Showing posts sorted by date for query ecosystem level. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query ecosystem level. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Friday, September 12, 2025

Are Fiji's Sharks protected?

Click for detail!
 
Short answer?
I wish - but no, not really! 😞
 
The massive pressure on our marine resources during the pandemic could, and indeed should have led to a moment of reflection and new beginnings.
But instead, we're very much back to business as usual where instead of tackling the ever increasing problem of widespread poaching and over-fishing, and according severe threats to our marine biodiversity, the local marine conservation mafia is back playing their usual games of Smoke and Mirrors.
 
Granted, changing one's ways is difficult.
But faced with the current abject failure on so many fronts, there really is no other way.
 
But it sure ain't gonna be easy as the status quo is deeply entrenched.
Fiji's marine conservation ecosystem is highly complex (but then again, once you understand it, maybe not so much), highly non-transparent and replete with misinformation in a seemingly never-ending cycle of collective frittering away of other people's hard-earned money on bogus short-term projects with zero actual benefit to Fiji's imperiled marine biodiversity, nor the to communities depending on it. 
Think NGO/Consultancy Complex (read it!) and you'll understand where I'm coming from!
 
Everybody knows this but most continue to play the same old tired game of musical chairs (hint: Ma'afu Street!) as that's how they earn their living, the more since there is zero institutional memory, and any degree of accountability for one's past failures is non-existent.
 
Needless to say that I despise all of that: most of those people and orgs, the brazen squandering of resources on junkets and talkfests, the parasitical mooching and profiteering, the verbose bloviating and above all, the total lack of due diligence and subsequent dissemination of all that unbearable BS.
 
And in the meantime, our marine biodiversity continues to deteriorate ever faster, with little improvement in sight. 
In fact, after more than 20 years of following the same old tired playbook, and despite of many, many millions in donor funds having been pumped into this space, I would argue that Fiji's marine habitats and Fish stocks are more threatened than ever. 
 
And then, there's those pathetic bloody influencers, or whatever. 
They parachute into our tourism and conservation space, talk to some random uneducated charlatan, and then compound the problem by making idiotic and highly misleading public pronouncements on their various socials where they get uncritically parroted by their followers.
Talk about Dunning-Kruger on steroids!
 
Be it as it may, this cannot remain unanswered.
 
So there. 
Don't worry - I'm not going to point fingers, at least not more than strictly required.
But like in my last post about Shark ecotourism, I feel that it is necessary to set the record straight once and for all - the more as like there, I can then simply reference this post instead of having to explain the exact same facts over and over and over again. 
Not that I really believe that it will change much - but hey, hope springs eternal.
 
But I'm digressing as always,
So back to the matter at hand:  
Are Fiji's marine biodiversity in general and Sharks in particular adequately managed and/or protected?
Spoiler alert: they are not! 

And this is why.
As a bare minimum, the two essential elements of successful marine protection are
  • Some official Legislation, usually specifying what is being protected, where and when; and the penalties for transgressions.

  • And then, the all-important Implementation = Monitoring, Enforcement and Prosecution

A. Legislation 

Fiji's current marine biodiversity management and/or protection has been enacted under a variety of laws, foremost of which the 
  • Fisheries Act (1941), 
  • Offshore Fisheries Management Act (2012), 
  • Offshore Fisheries Management Regulations (2014), 
  • Customs (Prohibited Imports and Exports) Regulation (1986) 
  • Endangered and Protected Species Act (2017)
  • and various international agreements to which Fiji is a signatory like CITES, the CMS and the rules and regulations of the WCPFC 
To make an example, once we realized that our voluntary village MPA, the Shark Reef Marine Reserve, was actually not legally enforceable (see below), we advocated legalizing it via a Regulation under the Fisheries Act (1941), resulting in the Fisheries (Shark Reef Marine Reserve) (Serua) Regulations 2014 that established Fiji's first legislated National Marine Park. 
 
This is a small piece of legislation tailored specifically to the SRMR that inter alia bans any fishing, defines the penalties for non-compliance and confers BAD authority for its day-to-day monitoring, management and policing in a ground-breaking marine PPP.
Subsequently, 4 more such legislated Marine Parks have been established (i.e. "gazetted" because in order to come into force, any new law most be published in the Government Gazette) under this template, comprising 2 reefs managed by resorts, one reef channel in Kadavu harboring a notable grouper spawning aggregation, and one village reef.
 
And what about Fiji's other 700+ declared village MPAs/LMMAs/tabus etc. that ought to be the backbone of Fiji's 30x30 commitment? 
Including all those famous "names" like Namena & Waitabu, and all those much-touted seascapes and the like, for which the donors have, and keep forking out those seemingly endless streams of funding and for which FLMMA got all those prestigious conservation awards, etc?
 
Sadly, they are not much more than paper parks.
Much like when we initially established the SRMR together with Galoa village in 2004, they are merely the result of private voluntary commitments by stakeholders (= mostly a village or group of villages) to somehow manage (= mostly: not fish) a determined marine area. 
 
These voluntary MPAs are however not recognized under the Fisheries Act, not gazetted = not legislated and thus not legally enforceable - which begs the question,  
  • Has this been nothing but a brazen con from the outset (= probably not, but who knows), 
  • did it become one over time, once the failings became obvious but everybody kept on lying to the donors lest the funds would stop flowing
  • or is it just simply a case of utter collective incompetence, with nobody ever engaging in a modicum of due diligence?
Seriously: FLMMA: what were you thinking?
Like a smart pal told me, conservation without legal teeth is just environmental performance, nothing more than greenwashing and virtue signaling!

But back to the technicalities.
Be it as it may: if at all, those 700 village tabus are only binding at the community level insofar as the villagers agree to voluntarily abide by their rules. 
 
