Fuvahmulah - Barbarians at the Gate!

Plenty of Tigers guaranteed!

 

Check this out.

Great huh.

I've been there a couple of years ago and can assure you that it is really like that, and even better, to the point that I've been trying to go back there ever since.

Many ages ago I landed myself a nifty little job as leader of exploratory dive expeditions and check-out diver for new dive destinations that led me to explore some of the remotest, most memorable and sometimes scariest dive sites long before the advent of organized mass tourism - and Fuvahmulah still conveys that rare feeling of exploring new frontiers where every dive is still an adventure harboring the possibility of unique and unexpected encounters - see e.g the other videos on this page.

And at a time where diving has been largely commodified that's just simply awesome.

 

Even Fuvahmulah itself is totally unique.

Dubbed The Galapagos of the Maldives, it sits all by itself, completely exposed to wind and offshore currents in deep oceanic water and thus acts as a beacon and pit stop for large ocean wanderers. It is also not your archetypical Maldivian tourism island that only sports a single sprawling hotel installation on a atoll motu, but is instead fully inhabited and merely features a few charming small family-owned guest houses along with a few modest eateries - but that too only adds to its charm.

The people to go with are these folks, hands down.

I had heard about the place from clients who mentioned a crazy Russian and her partner - but Tatiana and Panda are everything but. And this is me saying it so you better believe it!

Instead, these are smart, extremely knowledgeable, responsible and highly experienced people running a highly professional dive operation together with a great team of super motivated locals, and diving with them is both great fun but also super safe.

And lemme tell 'ya: the latter could not be more important.

The simply fabulous Thresher Shark dives are (drift) diving for grown ups in oceanic conditions and often substantial depth and challenging surge and currents, followed by open water decompression and live pickup - so you better have guides who know exactly what they are doing. And they most certainly do!

And when it comes to the world famous baited Tiger Zoo dives that often feature dozens of large Tigers, following the correct protocols is everything - and these guys sure have it down pat. And yes this would again be me saying it, the more as they've shown me the protocols that are spot on and exhaustive, including the all-important evacuation procedures and first aid training!

Which brings me straight to the title of this post.

It's much like what happened in Playa where Chino did all the pioneering work, only to have a hoard of moochers fly in and piss on his parade, or Bimini where everybody rushed in and as a minimum spoiled years of research by the Sharklab. 

Now that Tatiana and Panda have done all the heavy lifting and pretty much single-handedly put it on the tourism map, Fuvahmulah is being overrun by dozens of local copycats and wannabee Shark whisperers with little more to their credit than a GoPro, an Instagram account, an opinion and a mouth.

 

And like last year in Playa, this can only end up in tears - especially at the Tiger Zoo which in the high season is already operating at the very limit of sustainability. When I see those arrogant idiots and their clients wanting to change those excellent procedures and even institute free diving, in baited conditions and at the entrance of the island's only harbor with scores of vessels zipping around overhead I can only shake my head in disbelief - but then again, this is so pathetically same old same old isn't it.

Rule number one: never, ever let the inmates run the asylum!

So folks, don't be fooled by the images and the hype.

Especially in Shark diving, there really is no substitute for experience, professionalism and quality - and being a local, and giving stupid discounts, and showing you nice pictures and video, and spinning some nice eco-BS are all no substitutes for that. Not in Fuvahmulah, not in Playa and also not here in Fiji where we too continue to hate on each other but at least have our own dive sites.

Incidentally, Playa has improved dramatically.

The pandemic has weeded out the worst assholes, and most others have finally discovered the virtues of cooperation, leading to a solid season with acceptable Bull Shark numbers (thanks Chino for the baiting!) and somewhat reasonable revenues for everybody.  

And yes, Bimini has become much more orderly too.

When it comes to Fuvahmulah, it'll take a while.

Assuming the safari boats come rushing in as usual, the high season will likely be a bloody clusterfuck, after which business volumes will dry up and many of those folks will thankfully go bust and hopefully wander off in search of greener pastures.

But it aint gonna be pretty.

So, again, be smart and go with the best - seriously!

And should you be on a safari boat, do insist that they do, too, instead of trying to do it on the cheap with some local pal, the more as the victim of that fiasco would be you!

Just sayin'!

Enjoy - because you most certainly will!

PS - Oh FFS.

 

I've barely posted this, and here they come - and it's even worse than I feared.

The inmates have already taken over and are free diving at the Tiger Zoo, and developing some inane pelagic Tiger Shark dive, obviously baited like their illegal dive in Hawaii. And they are obviously empowering women and helping the poor locals and fighting marine pollution - something that has already been done by others for years, and this without it being used for self-aggrandizement! 

