The IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group
Shark News 11: July 1998
|
Shark cage diving in South Africa - sustainable recreational utilisation?
Marcel Kroese, Sea Fisheries Research Institute, South Africa
Shark cage diving started around 1990-1991 at Dyer Island, Gansbaai,
situated close to the southern-most tip of Africa. Initially used for
research observations, cage diving developed into a funding generating
venture. Other individuals noticed a niche market and several started
offering the same service to tourists. Commercial cage diving has
since spread to other areas of southern Africa, Mossel Bay in 1993, and
most recently False Bay in 1996. At present there are ten cage diving
operators, taking out an estimated 4,000 divers annually.
Initially the cage diving industry was embroiled in user conflict
issues with commercial fishermen and abalone divers utilising the same
area. Additionally, conflict flared up within the cage dive fraternity, and
between cage dive operators and scientists studying white sharks.
Unscrupulous behaviour of some operators led to incidents where
sharks were injured and reported flaunting of small craft safety
regulations led to the reputation of shark cage operators as 'cowboys'.
White shark. © 1989 by Sid Cook.
All rights reserved.
|
The fledgling industry realised this reputation was adversely
influencing their business and initiated a White Shark Cage Diving
Association. The express aim was to improve the standards of the cage
diving as well as protecting the white sharks. It was also realized thata maximum number of operators had been reached, therefore there would be limited entry into the cage diving operations.
A sub-committee of the Chondrichthyan Working
Group of the Department of Sea Fisheries was formed
to investigate the user group conflict and the cage
diving operations. The resultant
extensive consultative forum of
user groups, cage diving industry
and scientists eventually led to a
code of conduct and an
operational management plan
for shark cage diving in South
Africa.
Provisional regulations
allow for a geographically
restricted permit system, closed areas, and range restrictions. All
permit holders must be signatories of the Code of Conduct. The Code
of Conduct makes recommendations on the level of technical training
operators need, equipment standards in terms of cages, and safety
gear. The specific chum types, quantities allowable per day, bait
presentation and shark handling are also outlined.
The provisional regulations became available at the end of June,
following their review by the Department of Sea Fisheries. They will
be presented to the industry and other usergroups at a meeting in July,
and are not expected to be Gazetted until later in the year.
The cage diving issue is not out of the woods yet. A recent spate of six
attacks on surfers and divers in the space of five weeks, the highest since
1994, has led to accusations that the cage diving industry has either
habituated or excited sharks into attacking swimmers and surfers. However,
only one such attack has occurred within 150 km of a cage diving site.
Other environmental factors such as the proximity of sardine (pilchard)
schools in the vicinity and murky water close to river mouths were present,
negating the link between cage diving and shark attacks.
Marcel Kroese,
Sea Fisheries Research Institute,
Private Bag X2,
Rogge Bay 8012,
Cape Town, South Africa.
Email: mkroese@sfri.wcape.gov.za
|
|
|
|
|