In the past, the neighboring communities would have respected them, meaning that the protection used to be quite effective at the local level. 
This however with one important caveat:  those fishing bans were merely declared in order to preserve the food source. Instead of proper species-specific biodiversity management and conservation, the result were a multitude of unspecific "village fish pantries" - and consequently, some of our most prized fishes like the Napoleon Wrasse or the Bumphead Parrotfish are rapidly disappearing from our waters.
But in terms of preserving a degree of local food security, those systems certainly used to work quite well.
 
Not so anymore. 
When everybody in tourism lost their job during the pandemic, many did turn to fishing, resulting in widespread over-fishing and poaching, and the severe depletion of the stocks of our most prized fish  all across Fiji - see e.g. our latest post-pandemic surveys here.
And as seafood prices have soared in line with the wiping out of the stocks, the poaching is ever-more lucrative, increasingly being professionalized and has continued largely unabated after the pandemic, with a whole flotilla of high-powered vessels raiding even the most remote village LMMAs and tabus pretty much completely unchallenged.
 
The crux is this. 
Unless explicitly forbidden by law (e.g the regulations for those 5 legislated marine parks), anybody in Fiji can fish anywhere for own consumption (= this when using legal gear e.g. hook & line, or if spearfishing, see Fisheries Act 13 (1) a). 
All poachers know of this loophole and when caught will always claim to be fishing for own consumption; and anybody preventing them from doing so will ultimately find themselves on the wrong side of the law and be convicted for vigilantism and/or piracy!
 
Which brings me straight to the
 
B. Implementation 
 
Here, I can keep it short and sweet.
  • In theory, those 5 legislated MPAs can be legally enforced.
    However in practice,  
    • whereas we at BAD have the manpower, boats and cash flow to monitor and enforce the fishing ban in the SRMR and are able to deter and/or apprehend some poachers, I ignore whether, and to what extent the other designated MPA managers have the resources to do so.  
    • as poaching is increasingly being perpetrated by professional teams, they know exactly how to evade capture and use any legal loopholes to their full advantage. E.g., the law mandates that poachers must be apprehended in the act, a nearly impossible feat when dealing with the ubiquitous night-time spear fishing on SCUBA! 
    • and when it comes to the prosecution, Fiji's courts are hopelessly backlogged and understaffed, and prosecuting poachers is not a high priority. Consequently, as an example, none of the poachers we have apprehended has so far been sentenced. 
  • As stated above, all those other 700+ declared MPAs are not legally recognized and can thus not be legally enforced beyond checking for compliance with the general rules of the Fisheries Act (like compliance with gear restrictions, fishing moratoria or prohibited species, etc), and checking for licenses of the commercial fishermen (who however are near-impossible to identify). 

  • Other enforcement mechanisms based on traditional indigenous protocols, whilst probably quite effective in the past, are rapidly being eroded since especially the younger generation of villagers have no qualms in defying the will of the community in favor of earning a quick buck.

  • Finally, the desperate lack of adequate resources in the Ministry is also preventing the effective enforcement of other provisions of the Fisheries Act that impact our Sharks. 
    E.g., our critically important riverine and estuarine Elasmobranch nurseries (of Bulls, Hammerheads, Lemons, Wedgefishes, Ocellated Eagle Rays, etc.) are severely threatened by widespread illegal gill netting. But the compliance = enforcement team of the Ministry only comprises less than 10 field officers tasked with monitoring compliance with every single Fisheries regulation throughout the whole of Fiji which is pretty much mission impossible!

C. And what about the Sharks? 

Fiji does protect some marine species.
E.g., all Sea Turtles are protected via moratoria under both the Fisheries Act (1941) and the Offshore Fisheries Management Regulations (2014); or the Napoleon Wrasse is protected under the Offshore Fisheries Management Regulations (2014); or all Cetaceans are protected via the declaration of Fiji's entire EEZ as a Whale Sanctuary under the Fisheries Act (1941); or there is a yearly seasonal fishing ban for most Groupers and Coral Trout, equally under the Fisheries Act (1941).

No such luck for our Sharks.
Nada, not even a measly NPoA - which is probably a good thing as those take up a lot of time to formulate but  are ultimately widely considered a total waste of time, quintessential nothingburgers that come at the expense of real management and conservation measures = mostly copy/pasted from other legislations and thus often useless in local contexts, long on bureaucratic jargon but short on binding rules, enforcement, and actual population recovery in most countries that have enacted them!
 
And this not for lack of trying!
Many years ago, our industry was collectively working with Pew and the Coral Reef Alliance on declaring Fiji a Shark and Ray Sanctuary. 
But the campaign got hijacked by a gang of local con-$$$ervationists who as so often were only interested in delaying the proceedings in order to milk it for a maximum of junkets, conferences and per diems. And then, the death knell came when the chief Shark Angel and Fat Paul conspired to literally barge in, very much uninvited, for a disastrous television show/campaign dubbed Operation Requiem (think: Whale Wars with Sharks) that completely alienated the authorities who then officially pulled the plug on the whole undertaking.
Yes, this pompous shit. Recognize the squeaking sharkette?

And the bloody show?
Nixed because it was too fake even for Discovery - plus Paul had to quickly interrupt his interventionist bluster when he got indicted, and then skipped bail in Germany and requisitioned the rapid response craft to heroically hide from Interpol in some remote corner of Ha'apai! 
And thus the ghastly sharkette never got around to putting her life on the line, and to this day keeps happily, and not at all expertly squeaking away on Shark Week!
 
We later tried to introduce a comprehensive and forward-looking Shark and Ray Management & Protection Regulation, but to no avail as that topic appears irrevocably tainted - this very much also owing to a prominent then USP Professor of Marine Studies and now doyen of our latest, greatest marine NGO publicly declaring that If we protect the Sharks, they will eat all the fish!
 
Yes you really can't make this shit up - but that's what really happened!
And so it goes!
 