And of course it's all about Shark conservation - in a Shark sanctuary! 

 

And talking about eco clap trap

for generations we have recycled the fish scraps into the sea to fertilize the fisheries 

Seriously? 

Literally all fishermen who clean their catch throw the scraps into the ocean, and this everywhere!

Recycle and fertilize my ass!

Lord have mercy...

 

And we're back to square one. 

Like a wise man said years ago - incidentally about the very same folks

It stopped actually being "about sharks" a long time ago. 
It's about the individual and what the sharks as a vehicle to notoriety can do for them

And I can most certainly leave it at that.

 

Comments policy: please leave your comments here and not on FB. 

Please be aware that this is  not a public chatroom, and that comments we don't like will  be deleted.

Our blog our rules! :)

 

Guadalupe - I stand with Mike!

Source.

Oh FFS.
 

Read this and then, watch this  pathetic shit.

I'm being asked to comment, so there - though for you who are eagerly expecting the usual epic pile of blood and gore, I got bad news as the following has been edited by Tashi Blue and is consequently way nicer than the usual fare on this blog.

So sorry! :)

Anyway.

First and foremost, this is obviously very sad.

Stouffer has definitely been grievously injured and may indeed have perished after they managed to shake him free of the cage. But although it sure looks that way, we do not know for sure - and considering that those GWS are incredibly resilient,  he may also have survived against all odds. In fact some guests on that cruise did claim to have seen him again, behaving "strangely", once activities were resumed after the accident.
So fingers crossed that he turns up again in the future.

Secondly.

Mike Lever is a good man and personal friend.

He is a co-founder of GSD and in many personal conversations and decisions I have witnessed, I have found him to be highly ethical, intelligent, professional, and conservation and safety conscious to the max.

But most importantly.

When the authorities issued the new rules, it was actually Mike who first implemented the new cage design - and this incidentally very much against the wishes of some of his clients, see e.g the stupid comments by the insufferable Ms. Cobb right  here!

And this?

CONANP (who  have incidentally done nothing wrong - and have also most certainly taken no bribes!) are clearly mistaken as the relevant measurements are not between vertical bars as wrongly suggested in the infographic here.
Instead, there must be no more than 35 centimeters between horizontal bars as clearly stated in the regulations (= 5.6) here and here, and in the legally binding “Wildlife Sighting Permits” from SEMARNAT.
Now you know - you're welcome!
 
And guess what.

The distance between the horizontal bars of the cage of the Nautilus UnderSea is fully compliant!

Detail detail - but it is all-important!
In brief, the fact of the matter is that Mike Lever's cages are fully compliant, and that claiming anything otherwise  is defamation pure and simple.

And just to be clear: there was no fault by the crew, either.

That Shark was clearly interested in something or somebody inside the cage and decided to change course and charge the cage, twice, entirely voluntarily = it is crystal clear that there was no error in bait handling, no teasing, no goading, nor any other nefarious human behavior leading to the entrapment of the Shark. In fact several experts testify that this is unusual behavior - tho considering that this is a predator and a male, I'm personally not terribly surprised to witness what to me looks like aggressive behavior!

In any case, this is clearly just a freak accident and incredibly bad luck.

Which brings me straight to those pathetic FB posts.

The dude is some insignificant animal molesting macho self promoter who however appears to have great media outreach in Mexico. I note that despite of claiming to be a conservation activist, or whatever, he has never done anything for Mexico's Sharks despite of the country's infamous Shark fishing tradition that is specifically leading to the demise of not one but many of those endangered and protected GWS in Baja.

In fact this was his comment on the Solmar accident.
IMPRESIONANTE huh - and what about him and his YouTubers pals illegally feeding from the cages to attract the GWS who then slam into them. Nice, respectful marketing, too!
Hipócrita anybody?

But that was then - so why the outrage and media circus now.

And why the appalling xenophobic focus whereby the people's anger is being directed more at Mike's nationality than at his claimed breach of the rules.
 

Let's maybe look at some circumstantial evidence shall we.
 

There is the issue of the origin of that video.

This is not the footage from a single camera but actually, it is a small edit from two cameras filming from two different cages. Having been shown this precise edit a while ago, I know for a fact that there's only one possible provenance, and that is from the Nautilus Fleet itself.

And bingo.
Having looked and also asked questions, there's clearly one disgruntled employee who  has a big axe to grind, had access to the video and disposes of good contacts to the media - and lo and behold, she is indeed busy running her foul little mouth behind the scenes.

