islands so that's hardly surprising. In this case, it appears plausible that they may have been following their prey = those Atlantic Bonito, an equally epipelagic species that may in turn have been coming to the coast to feed.

• Or maybe not.
  Maybe the cause for the presence of those Sharks was that the reef is frequently being used by spear fishermen. Or maybe it was the proximity to that fishing port. 
  Because let us never forget who feeds and conditions the Sharks: fishermen! 
  Spear fishermen produce fish blood and vibrations, attract Sharks and are frequently victims of Shark strikes. Fishermen feed Sharks with millions upon millions of baited hooks, clean their catch and discard bycatch, and specifically those Blues have been following fishing boats into port since time immemorial.  
  If there has to be talk of conditioning, that it is THAT the authors should have been focusing on, not a few people baiting with tiny scraps!

• And what about the assertions that apex predators, when accustomed to being enticed with food by humans, either for tourist purposes or from simple curiosity, are known to increase attacks and that enticing predators and especially apex predators with food will lead to conflicts between humans and wildlife, and these happen all the time and in many places.
  
  Welcome to the fucking old tired "don't feed the Bear" argument!
  Yes "they" happen - but so far, when it comes to those big Sharks, that is simply not the case! Whereas accidental bites on feeders do happen, strikes let alone fatal ones on participating tourists are exceedingly rare, and any correlation (let alone causality) between Shark feeding and Shark strikes on the public at large is completely speculative and not at all supported by the evidence.
  
  In fact, and yes I'm repeating myself, people who feed large Sharks are acutely aware that it is dangerous and are exerting tremendous caution and common sense - and as a consequence, the danger of those activities is significantly smaller than interactions with other marine life (including smaller Sharks) that are being viewed as more harmless; and it is orders of magnitude safer than "normal" diving! 


• In fact, if anybody had to be reprimanded, then it would have been the victim, for being totally reckless: for potentially attracting Sharks to a tourist area, for spearfishing at dusk when predators are known to feed and above all, for not immediately leaving the water but instead continuing to spear fish after having been nipped!


• And finally.
  That will certainly improve human-wildlife relations, reduce conflicts, and certainly diminish high degrees of intolerance toward wildlife—and that will ultimately be of great help in protecting precisely these animals, including sharks.
  
  What a load of sanctimonious horse shit!
  Fishermen target Sharks for money - not because they hate them for biting people! That argument is frankly so stupid to be embarrassing!
  Want to save those Blues? Take a boat to Vigo and tell those fishermen to stop targeting the Azorean Blue Shark nurseries - or at least stop wasting people's time and patience with BS, and work on making a stock assessment and on implementing a management plan for sustainable Blue Shark fishing in the Azores!
  That's how real scientists contribute to Shark conservation!


• And one very last remark: how the fuck did this manage to get a pass by the peer review?

Long story short?

It's exactly like Juerg states: this is not science but total bullshit, nothing more than a completely unsubstantiated broadside against the nascent Shark feeding industry in the Azores, and this clearly not based on the evidence but driven by one's uninformed prejudices.

And yes I can leave it at that.

Not impressed and once again, rather pissed off!

Reunion - first Insights!

Source.

Do you speak French?

If so, watch this.

If not, try Google-translating this. 

Some of those preliminary results are rather surprising, and I look forward to hearing whether those insights will be confirmed as the research continues.

Bon film et bonne lecture!
 

Bull Shark or GWS?

Hmmm.

Story here.

We find a lot of Bull Shark teeth, and the central ones are perfectly symmetrical like the one depicted - but those GWS do wander from the Atlantic into the Gulf, so one straying into the Bahamas is certainly a possibility. And a bite spanning all the way from the shoulders to the buttocks is very large indeed!

Opinions?

David - JSD?

H/T: Mark!

PS - Mark just sent me this pic with Bull Shark teeth (from the SRMR no less!) - not easy!

PPS - GWS confirmed?

WA - second GWS killed!

Source.

This all sucks big time.

There is even uncertainty about which species may have been involved.

It is impossible to determine whether one is targeting the correct Shark until after it is dead, and even if they can ascertain that they did kill the Shark that bit the surfer, it would add nothing to the safety of that area. It is GWS season, Esperance has always been an anchor point for GWS approaching the coast, and strikes have happened there before.

More Sharks will turn up, and the prudent thing would be to educate the public and discourage them from engaging in recreational, and possibly even commercial aquatic activities during this time frame.

Oh well.

PS: Likely not two Bronzies. One killed Shark had a tag. Both Sharks cannot be confirmed as being the perpetrator. Some extremist assholes have abused Fisheries officials.

PPS: talking about anchor points, read this; and this.
 

Imminent Threat Policy - first GWS killed in WA!

Source.

This is bad - the strike and the reaction.

And I very much fear that it will re-ignite the bloody controversy.
To be continued no doubt!

Pelagic Bull Sharks?

Wow.

If you can, please watch this.

Yes it's long but well worth the effort.