But back to the Sharks.
There are also positives, as there is now a whole, albeit disjointed host of laws and regulations that can be invoked when trying to protect most of our Shark species:
  • Principally in order to achieve compliance with CITES, 
    • the Endangered and Protected Species Act (2017) bans the domestic trade, and via a catch-all clause about the possession and control, quite possibly also the catching and killing of all CITES I & II - listed Elasmobranchs;   

    • all CITES-listed Elasmobranchs may quite possibly also be protected via the capture and killing provisions in the Offshore Fisheries Management Regulations (2014)  
    • and the Customs (Prohibited Imports and Exports) Regulation (1986) bans the export and import of Shark fins (but probably not of other highly prized Elasmobranch fins like those of the critically endangered Wedgefishes!) 
  • And finally, the Offshore Fisheries Management Act (2012) and its associated regulations restrict the use of fishing gear and activities impacting Sharks, including prohibitions on Shark finning and the catch, sale, and possession of protected Shark species, this principally in order to be in compliance with the rules of the WCPFC.
Like I said, it's complicated!
 
Long story short, however, Fiji's Sharks are still being caught, killed and consumed - and where there is legal protection, the enforcement is generally weak to nonexistent.
Rather than being a fin fishery like in the past, this has now morphed into a food fishery where as the prized Fishes are being fished away, people are preferentially targeting the smaller reef Shark species and very disturbingly, the juveniles in the critical nurseries; this because small Sharks taste better than the bigger ones owing to the fact that they have accumulated less urea = ammonia in their meat.
 
That said, the situation is by no means catastrophic.
The fin ban, and the international trading ban under CITES and its local derivative laws prevent the establishment of any sizeable targeted commercial Shark fishery - and consequently, I strongly doubt that our Sharks are presently threatened at the population level. 
And whereas the illegal gill netting in the nurseries is a serious concern, there are simple remedies - but more of that later.
 
Got it so far?
Yes, that sure is a lot of detail that transcends the scope of an Instagram post, long as it may be! 
But that's the reality on the ground - and if you want to lecture others about this topic, you need to first inform yourselves by talking to people in the know! 
Above all, beware of those pied pipers prating from atop Mt. Stupid!
 
D. And what about the Conservation Achievements of the Shark Diving Industry?
 
So here goes - now comes the juicy part 😁 (= toothy grin).
 
Long story short?
None of us are Fiji's supreme Shark guardians and protectors. 
Yes we at BAD sure try our best, and there is also our legislated Marine Park which we're tasked to look after, which is certainly a great proof-of-concept - but it is very small-scale and although every bit helps, it is probably not terribly relevant for Shark protection at the population level. 
 
That said, we sure count for something.
Shark diving is a highly visible and also lucrative niche product of Fiji's tourism industry that in 2011 has been shown to contribute USD 42.2m to the Fijian economy - and with that in mind, it stands to reason that this may have played a role in the enactment of the most recent Shark-positive laws. Or at least, that our existence and economic contribution may have prevented the establishment of a proper targeted Shark fishing industry. 
 
However, Fiji's current Shark management and conservation legislation is principally the consequence of what has happened at CITES and the WCPFC - and therefore, it would be totally inappropriate if any of us were to engage in any self-congratulatory victory laps.
Again, beware of charlatans - see below!

But back to the operators. 😁
Fiji's provisioned Shark dives were pioneered more than 30 years ago by Aqua Trek Mana in the Mamanucas, at the now defunct Supermarket shark feeding site where a local Shark wrangler would literally physically manhandle some poor unsuspecting Reefies - all very rough and impromptu, and certainly not in any way conservation-oriented. 
But that was then - and very much like had to be expected, it inevitably all ended in tears.
 
Shark diving in our area was pioneered in the late 90ies by Aqua Trek Beqa who established the baited shark dive at Shark Reef. 
Like all such dives back then, it was all rather sketchy and testosterone-fueled, and consequently, quite terrifying despite there being far less Sharks (but far more big Fishes) than nowadays. There was a small fee, some of which was being paid to a (wrong) village in exchange for access to the reef. 
 
However, the site let alone the Sharks and Fishes were not in any way protected. 
On the contrary, whenever the village demanded Fish for some function, the dive staff would happily oblige. In addition, whenever some absolute genius would -much to the delight of the staff!- declare that there were too many Giant Trevallies, dozens of them would be "culled" in order to "thin the herd" akin to what was being claimed to be "best practice" in the African safari parks. 
And did they then at least duly recycle those poor Trevallies by feeding them to the Sharks - or did they instead pile them into the back of the company pickup truck to then go sell them in Navua? 
Take a wild guess!
 
Yes once again, you just can't make that shit up can you.
But that was then - at least for the most part.
 
We then took over Shark Reef in 2004 (long, long complicated story) and added the science and conservation components along with much more stringent safety protocols, thus establishing Fiji's first proper Shark ecotourism experience - and incidentally, a globally recognized alternative to the status quo in marine conservation.
 
Yes we did - not you! 😒
You know who you are! 
 
In fact, we only opened shop once we had signed the conservation agreement with the (correct) village. 
Contrary to before, the new deal stipulates that a fee is being paid not in exchange for access but in exchange for the village not fishing there - this the more as we conduct our Shark dive in government waters and not inside the village's traditional fishing grounds.
And we switched to feeding expensive Tuna heads that get consumed quasi exclusively by the Sharks instead of the previous mountains of offal and Fish carcasses from the Fish processor in Lami that made the reef look like a bloody underwater bone graveyard - and consequently, Fish biodiversity that was heavily skewed towards small predators, scavengers and detritivores was able to rebound from less than 200 to now more than 500 species, indicative of a healthy coral reef assemblage!
And we also weaned the staff off their addiction to culling - cold turkey!
 
But enough of that. 
Disbursements to principally Galoa but also other communities so far: FJD 500k+. Plus paid millions in wages. Plus contributed many more millions to the Fijian economy in terms of taxes but also direct purchases and investments. Plus generated even more millions in income for all the ancillary businesses like accommodations, restaurants, tours and transfers, souvenir shops and airlines. Plus trained dozens of young dive professionals mostly recruited among local school dropouts, many of which from Galoa. Plus sponsored the training of dozens of honorary fish wardens. Plus welcomed, entertained and mesmerized thousands of tourists. Plus engaged in several marine restoration initiatives. Plus published dozens of peer-reviewed papers and scientific reports.
And the list goes on and on. 
 