Yes she did indeed once again manage to get fired.
But not because of some nefarious conspiracy by Mike but instead, for her unbecoming public behavior when she was partaking in a cruise on the NBA as an employee - and yes there are plenty of witnesses to that = you staunch defenders may want to reconsider your position as right now you are frankly looking like total suckers!
BUT, I also notice that it is asserted that

she stated clearly that this was an accident and not the result of human negligence. She also stated that the vessel’s cages are compliant with regulatory requirements and that the crew did everything possible to save the shark, while ensuring the safety of the divers. She did everything, ethically and professionally...!

And then there would be little media man Mauricio.
He doesn't appear to mind helping mooching foreigners as long as they do his bidding - but I hear that he is not amused by Mike's continued collaboration, and support of Domeier and Nicole, and by Mike's opposition to the mooching Sharkwater.
And, he is some sort of consultant to the park authorities who were given the footage. So may the leak have originated with him - and are we really to believe that he does not know the precise rules he helped draft? Questions questions!
And anyway, everybody knows that he will do anything to please those $harkettes - and in turn, Ocean Barbie is all-too-happy to propagate the lies, the more as doing so will undoubtedly add to her reputation - and trust me, it has!
And so it goes, same old same old!

Anyway - long story short?

This is nothing more than an orchestrated hit job on Mike.
 

If one can reproach him anything, it is that he has obviously failed to grasp the potential gravity of the situation and missed getting ahead of the curve and media feeding frenzy by being the first to publicly report the accident. But then again, considering that this was clearly a freak accident, there seemed to be be zero upside in engaging in public self flagellation.
So they did what appeared sensible then, ie inform the authorities and hope that the video would not surface - and NO, there was definitely no need, let alone right for the public to see those horrible images!

But be it as it may, it remains crystal clear that Mike objectively holds no blame for what has happened to Stouffer - not legally which is obviously all-important but also not ethically as nothing unusual/nefarious was done by the crew.

• His cages are fully compliant with the regulations - and therefore, the whole story that he was asked but refused to change their design is nothing but a total fabrication


• He holds no responsibility for the Shark choosing to slam into the cage


• There was an observer on board who immediately informed his superiors about the incident - which totally negates the accusation that Mike was trying to hide the accident from the authorities - and why would he. And he has also neither bribed anybody, nor has he lied.

In fact I am sure that he will be fully exonerated.

And then, there needs to be a reckoning.
The way I see it, Ms Domingo is in an ocean of legal trouble.
Mauricio as the stated source of the leaked video edit quite likely too.

The little macho dude?

He is either fully complicit in fabricating and spreading the slanderous lies, or just simply reckless, unprofessional and stupid for allowing himself to be used. But he is also gleefully milking this story for the advancement of his own reputation as activist and media influencer = $$$.

And for that alone, were I Mike, I would sue his sorry ass for his patently brazen and reckless attempt to destroy my credibility and livelihood  which only serves to deprive Mexico of millions in Shark eco-tourism revenue, and thousands of shark divers from realizing their dreams to observe these majestic creatures.
But that's obviously entirely up to Mike.

To the smirking competitors, THINK.
This is quickly morphing into a runaway train that may well endanger the industry as a whole. Whether you like it or not, and whether you like Mike or not: you're all in this together. So be smart, stop the backstabbing and show some public solidarity. And once it blows over, you can resume hostilities.
But not right now - and anyway, you know the man and know he did not do it.

And the pathetic media frenzy?

It is what it is and like always, it'll blow over - but to you all-knowing couch farting Shark tourism experts and self-appointed criminal investigators out there who know NOTHING but continue to regale everybody with your ultracrepidarian diarrhea: scripta manent, and we shall most certainly remember.
And yes I know I know....

Remains the question of those cages.
I notice that those idiotic proponents of out-of-cage diving with GWS, foremost of which that horrible slimeball Amos, are using this to slam cage diving as being bad for the Sharks.

Obviously there needs to be change.
Rules or no rules - over the years, a few Sharks have died and several have been injured during caged dives, and that is just not acceptable.

But this can be remedied.
E.g. by even more stringent bait handling rules and above all, by even smaller cage openings all the way to using sturdy aluminum mesh like they do in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.
And to avoid the Sharks getting in and/or the people leaning out, those large openings for the photographers' big dome ports may have to go completely, or be replaced with some sort of transparent viewing ports like in  Hawaii - and fuck the vociferous likes of Ms. Cobb who are financially irrelevant anyway.