I'm stumped by the revelations at the end.

Apparently, Reunion's Bull Shark are not resident but only seasonal and apparently, they could be spending a large amount of time in the open ocean.

If so, this would mean a big shift in what we know about this species.

Or maybe not. 

Maybe this is simply more evidence for the environmentally mediated behavioral plasticity I've posted about here. Maybe those Bulls rely on migratory prey and only return to Reunion to mate - think of Playa where contrary to Fiji, there is merely a short Bull Shark season that is being linked to reproduction and where so far, nobody knows what they do during during the remainder of the year.

Maybe.

And the hypothesis of heightened aggression during the mating season?

Not convinced. Aggression is not predation and to me, those described strikes point to predatory events rather than agonism. Plus, our Bulls don't feed during mating season - but then again, this applies to Fiji and maybe, those Bulls behave completely differently!

Long story short?

It is complicated!

Shark Feeding - attack the Unknown!

And attack she did, and know she did little!

And I cite.

Evidence indicates sharks have the capacity to become conditioned. 
As a result, shark ecotourism has the potential to create an association of humans with food, ending in increased attacks.

Right.

Have you seen this crap?

Sarah the student from Wellington has perused a random selection of irrelevant papers (and none of those that are relevant, see the links below!) - and now she thinks she knows something about something and has posted her opines on the university weblog site.

So there, for the umpteenth bloody time.

• There's no geographical correlation between Shark feeding and Shark strikes.
  Re-read this. In brief and with maybe the exception of SA, the vast majority of Shark strikes occurs in locations where there are no Shark feeding operations (like specifically Western Australia!)  - which is even more surprising if one considers that most of those dives have been established in locations that are known for their healthy Shark populations!
  And even if there were some correlation, it certainly does not equate causation!


• Shark feeding appears unproblematic at the ecosystem level
  All present research into those baited Shark dives appears to concur that those dives have little to no effect at large spatial and temporal scales. It appears pretty clear that far from becoming dependent on the handouts, those provisioned Sharks continue to fulfill their ecological roles and also continue to follow their normal life cycles as in e.g. mating, pupping and migrating.

But of course there are some big caveats.

• There are certainly effects at small spatial and temporal scales.
  Shark feeding often aggregates the animals, and this can have local consequences. As an example, take the increased aggression of those Lemons in Moorea; or the observed competitive exclusion (and here!) of other Sharks in Fiji and possibly SA and TB; or those postulated local behavioral changes and marginally increased residency in Southern Australia.

• Conditioning via positive reinforcement does likely happen.
  E.g., Sharks are certainly smart and it is absolutely plausible to assume that provisioned Sharks may have learned to associate the boat noise with a subsequent feeding opportunity, a fact that is being exploited by several operators - and if the food is being presented at the surface like in the case of GWS cage diving, it as equally plausible to assume that they could be popping up next to other boats in the area!
  But "turning up" does not equate "attacking"!

• Location matters.
  Many Shark dives have been being established where there are already Sharks, meaning that objectively speaking, the risk profile is unlikely to change - but perceptions matter and like in the case of population centers like, say, Cape Town or Playa, the diving activity and associated increased publicity of Sharks can lead to conflicts with the other local ocean users. Consequently, as a rule, the feeding locations need to be as remote as possible and should definitely not be established e.g. right in the middle of population centers or right in front of popular beaches etc.

• Feeding protocols.
  Like I often state, it is often not about the what but about the how.
  Shark provisioning creates its own risks, and those risks need to be managed - meaning that all protocols should be chosen in function of minimizing the impact on both the animals and the habitat, and on maximizing the safety for the participants but also the public. E.g., everybody will hopefully agree that creating humongous chum trails or dumping indiscriminate amounts of bait to create feeding frenzies is probably a bad idea. Or as another example, we here go to great lengths to condition the Bulls never to come to the surface, lest we get accused of endangering other aquatic recreationists.
  In brief, we need to be in a position to demonstrate that we are always striving to conduct our dives in the most responsible way possible - but provided that (!) we we act responsibly, yours truly and every single Shark diving operator I've ever talked to have made the observation that the Sharks become positively tame, meaning that the risk of a bite is lower not higher!

And then, there's this.

• There are Shark strikes and Shark strikes.
  Whereas Shark provisioning is certainly a dangerous undertaking, everybody in the industry agrees that the cause for bites during provisioned dives is either a) self defense, b) competition or c) mistakes - not predation! Exception - but the guy was certainly asking for it!


• And yes we certainly do condition the Sharks, and yes they learn, and this very fast indeed - but they learn to eat bait, not humans!


• And finally, Shark strikes are a human tragedy but a statistical non event.
  They are so freakishly rare that they will always elude proper science; and by the same token, they will continue to happen irrespective of our efforts to prevent them.

Anyway.

These stupid allegations are likely to hound us til the end of time - but it's disheartening to see them parroted by a young academic that is obviously a Shark-lover!

To be continued no doubt!