When it comes to our four principal industry peers.
Following our lead, all now claim that they have entered into some conservation deal with local communities, that they protect their site, that they are saving the Sharks, that they have pioneered this or that - and obviously, that they are the very best!
 
Really? 
  • Last time I checked, none of them operate out of a legislated (= gazetted) MPA- and consequently, none of their sites are currently legally protected against poaching 
  • I however understand that the one in the Yasawas is actively pursuing legal protection via a different mechanism (I hear, a foreshore lease). They also employ marine scientists, conduct research and reef restoration, etc. and actively engage with the local communities that are said to largely respect the fishing ban. 
  • The others, well what can I say. Lemme keep it as neutral as I can.  
    • Now that the Fish have been conveniently aggregated in those Shark diving sites: is there any monitoring, training of fish wardens, deterrence via vessel inspections & enforcement of the Fisheries Act - anything at all?
      Any, gasp, night patrols?
    • Or may the staff still be taking advantage of absentee owners and regularly poach there?
    • And the neighboring communities, every single day, on their way to and from Pac Harbour and Navua? 
    • And do they employ any marine scientists = any scientific monitoring and/or research, let alone publications? Or may the asserted, and I cite, emphasis on shark ecology and shark behavior research by one of them be nothing but a bunch of brazen, bold faced lies?
    • Any reef restoration?
      And no, I'm not talking about the idiotic fad of transplanting some random Acropora without having addressed the causes for why it is not (anymore) there in the first place!
    • Any marine conservation beyond the infamous old greenwashing tropes of raising awareness and changing perceptions?

    • How about some real education imparted by real scientists? 
    • Fees disbursed, people trained? 
    • Questions questions! 😁
And so it goes.
In the big scheme of things, not to worry.
Judging from the many, many enthusiastic reviews and lack of major incidents, everybody in the industry does a really good job at providing an exhilarating and safe experience to our tourists.
 
The conservation and research, meh.
They cost a lot of money, require very specialized skills and knowledge, and heaps of commitment, patience and perseverance as everything is tedious and success is by no means guaranteed - and with that in mind, it's perfectly fine to decide not to incur that expense and to merely focus on the tourism side of the business like many of our peers do world-wide.
 
But folks, can you then please stop the charade. 
Stop pretending to be what you are clearly not, the more as the customers always end up finding out the truth and will quickly call you out - as in flagging somebody's, and I cite, 2h bro science talk 😂, and the like. 
If you don't know what yer talking about, do yourself a favor and get yourself an education - e.g. by reading our scientific publications or by consulting this blog. 
You're welcome!
 
And even better: how about walking all that breathy talk!
See below! 
  
E. And the Way Forward? 
 
Fiji's Shark Diving Industry is not broken and needs no fixing. 
The operations are all profitable and based on the customer feedback, they are quite well run and above all, very safe indeed. Yes would be nice if we all loved each other and worked together - but since we all operate our own sites, it's not an objective necessity and definitely not gonna happen any time soon.
So please, spare us the advice, relax and enjoy the experience! 
 
But what about those non-legislated shark diving sites?
C'mon folks - you can do better than that! They are literally our most important business assets that feed you and your family, and it behooves us to take care of them - if only from a business perspective!
Get your sites legally protected - and then bloody get off your lazy ass, cough up the money and go patrol them! 
 
That said, this is obviously a much bigger issue.
The pandemic has clearly shown us that when you obliterate the fish stocks, the poor Sharks really suffer - and consequently, our focus needs to shift away from species protection to habitat protection, as in how can one protect the Jaguar if one doesn't protect the Jungle. 
 
With that in mind
  • First and foremost, if we really care about improving the situation on the ground, we urgently need to wean ourselves off the excesses of that despicable NGO/Consultancy Complex and completely change the ways we address biodiversity conservation in Fiji!
    • We need to stop directing all those conservation funds to those leeching NGOs and multinational agencies who keep on brazenly frittering them away on overhead, lavish junkets, conferences, workshops, committees, consultants and per diems, only to come up with all those useless projects, technical reports and management plans that eventually all fail miserably because there there were never any long-term commitments, nor the required authority let alone the funding for their implementation.  
    • Instead, the bulk of the funding needs to be directed to the implementing authorities, e.g. to the compliance team of the Ministry of Fisheries, or as wages for the honorary fish wardens, but also for technical equipment ranging from measly laptops, torches and weather gear all the way to vessels and coastal radars, etc!  
    • And then, the metrics of success need to be completely changed: away from the dreaded workshops, reports, awareness and capacity building to real, measured, sustained improvements in biodiversity, which is the only thing that actually counts!