But going cageless is nothing but a fool's bet.
Private ventures by intrepid thrill seekers, and professional shoots are one thing - but let there be no doubt that when it comes to commercial Shark tourism, cage diving is the only way to conduct safe and long term sustainable dive operations with White Sharks.
In brief, the cages need to stay - and like I said many, many times, let's please not have the inmates run the asylum.

Anyway.

Let's go Shark diving - sustainably!

To be continued no doubt.

PS - personal declaration, or whatever, by Domingo here = much personal ass covering and vindictive verbiage  - but I equally notice that she does not state that the cage was illegal, or that the crew did anything wrong.
Her assertion that it was she who first informed the authorities because Mike would not is a bold faced lie = during that trip, there was an observer from CONANP who immediately informed his superiors - and no, it was not at all clear, and still isn't, that the Shark had perished.
Plus, again, she was not fired in connection with this accident but instead, for her conduct whilst on a cruise on the NBA - which is of zero importance here anyway.

PPS - Domeier here. Agree - but there can, and should be improvements.

PPPS - Ramon  trying to get his 10' of fame here. Ever since Nicole, he is desperate to remain relevant, with little success - and this total stupidity only makes him look like a cheap opportunist.

PPPPS - Patric here. Agree and disagree. 
YES - getting ahead of the curve would possibly have been good - tho back then it wasn't at all clear that the Shark had likely perished (and even now we do not NOW - see Craig's comments below) = there was most certainly no perceived need for a public mea culpa. 
NO - right now when everybody is hyperventilating, remaining silent is the way to go. 
AND - there will undoubtedly be a reckoning = keep watching this space!

PPPPPS - truly remarkable comments by Craig Ferreira right here. Could not agree more, see above!

PPPPPPS - a friendly GWS cage diving operator writes,

FYI Re: Cage design, I found that shark penetration problems are largely resolved in the positioning, or complete removal of the (trapping) VERTICAL bars within the viewing/camera gaps ... in particular in the corners. Our vertical bars are centrally positioned in the viewing gaps and nosey sharks slide out sideways through the corners.

Excellent suggestion - thanks!

PPPPPPPS -  Craig again here. To cite another authoritative voice,

The sad thing is that the uproar created around this incident does affect shark cage diving around the world, a non-consumptive tourism activity, whilst shark demersal longliners are decimating our shark populations and this where the focus should be. In South Africa, we are seeing a real impact on our shark populations and even our protected white sharks are accidentally caught, but not reported. If only the social media warriors would not be hypocrites and focus on the overfishing versus cage diving which in South Africa is the only official monitoring and conservation of this species taking place

PPPPPPPPS - more pathetic xenophobic showboating, and outright defamation by Allende here. 

PPPPPPPPPS - gloves are definitely off. Talk about being a total hypocrite. But, ride bene chi ride ultimo = keep watching this space!

Comments policy: please comment here and not on FB.

These are our social media platforms and not public chat rooms, and we thus reserve to monitor and/or delete all and everything we do not like. 
Our media our rules!

Cape Cod - Shark Attack Mitigation Alternatives!

And I cite - emphasis is mine.

Personal Shark Deterrents

A growing number of personal shark deterrent devices are commercially available. 
Some are intended to be worn while others are to be attached to surfboards or similar equipment . The deterrents fall into two main categories: electromagnetic (EM) devices and camouflage. 
The EM devices include active (battery powered) and passive (permanent magnet) types that are either worn or are attached to surfboards. Camouflaging patterns are either wearable (wet suits) or applied to surfboards (decals, paint).

EM shark deterrent devices are all based on the same general principal, but they are not equally effective. “Sort of works” versus “doesn’t work at all” are both real possibilities and independent evaluations and comparisons of EM devices that are superficially similar are important...

The evidence for the efficacy of camouflage, whether worn or applied to a surfboard, is limited and inconclusive. We note that claims for camouflage tend towards statements that the swimmer or surfer is less likely to be noticed by a curious shark that just happens to be swimming in the area. This as opposed to statements that the camouflage will prevent the attack of a shark that is actively hunting for a meal.

The existing research suggests that some of these devices may be somewhat effective some of the time....We would always keep in mind that none of these devices provide anywhere near 100% protection under any realistic circumstances.
Finally, from a large shark already on an attack trajectory, arguably none of these devices will provide any meaningful protection at all. 

Indeed.

In brief and with the exception of the Shark Shield some of the time, those Shark repellent gizmos and those ludicrous wetsuits etc are all bullshit, cold-hearted scams and profiteering by unscrupulous con artists - re-read this and this!

And did I just hear, Clever Buoy?