    • And as a corollary to the above.
      Instead of all those breathy announcements and wasteful pompous launches at the GPH, how about boasting about the Blue this and the Green that only once we have actually delivered meaningful results on the ground!
  •  Let's find ways to legalize those 700-plus voluntary MPAs and/or LMMAs, which would 
    • greatly empower our local communities and our already established army of fish wardens who instead of engaging in the current questionable vigilantism, would then greatly enhance Fiji's fisheries management, monitoring and enforcement.
    • incidentally, also benefit our industry peers, but more importantly
    • create a huge swath of protected marine habitat that would benefit our Sharks, and
    • go a long way in achieving Fiji's 30x30 commitments, at least when it comes to protecting our coastal habitats!
  •  Let's try and close the most glaring loopholes, e.g. 
    • Now that a coalition of local scientists along with the Fiji Shark Lab have succeeded in listing all our riverine and estuarine Elasmobranch nurseries as ISRAs: let's get them legally protected, e.g. via legislated MPAs for the core areas, plus legislated seasonal fishing bans further afield.
      No, not like this: far from its bombastic and misleading designation, this is simply yet another voluntary, not legislated and thus legally unenforceable seasonal fishing ban = like I said at the start, nothing but the usual Smoke & Mirrors!
    • Let's confer to the Ministry of Fisheries full authority over the whole seafood value chain, this including the currently largely unregulated domestic trade very much inclusive of all those shady outlets plying their trade on Facebook!
      This would also enable Fisheries to mandate that the traders finally submit the data about the local commercial fishing industry which would greatly help in managing those stocks! And how about reversing the burden of proof and also force them to prove that the seafood they sell has not been poached! 
    • Let's also put Fisheries in charge of all legislation concerning our marine resources instead of the current fragmentation across several Ministries 
    • Finally, how about delegating the authority for all marine conservation inclusive of its enforcement to an independent agency like the LTA - and by the same token, let's find ways to streamline the enforcement by alleviating the burden on the judiciary with a regimen of spot fines, much like what has incidentally already happened with respect to enforcing the traffic rules.

    • And because I'm at it: how about educating, but also calling out our hopelessly uniformed media and idiotic local influencers that keep on glorifying the killing of our charismatic, and often threatened megafauna like the Giant Groupers, Bumphead Parrots, Turtles and large Sharks! 
Any takers?
Like I keep preaching: Less idle talk, more action on the ground! 
 
But above all.
Let's go Shark diving - sustainably! 

PS: This is a great start, and very much in line with what we've been advocating for - well done Madam Minister!
 
Comments policy: please post here and not on FB and/or Instagram. Stupidities and trolling will be censored = my blog my rules!

Sunday, June 07, 2020

Elasmobranch Tourism for Managers - Paper!

Shark Reef: happy tourists, happy Sharks! Great pic by Ozzie Sam - click for detail!

And here we go again.
Andrew has sent me this paper, and I am once again irritated.
Mind you it is by no means terrible, the more as it correctly states that  
The strict self-imposed management actions and limited number of shark feeding operators at Shark Reef in Fiji, has resulted in minimal long-term effects on bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas) behaviour and diet, and is likely to have had no effects on health and fitness,

and that


Provisioning elasmobranchs, the activity deemed to have the most risk associated with it, can be effectively undertaken if appropriate management is in place (e.g. bull shark feeding at Shark Reef Reserve, Fiji)
But the paper is certainly also not good, either.
Like some of its equally irritating predecessors, it suggests that there is a problem urgently requiring third-party management = regulation, something I most strongly disagree with, especially when it comes to those forever maligned provisioned Shark dives.

It's same old same old.
Over the many years, I've blogged about the latter at nauseam and am actually tired tired tired of the bloody useless controversy - but here goes, just because this nonsense cannot remain unanswered.
Read the links!

1. Threats to Sharks and Rays (and their Habitats)

Sharks and Rays are not faring well.
At risk of stating the obvious: the biggest threats to their populations are:
  • Overfishing (Targeted and Bycatch)
    Globally, overfishing of Elasmobranchs remains rampant due to widespread IUU and inadequate management, monitoring, enforcement and prosecution.
    Specifically, this equates to a yearly mortality of roughly 100 million Sharks that are  being killed for the fins, their meat but also other products like e.g. squalene. That is clearly unsustainable and also means that whereas some local conservation efforts have been highly successful, Elasmobranch  conservation appears to be largely failing at a global scale.
    And to add to the problem, we are additionally threatening Shark and Ray populations by equally overfishing their prey.
  • Global Warming and Ocean Acidification whose impacts are both direct but above all indirect (= just a small example) as every single marine ecosystem in general and all Elasmobranch habitats in particular are being severely affected, and this generally negatively. And of course no Shark or Ray will survive if we destroy their habitat!

  • Pollution
    Need I elaborate? And it's by no means only the plastic!

  • Human Encroachment
    This results in habitat change and degradation, and also in conflicts all the way to triggering large and indiscriminate responses that may indeed threaten some local populations like e.g. in Australia, South Africa and possibly, Reunion Island.
And Shark and Ray tourism?

Yeah, right.
Think that in comparison, tourism is in any way a relevant factor?

Actually, on the contrary!
Not only does Elasmobranch tourism not endanger Shark and Ray populations - but in the overriding majority of cases, it contributes substantially to their protection all the way to being its principal driver!
To wit, even in the most infamous documented case of harmful Elasmo tourism, i.e. that of those Southern Stingrays on Grand Cayman, the population appears to be thriving as everybody there understands how valuable they are to the local economy!

So is everything perfect?
Of course not, see e.g. above - but it is certainly not catastrophic, either!
Specifically:

A. Overcrowding and Competition.

This can be a cause for concern.
Especially in multi-user sites, the competition between too many uncoordinated and/or unmanaged tourism operators can lead to excesses that can inconvenience or even harm the animals.
And if so, and only if the industry itself is not able, or willing to cooperate and to self-regulate, then the authorities may indeed have to step in with some common-sense regulations, like limits in the numbers of tourists and/or operators and/or vessels, or e.g. licenses so that the authorities can obtain some data and/or income for monitoring, or common sense codes of conduct, etc.
But regulation should always be the exception and not the rule lest it becomes stifling or even counterproductive!

B. Shark Feeding.

This is what we have learned over the many years.
  • Shark feeding appears unproblematic at the ecosystem level
    All research into those baited Shark dives appears to concur that those dives have little to no effect at large spatial and temporal scales. It appears pretty clear that far from becoming dependent on the handouts, those provisioned Sharks continue to fulfill their ecological roles and also continue to follow their normal life cycles as in e.g. mating, pupping and migrating = there are no described major negative effects impinging on the viability of those populations.

  • However, there are certainly effects at small spatial and temporal scales.
    Shark feeding often aggregates the animals, and this can have local consequences. As an example, take the increased aggression of those Lemons in Moorea; or the observed competitive exclusion of other Sharks in South Africa and possibly Fiji (= much has changed since that paper, and many of the intermediate Sharks are back, for reasons unknown); or those postulated local behavioral changes and marginally increased residency in Southern Australia. That said, the effects are clearly rather minor and don't appear to at all threaten local populations.

    And some of the other marine life may be affected insofar as they, too, may aggregate and partake in a meal = incidentally much like they do in countless other occasions ranging from organic waste being pumped into the oceans by discharges and e.g. rivers all the way to targeted feeding - and now please do tell me which has the by far greater impact!

  • Plus, let's not forget the impact of the thousands upon thousands of people who feed and condition Sharks and other Fishes on a daily basis, i.e. the fishermen and spearos!
    Case in point:



    And this is being repeated, mutatis mutandis, countless times wherever there are fishermen = always and everywhere!
     
    --> C'mon, seriously: do you really believe that the incremental effect of a few dozen Shark feeding operators is in any way relevant to the health of Elasmobranch populations?
So let's please be crystal clear about the following:
Elasmobranch tourism does in no way threaten the survival of the populations of the Sharks and Rays it showcases - period!

2. Threats to People

Again, this is obviously about Shark Feeding.
As per the below table, the authors considers it to be extremely dangerous, and also postulate the urgent need for regulation owing to widespread lack of management.
Click for detail!



But if so and Shark feeding is so damn dangerous - how come that actually, we are not drowning in horrible injuries and fatalities?
See below!

So there, for the umpteenth bloody time.

A. Public Safety Considerations.
  • There is no geographical correlation between Shark feeding and Shark strikes.
    Re-read this. In brief and with maybe the exception of SA, the vast majority of Shark strikes occurs in locations where there are no Shark feeding operations (like e.g. Florida, California, Western Australia, Reunion or Recife, Brazil)  - which is even more surprising if one considers that most of those dives have been established in places that are known for their healthy Shark populations!
    And even if there were some correlation, it certainly does not equate causation = there is a grand total of zero evidence that Shark feeding endangers the public at large!
    But of course there are some caveats.
    • Location matters.
      Many Shark dives have been being established where there are already Sharks, meaning that objectively speaking, the risk profile is unlikely to change - but perceptions matter and like in the case of population centers like, say, Cape Town or Playa, the diving activity and associated increased publicity of Sharks can lead to conflicts with the other local ocean users. Consequently, as a rule, the feeding locations need to be as remote as possible and should definitely not be established e.g. right in the middle of population centers or right in front of popular beaches etc.

    • Obtaining the required social license and stakeholder involvement are crucial.
      The local stakeholders need to become an integral part of these projects - and this not only through regular awareness, education and consultations but also by letting them partake in the financial windfall, both indirectly but very much also directly. This will help avoid unnecessary risks (eg by having locals avoid the feeding sites), help protect the animals and ensure crucial local support when the inevitable problems will arise.

    • Get in the research.
      The best argument against many of the intuitively plausible reservations of our detractors are strong scientific data. As an example, when people got bitten by Bull Sharks in Cancun and everybody tried to blame the Shark feeding operations in Playa, the operators there had the data showing that they were only feeding females whereas the Bull Shark population in Cancun was only comprised of males. Or in our case, our Bull Shark data show conclusively that we are neither causing residency nor any dependency on our handouts - which right now is helping us make the argument that the present reduction in Shark feeding due to Covid-19 is not endangering our beachgoers!
    B. Safety of the Participants.

    This is a different matter altogether.
    Contrary to the public at large that may be unaware and/or unsupportive of, and thus be subjected to Shark provisioning, anybody partaking in Shark feeding dives knows what they are getting themselves into, and is thus implicitly approving of the activity and possibly even assuming the associated risks.
    Still, we strongly advocate that the operators of commercial dives need to keep their clients (and their employees!) safe - and if not, they need to be held accountable.

    The following considerations apply.
    • Feeding protocols.
      Like I often state, it is often not about the WHAT but about the HOW.
      Shark provisioning creates its own risks, and those risks need to be managed - meaning that all protocols should be chosen in function of minimizing the impact on both the animals and the habitat, and on maximizing the safety for the participants but also the public at large. E.g., everybody will hopefully agree that creating humongous chum trails or dumping indiscriminate amounts of bait to create feeding frenzies is probably a bad idea. Here at BAD, we run a tightly choreographed dive with stringent safety protocols that is often hailed as a template for sustainable Shark feeding, see the citations at the top. Or as another example, we go to great lengths to condition the Bulls never to come to the surface, lest we get accused of endangering other aquatic recreationists.
      In brief, we need to be in a position to demonstrate that we are always striving to conduct our dives in the safest possible way - think, Airline Industry!

    • Shark bites will nevertheless happen.
      As Sharks feeding is risky, the risk will sometimes eventuate - and there is really nothing whatsoever we can do about it apart from protecting ourselves (= steel mesh!) and then dealing professionally with the consequences - and if we do, I am convinced that the consequences will be minimal.
      Case in point: it didn't quite happen like that - but a client did get bitten despite of arguably the industry's most stringent protocols, and no degree of management would have prevented it. And he obviously survived because we were prepared in terms of training, medical supplies and evacuation protocols, as everybody should be!
    • There are Shark strikes and Shark strikes.
      Whereas Shark provisioning is certainly a dangerous undertaking requiring skills and circumspection, everybody in the industry agrees that the cause for bites during provisioned dives is either a) self defense, b) competition or c) mistakes - not predation = those bites can be serious, but the consequences of a fully fledged predatory attack would be something else altogether!
      Exception - but the guy was certainly asking for it!

    • Yes we certainly condition the Sharks, and yes they learn, and this very fast indeed - but they learn to eat bait, not humans!
      It is also absolutely plausible to assume that provisioned Sharks may have learned to e.g. associate the boat noise with a subsequent feeding opportunity, and will thus aggregate when they hear the vessels, or when the operators rev the engines in order to "ring the dinner bell".
      But "turning up" does not equate "attacking"!