Of the shark detections reported by CB, only ~40% appeared to actually be sharks, while ~60% were other objects, most commonly the baited video stations, which were stationary, or schools of smaller fish, which were moving. Of particular note, when, according to the video record, sharks were present, CB accurately detected them only ~40% of the time and failed to detect them ~60% of the time.... 
Additionally, lifeguard divers swimming in the CB array to clean biofouling off the sonar transducers were continuously tracked and continuously identified throughout the dive as large sharks. Such misidentification might apply to swimmers or seals, clearing the water unnecessarily....

Unfortunately, the documented performance does not remotely approach the promise of the system.
This creates a danger that swimmers and surfers in the vicinity of a system will relax their vigilance and fail to consistently follow safe practices, assuming that this system is protecting them to a far greater extent than it does. It should also be recognized that, even if the system does provide an accurate warning, the shark is already very close to the beach...

Yeah totally not surprised!

And the list goes on and on and on - with the fake kelp being one of the better, albeit prohibitively expensive notable exceptions!
Maybe, sometimes, somewhere! :)

But look for yourselves.

This compendium by Woods Hole is the latest and greatest synopsis of possible Shark Attack mitigation measures, notabene with special emphasis on trying to minimize bites by the resurgent GWS' population on the US east Coast in general and Cape Cod in particular. I must say that I'm seriously impressed - with some notable omissions: where are the wooden spoon and the red broom?

Synopses e.g. here and here, great app here.

Anyway.

As Tashi Blue astutely observes, considering that there are next to no attacks there, it all seems much ado about very little indeed - especially when compared to say, Hawaii, where people get munched  orders of magnitude more frequently but where nobody seems to be unduly hyperventilating much.
That said, what please is  Swimming with sharks in Oʻahu, Haleʻiwa, approx 3 miles from shore?!?

Anyway, it was quite different in the past.

But of course the new attitude makes total sense.
Assuming one observes a modicum of common-sense precautions (and here - plus, don't jump on top of a hunting GWS! :) ), chances of becoming the victim of a Shark attack are really extremely small - and, if more water users get trained and carry some first aid gear, one's chances of survival are very high indeed. In fact, among the known causes of human mortality, I would not be able mention a single one that kills LESS people than Shark attacks!

But on the other side, life in general is certainly most deadly, and people entering the water must be willing to assume a modicum of risk, to wit.

No single alternative or suite of alternatives that can 100% guarantee the safety of individuals who choose to enter the water.

• Since no mitigation alternative can provide 100% safety, reducing the chances of unprovoked attacks on humans requires a strong commitment to education and outreach, which can result in the adoption of behaviors that may reduce the risk of an unprovoked shark-human interaction.


• If water activities are avoided, the risk of attack is effectively eliminated.


• If water activities are not avoided and best management practices and Shark Smart Behaviors are widely adopted, the risk of attack may be reduced, but not eliminated.


• All individuals choosing to engage in water activities should think carefully about the level of risk associated with their preferred activity, and be comfortable with that level of risk before choosing to enter the water.


• The decision to enter the water and assume the risk of shark-human interaction is made at the sole discretion of the individual. 

In diesem Sinne.

Enjoy the Ocean - responsibly!

PS - nice - and so true, too!
PPS - good reading!
  

Hawaii - Shark Feeding and Shark Bites?

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

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

Yes those Sharks are definitely conditioned.

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

So there.

First things first: shit happens.

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

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

And in this particular case?

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

Nowadays I see things quite a bit differently.

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

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

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

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

Which brings me straight to that Shark bite.

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

Anyway.

Let's go Shark diving - respectfully!

Ramsey: Shit Show in Hawaii!

Source.

Oh well.

I'm sure you've seen the news.

Three very large and very rotund female GWS were seen feasting on a dead Sperm Whale floating off Oahu.

This could have been such an inspiring moment.

• One could have marveled at the exceptional serendipity of witnessing such a rare and wonderful natural event, as per the beautiful and respectful description of who experienced the first mesmerizing encounter.


• One could have mentioned Michael and Nicole's seminal paper about the life cycle of the NE Pacific GWS population, and speculated whether those females may be actually pregnant (not a given!) and bulking up in the SOFA and beyond like described therein, or whether they may just be very chubby after gorging on whale meat.


• One could have marveled at the fact that not one but three such large females have made it to Hawaii and speculated about the possible reasons (Climate Change? El Niño? Just happenstance? An outbreak of Wanderlust?), and could have tried to identify them based on Nicole's Guadalupe ID Guide (= that Shark with Ramsey is not Deep Blue). 


• One could have reminisced about this small paper about very large GWS scavenging on whales, and wondered whether the placid disposition of those Sharks may have been an indicator for postprandial torpor.


• One could have mentioned all the scientific questions that still remain unanswered.


• One could have even wondered about the wisdom, or lack of, of dive operators throwing in all those unprotected snorkelers atop large scavenging Sharks, and this in open ocean - and about the uncritical willingness of those punters to be thusly thrown, see further below!


• Hell, one could have gone so far to engage in idle speculation about why those mamas did not chomp on the aforementioned punters! The torpor and/or energy preservation, coupled with a far easier, better smelling and way juicer meal nearby? An already nicely filled belly? No search image for humans as prey? Too much commotion? No attack on alert prey by what is essentially an ambush predator?  Pervaded by the Aloha Spirit?

Not gonna happen, alas.

Like she has obviously intended, the token disrespectful self-promoting bimbette and her selfish shit show have sucked all the oxygen out of the room.
But thankfully and likely not as intended, the reactions by the public are overwhelmingly negative - and have you seen how now she is squirming and obfuscating trying to justify her feat?
Girl, dozens upon dozens of people have far more experience with Sharks, have done far more for them, and yet never put themselves in the foreground!
 

But first, watch.

Source.

I mean, seriously, what a fucking fiasco!

No don't worry, I'm not gonna unleash.

I'd rather defer to others who are way more intelligent and have spoken up much more clearly and politely than I ever could, to wit Michael Domeier's post about the total hypocrisy of "Ocean" Ramsey. 

Indeed, see any resemblance whatsoever between Ramsey's sanctimonious description and her frantic barging in ahead of everybody else and harassing the Shark in the above video?

You may also want to read and above all, understand this post about the likely consequences of that selfish shit. But Oliphant will do every I can to make it happen again! 

Obviou$ly!

And the fucking, old and tired Raising Awareness, yada yada?

Michael and David are absolutely correct: this is nothing but a serial Shark molester harassing a Shark (watch - did anybody say 6 meters? Hmmmm....), and this solely to pose for image$!
But you sure gotta love the praise by the hypocritical King of Shark Porn for the hypocritical Queen of Shark Molesting - legendary shark conservationist my ass!
And poor Riley STILL just doesn't get it!

Anyway.

It's same old same old - really hardly worth a mention were it not for those poor naive fans and followers who are being conned by the slick media and all those insufferable platitudes, and continue to admire all those hypocritical media whores and their disrespectful feats.

So, people, THINK - especially you researchers and operators who continue to associate with, and even defend those folks despite of all the evidence!

In diesem Sinne - let's go Shark diving!
Respectfully!

Comments Policy: please post your comments here and not on FB. 

FYI this is not a chatroom, comments are being monitored and I reserve the right to publish, or to delete whatever I please - and no, this got nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with Dunning-Kruger!

My blog my rules! :)

PS - Indeed (and here).. and this is just sad....

PPS - Martin here!

PPPS - well yes maybe - but then again, coming after a decade of  very public Shark harassment, it sounds hollow; the more as the punters that are so obviously clue- and reckless may be taking those risks precisely because of all the publicity, and glorification of her feats, and the public belittling of the associated dangers!

PPPPS - Patric here. Well said, Sir - eloquent and totally on point as always!
And I cite, The same stunt with bears, wolves, tigers and gorillas would land you in jail, if done with the exact same shark at Guadalupe Island you would be fined and jailed. 

PPPPPS - Well said Danny! :)

PPPPPPS - great post by Michelle here - torpor included! :)

PPPPPPPS - Indeed!

PPPPPPPPS - more hypocritical rubbish by the King of Shark Porn. Well, maybe there would not be such a need to change perspectives and creating massive global awareness had you not been so successful in creating the media that demonize Sharks in the first place, to wit e.g. this horrible piece of horse manure you produced!

PPPPPPPPPS - sweet, we got ourselves a tussle among Shark bimbettes! How quaint! I swim with them for pure enjoyment = not for camera? Right, hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

PPPPPPPPPPS - and we got ourselves yet another beauty! Yay! This would be one of Mauricio's illegal out-of cage freedivers  scientific collaborators (case in point!) disparaging another - by posting a pic of the illegal irresponsible and selfish behavior that certain individuals have been promoting as conservation science for years... Again, how quaint!

PPPPPPPPPPPS - more by Michael here and here!

PPPPPPPPPPPPS  - And for god's sake, whether you believe Lemuria is modern day Hawaii or not, leave the poor dolphins alone! Figure out how to talk to them from the shore or something. Hahahahahahahahaha!

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPS - the bloody Whale carcass has drifted back onshore - and hopefully stays there!