    • And finally, with one single fatality (or possibly two) recorded in thousands upon thousands of Shark feeds, baited Shark dives are many orders of magnitude safer than SCUBA!
      This is because contrary to ordinary diving where people are routinely being thrown into situations that can prove to be treacherous, baited and provisioned Shark dives are nearly always supervised and choreographed = help is always quickly at hand.
      Also, and provided that (!) we act responsibly, yours truly and every single Shark diving operator I've ever asked have made the observation that the conditioned Sharks become positively tame, meaning that the risk of a bite is lower not higher!
      Case in point: look no further than Florida and Tiger Beach, home of troglodytes, Shark molesters and media whores, and scene of ever stupider shenanigans by self-promoting Shark whisperers and awareness raisers - and yet nobody is being killed as those poor Sharks are quite obviously unendingly tolerant and forgiving!
    And there you have it.

    When it comes to those Shark feeding dives, I remain convinced that regulation makes only sense in those multi-user sites suffering from overcrowding, and this only when the industry is not able, or willing to cooperate and self regulate, like what is quite possibly  happening in Playa.

    Other than that, any incidents are already suitably covered.
    Since the participants are most certainly willing, those ubiquitous liability waivers should be allowed to stand in minor cases. And any grossly negligent harm to customers can be adequately prosecuted under existing local legislation, whereas existing OHS regulations will suffice to deal with any failure in training and protecting one's employees.
    And that is plenty sufficient.

    Possible exception: those new commercial free-diving ventures!
    Free diving with large predatory Sharks in baited conditions used to largely be private undertakings but it is now being increasingly offered commercially. From this vantage point, this is bringing about a whole new set of specific risks (= foremost of which the great vulnerability of the customers at the water surface) that the paper appears to completely neglect.
    This is novel territory that needs to be closely monitored, the more as those operations are mostly shoestring and largely improvised (and IMO highly sketchy), and with no relevant assets = nothing much to be had should the obvious risks end up eventuating.

    But then again, nobody so far has died despite of all the stupid shenanigans, so who am I to say!

    3. Long story short?

    What really disappoints me is this.
    We are in the middle of the sixth, anthropocene mass extinction requiring all hands on deck in order to try and stem the ongoing catastrophic loss of biodiversity - and yet some quarters find it fit to continue wasting scarce resources in terms of time, brain power and possibly also money on these irrelevant trifles.

    The actual physical footprint of our industry is tiny.
    And yet, we punch way above our weight in terms of outreach but also Shark and Ray conservation and research, and as such are an important agent for positive change = far from being a problem, we are very much part of the solution!
    So why this exasperating fixation on wanting to meddle with what we do?

    Yes, sure: we need to operate responsibly.
    As ecotourism operators, all of us need to strive to have the smallest possible negative impact on the animals and their habitat, and we also need to operate safely - and the vast majority of us actually do!
    Furthermore, we continue to learn from our mistakes, and continue to improve and refine our procedures, like we always have. In fact, we now even have an association of industry pioneers, leaders and trend setters that routinely discuss issues and develop solutions - like right now, we are developing Covid-19 protocols!

    And if not, the market will do what markets do.
    This is a small community where there are no secrets, and notorious transgressors will be quickly weeded out as no travel agent and/or tourist will book dives with operators that are known to be unsustainable and/or exploitative and/or life threatening = which is why I continue to strongly support the establishment of a rating system akin to what has been proposed here! 

    But enough said - like I said, I'm tired of this shit.
    In concluding (yes, finally!) let me cite myself.

    We did not ask for this - and all this incessant nagging and lecturing by people who ultimately have no clue about, and zero investment into our industry is frankly becoming terminally irksome. 
    There is now a whole cabal of incidentally mainly female researchers whose academic niche (and thus career and thus income) is predicated upon being considered ecotourism experts, or whatever, and who appear to be operating with questionable agendas and also appear to desperately want to meddle instead of waiting to be asked.

    Anyway.
    When it comes to the global Shark diving industry in general, there are now one excellent paper and one good one (both, incidentally, by experienced Shark divers!) and several that are not, see e.g. here and also here, and here with links.
    And now there is this. 

    That's plenty enough, thank you very much.
    And now, please, why don't you just fuck off - because we actually got work to do, salaries to pay and tourists to wow!
     
    No hard feelings, love you all! :)

    2025 - PS!!!!: Talking of Tiger Beach, you may want to research this and watch this. 
    In brief, a SharkSchool participant was literally ripped to pieces in a Shark feeding frenzy. 
    In my professional judgement, the tragic incident was 100% due to the lousy procedures, blatant incompetence and gross negligence of the operator(s) - and yet from what I can discern, there has been zero introspection by the local industry, and the same lousy procedures continue completely unchanged, and this despite of an ever-increasing complement of demented Tiger-redirecting free-diving sharkitarians, courtesy of the teachings of Ramsey & Co! 
    And yes, I can certainly leave it at that!
     

    Tuesday, October 29, 2019

    GWS Clans at the Neptune Islands - Paper!


    Very interesting!

    Check this out.
    Press release here, stories e.g. here and here.
    In brief and assuming I understand this correctly, those GWS don't turn up randomly but appear to favor (and hence possibly travel with) determined buddies and even form distinct groups that appear to persist for years. Nice to see Johann, Charlie and Andrew among the authors, and kudos to GSD member Rodney Fox Shark Expeditions for having enabled yet another stellar paper - and incidentally, congrats for the great new boat! 

    And here in Fiji?

    Remember Mike's totally speculative hypothesis?
    That was obviously several years ago, and today we know quite a bit more. Specifically, we have learned that although our dive has minor local impacts, effects at the ecosystem level remain negligible as our Bulls continue to roam and do neither get conditioned to coming ever more frequently, let alone residing here or changing their migrations or mating cycles, etc; nor do they in any way become dependent on our handouts - tho I was certainly wrong when speculating about the nutritional value of the Tuna heads! But be it as it may, the restaurant analogy remains fully confirmed.

    And the part about the Bulls likely being solitary?
    I still believe that in the case of those large reef-dwelling Sharks, and barring any cooperative hunting for which we have zero evidence, evolution would have selected against traveling with, and thus having to compete and/or possibly even share meals with conspecifics.

    But then again, who am I to say.
    I can't divulge too much - but I can say that 10 years after that post, we are finally about to reveal some conclusive evidence!
    Fiji Time anybody? You betcha! :)

    So keep watching this space.
    To be continued!

    Sunday, August 27, 2017

    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!
     

    Sunday, June 04, 2017

    Abundance and spatial Distribution of Reef-associated Sharks - Paper!

    Shark Reef Marine Reserve: protecting the Sharks, their prey and their habitat! Great pic by Ozzie Sam!

    And I cite.
    Our study found shark abundance to be primarily driven by fish biomass amongst lower trophic levels and functional groups.
    The importance of fish biomass in predicting shark abundance suggests the necessity of ecosystem level protection, involving all species and functional groups, rather than species-specific policies, such as shark sanctuaries, which might still permit on-going depletion of prey species.
    Similarly, studies across a range of marine ecosystems have found that assemblages of top level predators such as sharks require both healthy environments in terms of prey availability, and a wide range of habitat zones to accommodate different species’ habitat preferences and to permit resource partitioning and ontogenetic changes in habitat use. Individual species or life stages preferentially use particular habitat zones or depth ranges, and, though often highly site-resident, reef shark species have been shown capable of making long movements between neighbouring reefs.
    This implies that marine reserves that encompass a wide variety of habitats within the boundaries of the protected area may be more effective in preserving species diversity in the shark assemblage and providing the habitat niches required at different life stages. Very large MPAs such as the BMR, in contrast to more narrowly scoped or zoned protection regimes, have the additional advantage of protecting not only known and surveyed habitats but also the unknowns.
    Bingo.
    Like I've been stating for a while, e.g. here, we really need to shift away from the current narrow focus on species protection towards a much more holistic approach - and those mega-MPAs are an excellent way of achieving that aim.

    Enjoy David and Jessica's paper!

    Tuesday, August 16, 2016

    Reef Sharks prefer bite-size Meals!

    Epic pic by Tom, from The World's Best Safety Stop on The Best Shark Dive in the World!

    This is starting to get embarrassing.
    From the press release,
    "Although black-tip, white-tip and grey reef sharks have long been thought of as top predators, we found that the chemical structure of the sharks' body tissue actually matched closely with that of large reef fishes such as groupers, snappers and emperors,".

    "This result tells us that reef sharks and large fishes have a similar diet, but they don't eat each other. So rather than eating big fish, reef sharks are eating like big fish."

    "We now know that reef sharks are an important link in the food chain, but they are not the last link in the food chain. In most cases, the top predators are tiger sharks, hammerhead sharks, or people,"
    Indeed!
    Or as the paper states,
    Assignment of species into discrete trophic groups is standard protocol in community ecology and has facilitated unique insights into ecosystem function and alternative management scenarios, which are ultimately used to guide policy decisions.
    At present, reef sharks are typically assigned to the apex of food webs, but our results indicate that this practice misrepresents trophic structure among high TP species.

    Hence, we advocate a reassignment of reef sharks to an alternative trophic group (such as high-level mesopredators) that better reflects trophic similarities between reef sharks and large predatory fishes. This change is expected to refine our understanding of how reef communities function, and ultimately, improve management of reef sharks.

    If indeed reef sharks are high-level mesopredators, who then are the apex predators on coral reefs?
    Given their superior size and ability to eat reef sharks, we hypothesise that the role of apex predator is fulfilled by large, roving sharks such as G. cuvier, C. obscurus, C. albimarginatus, N. acutidens and S. mokarran. And surely Bull Sharks - or not?


    Although large roving sharks are seldom seen during visual surveys of coral reefs and thus are typically considered rare, their actual abundances may be much higher than currently believed, since they accounted for approx. 9 % of all sharks captured by long-lining at our study sites (excludes N. ferrugineus) and they comprise a high proportion of sightings by baited remote underwater videos on the GBR. Therefore, it is plausible that large roving sharks are present in sufficient numbers to potentially exert top-down control of reef sharks and other high-level mesopredators on coral reefs.

    Removal of apex predators such as wolves, lions and dingoes can invoke trophic cascades due to release of numerous prey species and subsequent flow-on effects to lower trophic levels. 
    However, trophic cascades induced solely by removal of reef sharks are rare, subtle and/or equivocal, implying that reef sharks have relatively weak effects on community structure and function. 

    A potential explanation is that functional redundancy exists among large piscivores, such that equivalent species compensate for any loss of reef sharks and thus buffer potential trophic cascades. This hypothesis is supported by our results, which indicate that (1) reef sharks and large predatory fishes are functionally similar (based on equivalent mean TPs and overlapping isotopic niches, and (2) these two groups of predators are dietary generalists and potentially consume prey in proportion to availability, thereby compensating for loss of species-level interactions. 
    It is also noteworthy that large predatory reef fishes are highly diverse (more than 20 species on the GBR) and probably encompass a broader range of trophic niches than those of the four species considered here. 
    In view of these results, we contend that functional redundancy exists among large piscivores and is sufficiently high on the GBR to stabilize community structure despite moderate to high fishing pressure and depletion of reef sharks in some areas.

    We conclude that large conspicuous predators, be they elasmobranchs or any other taxon, should not axiomatically be regarded as apex predators without thorough analysis of their diet. In the case of reef sharks, our dietary analyses suggest they should be reassigned to an alternative trophic group such as high-level mesopredators.
    There you have it.
    So let's please stop proffering the same old tired nonsense - it is false in its generalization and as such, it is nothing but bad conservation.