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPS - and we got ourselves one more visitor - which begs the question, what is going on: is this exceptional or is it the norm, and we are just finding out about it now? 

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPS - The question is, how can we interact with animals and leave their habitat better than we found it? This is why shark diving and shark tourism in marine protected sanctuaries (where fees collected by dive operators and government go towards habitat preservation) are an inspiring alternative. Hear hear!

Tiger Sharks in Hawaii - Paper!

Click for detail!

And I cite.

Although tiger sharks clearly utilize open-ocean habitats in both Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the majority (78.7%) of satellite location estimates for tiger sharks captured around Maui and Oahu during the present study were in coastal waters over insular shelf habitat.

Tiger shark affinity for coastal waters and shelf habitats has been documented in previous studies in Hawaii, Australia, the Galapagos, the Bahamas and Florida, although movements are generally much wider-ranging over the extensive continental shelf areas off Australia and Florida, than over the smaller insular shelf habitats surrounding the oceanic islands of Hawaii or the Galapagos.
Conversely, most tiger sharks tagged at Challenger Bank (Bermuda, Atlantic Ocean) predominantly used open-ocean habitat.

These apparently conflicting patterns of open-ocean versus coastal habitat use by tiger sharks may partly stem from the demographic characteristics of sharks tagged in these different studies.
For example, eighteen (95%) of 19 highly-migratory tiger sharks tagged at Challenger Bank were mature males, whereas tiger sharks tagged during the current and previous Hawaii studies were mainly (59–80%) mature females which predominantly utilized coastal habitats, and tiger sharks exhibiting high coastal residency in the Galapagos were predominantly (85%) sub-adult females and males.

These differences in habitat use are consistent with habitat segregation among different life history stages, with sub-adults of both sexes and mature females occupying coastal areas, and mature males occupying offshore habitats, but likely also reflect the species ability to adapt the scale and pattern of movements to local resource distribution.

Very interesting!
Once again, Hawaii's Shark Research Team has produced a stellar paper focusing on the residency pattern of Tiger Sharks between Kauai and Maui.

Dunno about you - but I just love love love this stuff.
Step by step, all that initially rather baffling local, regional and global  sneaking around is being deciphered, and I'm just totally fascinated by the insights.

Enjoy the new paper - required reading!

Shark Feeding in Hawaii?

Cool - watch.

And here is the really nice piece by Nathan.

As very much intended, this has generated quite a debate behind the scenes - so for the benefit of the wailing whacknuts and Hawaiian anti-Shark lobby, let me state the following as unequivocally as possible: I'm on the record as being against Shark feeding for the sake of it - and I certainly do not at all advocate trying to establish near-shore Shark feeding tourism in the central, highly populated islands of Hawaii!

So there:

• First and foremost, any such operation would lack the required social license.
  Yes I totally consider the whole 'aumākua bullshit and its hypocritical high priests to be nothing but a scam, and that the haoles parroting that nonsense are either naive, or crazy, or clueless, or gutless, or all of the above - but the Hawaiian anti-Shark-feeding lobby with its hypocritical native con men is very much alive, and history shows that any attempt at setting up such a venture would be instantly suppressed by widespread public outcry all the way to outright violence.

• There are also important public safety considerations.
  Any regular near-shore baiting would undoubtedly end up attracting and aggregating Tiger Sharks, the one species most implicated in local Shark attacks - and given Hawaii's bathymetry, this would inevitably happen very close to shore and in close proximity to population and tourism centers and/or recreational hotspots like the surf breaks. With that in mind, any such attempt would be simply unconscionable.

• And finally, there may simply not be enough other coastal Sharks to justify setting up dedicated businesses.
  Yes the mentioned paper by Marc Nandon may, or may not have technical flaws that would likely be revealed in his upcoming follow-up paper; but I'm equally convinced that its gist is spot on, insofar as the collapse of Hawaii's coastal fish populations, see below, is undoubtedly severely depressing the population of Reef Sharks - see the comments section to that post.

So cool down folks.

We may very much differ on the details - but the end result is the same!

But that is all irrelevant anyway.

Shark feeding in Hawaiian state waters is, and will certainly remain illegal; and soon and very much courtesy of the clamoring Floridian troglodytes (and here) and little Marco, it will also become illegal in federal waters, as will operating boats that carry divers to Shark feeds.  

And places like the Bahamas, Mexico and yes, Fiji will continue to laugh all the way to the bank.

That said, I however strongly advocate the establishment of coastal no-take MPAs! 

Central Hawaii's coastal fish populations are but a shadow of the past (and here!) and continue to get hammered by the natives and by the hypocritical new age whacks. But despite of the irrefutable evidence and the urgency of the situation, even the slightest attempt at setting aside some urgently needed fully protected areas continues to get thwarted by the usual native con artists and those corrupt bastards at WESPAC (and here!) - and the haoles and especially, local government simply lack the balls to show some leadership and finally put an end to the reverse racism and the never-ending appalling shenanigans (Makani Christensen right here!).

And THAT is what I told Nathan.

Anyway.

It is what it is - and with all that pervasive aloha-spirit-induced spinelessness, I got zero expectations that things will change anytime soon.

But hope, as they say, springs eternal.

Aloha everybody! :)

Scavenging by Tiger Sharks - Paper!

Click for detail!

Very nice!

Watch.

Paper here, press release here.

That's quite a handful of prominent authors - but in essence, this is a re-interpretation of some of the data collected by Richard, Adam and Ian whilst on the venerable Undersea Explorer that have already led to this paper from 2012 I posted about here.

Which is why the authors stress that much of the above is speculation.

The experimental design was aimed at deciphering long-term movements, and the present fine-scale analysis is very much based on inference rather than actual scientific evidence; but having said that, Richard and Adam have logged hundreds of man hours at Raine, and tell me that actual predation events on healthy Turtles are very rare and tend to be confined to the start of the breeding season when there are less Turtles and the Tigers are just arriving hungry. On a busy year, Raine will yield up to 2,000 dead Turtles, meaning that after a while, the Tigers are more than sated and really could not care less about chasing after healthy Turtles.

Like I said, very nice - but now things are changing.

BHP the mining giant is giving a lot of money to the Raine Island Green Turtle Recovery Project, and the island is being made more Turtle-friendly by eliminating features that could kill them and by protecting the nests against inundation. This means that less turtles will have accidents, and that any distressed Turtle will be aided by the turtle lovers and consequently, adult Turtle mortality has already been reduced by 50%.

And the Tigers?

What happens at Raine is part of a system - and if you tinker at one end, it stands to reason that there will be consequences at the other.

Will the Sharks predate more on healthy individuals whilst expending more energy in the process - and if predation increases, will that have an effect on the behavior of the Turtles? Or will the Tiger Sharks gradually stop coming? And what are the effects of this diminishing resource on their population?

Here's what I think - and yes I'm totally speculating.

Research in Hawaii has shown that those Tiger Sharks are able to regularly exploit determined ephemeral resources, and our own observations at Shark Reef indicate the same for our Bulls at Shark Reef. In essence, one of those Sharks will stumbles upon an opportunity, is able to memorize the experience and will henceforth come back to exploit it. This is learned individual behavior, not something that is genetically encoded or communicated by conspecifics or the like.

At the same time, our observations and those of the GWS people indicate that individual Sharks will favor determined strategies, e.g. individual GWS will attack the teaser bait consistently in one determined way; and on Shark Reef where we have a hand feeding and a bin feeding tribe of Bulls with very little overlap, those specialized hand feeding Bulls will gradually stop visiting when we temporarily suspend hand feeding,

Could it be the same for Raine Island?

Could there be always the same Tigers, and could those individuals be specialized scavengers that would not switch to outright predation but instead, would eventually stop coming once there are not anymore enough carcasses to feed on? 

Dunno - but that's certainly testable, or not?

And another thought.

If one believes Domeier -and I certainly do- what happens at Guadalupe is essentially a GWS feeding and mating aggregation. Could the food pulse during the pupping season of the Northern Elephant Seals maybe even trigger mating, and could it be important for the success of the ensuing pregnancies?

And could what happens at Raine Island be the same, meaning that if the Shark aggregation slowly disperses, finding mates would become more difficult and reproduction success would be lower?

Questions questions!

Ain't science a wonderful thing! :)

Hawaii 1 - WESPAC 0!

Source.

I was wrong - again!

But this is a good thing!

Contrary to my rather pessimistic (and here) predictions, NOAA has finally made a decision and resolved to not overturn the ground-breaking Shark Fin ban Stefanie and Senator Hee introduced to Hawaii in 2010. Talk about a huge slap in the face of Kitty Simonds and her nasty gang at WESPAC, and this right at the epicenter of her fiefdom of evil!

Here is the letter confirming the decision by NOAA.

Interestingly, it also shows the limitations of those bans insofar as Hawaii remains an active Shark fishing hub. I assume that dispose of is a euphemism for throw away, meaning that like in California and probably elsewhere, people can legally eat those Sharks but not consume their fins which remains, to say it mildly, puzzling.

Be it as it may, this is great news.

More details by Angelo here.

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!