The IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group
Shark News 12: November 1998
|
Letters to the Editors:
Responses to "Diving with Elasmobranchs -
a Call for Restraint"
From Jeremy Stafford-Deitsch:
I read George Burgess' article in the last issue of Shark News with
considerable interest. I would imagine that over 80% of my own shark
photos required some sort of baiting procedure to bring the sharks in
close enough to be photographed. I attended a shark feed in the
Bahamas a few years back and was highly alarmed by the aggressiveness
of the sharks Carcharhinus perezi. One large shark rammed a diver in
the back of the head and sent him tumbling - and this before there was
any bait in the water. If we assume that a shark's snout is indeed highly
sensitive, then the velocity of impact presumably hurt the shark - I
have a nasty suspicion that it was in fact going to bite but changed its
mind at the very last moment. When raising my concerns to the resort
operator he showed no interest - the shark feed was the tourist
attraction. I too suspect that serious injury/fatality is inevitable.
Having helped to popularise sharks I am aware of the hypocrisy
of criticising others who are doing more or less the same. However,
a problem that we are too polite to address is the considerable number
of shark 'experts' who use sharks not to educate the public about the
reality of sharks, but rather to demonstrate their own supposed
heroism. It is too readily assumed that when the public has the
opportunity to dive with sharks, the result will be an improved
understanding of and respect for sharks. Unfortunately it all too often
gives 'experts' an opportunity for self-promotion.
Incidentally, the caption to the photo that appears on page 2
accompanying the article states that the grey reef shark is in a threat
display. It isn't. It is merely turning. I should know - that's me in the
background.
Jeremy Stafford-Deitsch, London, UK.
From Doug Perrine:
George Burgess's article in the July issue, deploring the current
shark-feeding trend in recreational diving and advising against
scientific and conservationist advocacy of this trend, is well
thought-out and presented. All of the points he makes are eminently
reasonable, and I agree with his sentiments. However, I heartily
disagree with his conclusions.
There is an unstated implication in the article that this type of
activity is too new for the accident rate to be known. In fact, these
dives have been conducted for more than 20 years, and have been
extremely popular for over ten years. The number of divers
exposed to non-cage feedings is now in the hundreds of thousands
world-wide. It would probably not be all that hard to get a
reasonably accurate figure for the accident rate. Based on my
personal familiarity with the sport, and reports from participants
and operators, I would estimate the accident rate to be in the range
of a few incidents per tens of thousands of dives - well within the
range of many popular 'adventure sports' and certainly safer than
snowboarding or rock climbing. Most of these injuries are very
minor - 'Band-Aid nicks' - and the few serious injuries have been,
to my knowledge, exclusively to the feeders, who have now
learned to use stainless mesh gloves or suits, or else present the
bait by some remote method.
These injuries have not been played up in the press. If a
customer does eventually receive a serious injury and files a
lawsuit, it is likely that this will get nodding mention in the
mainstream press, as do current reports of shark attacks on surfers,
spearfishermen etc., and wrongful injury and death lawsuits
against dive operations due to drowning and other accidents. The
tabloid press will probably play it up, but if such an event does not
occur, they will make up one, as they do every few months anyway
("Man bitten in half by shark, but lives ..." etc.). Any such negative
publicity will be insignificant compared to the massive positive
publicity that sharks have received over the last ten years, and
continue to receive, as a result of the public participation in these
dives.
Probably even more important than the positive press that
these dives generate is the change in attitude of the divers who
participate. Hundreds of thousands of divers have gone from
fearing sharks (and thus wishing to eliminate them as a threat) to
admiring sharks (and thus seeking to preserve them). This is a vital
step in the creation of a 'constituency' for shark preservation,
without which all conservation efforts are doomed to failure.
Even more important in the short run is the economic value
which these dives attach to sharks as a living resource. This
provides a vital incentive for dive operators and other economically
impacted groups to lobby forcefully to restrict fishing, at least in
their own areas, creating impromptu sanctuaries which can serve
to replenish other areas if effective management is ever achieved
over larger areas.
It is true that fishermen have on a few occasions been foolish
enough to target what may or may not be artificially created
aggregations of sharks at feeding areas (no one has ever shown that
sharks are in fact drawn to feeding sites from very far away, or
occur there in greater concentrations than on similar reefs
elsewhere). In the case in the Bahamas, to which Dr Burgess refers,
the response from the operators affected has resulted in long-lining
for sharks being banned in the entire country. The result was
that the remainder of the sharks in the country were saved,
whereas they would have been decimated if the long-liners had
not made the mistake of making their first sets in the feeding
areas. Sharks from adjacent areas have since migrated onto the
reefs where the feedings occur, and the shark feeders are back
in business. If there had been no shark feeding, there would now
be essentially no sharks left in the Bahamas, as nobody else made
the effort to have the fishing stopped. [ Other conservationists active
in the Bahamas may disagree! Editors' note.]
No one has yet done a study to determine how much of any of the
attracted sharks' energy requirements are met by the artificial feedings.
Even at "Stingray City", where feedings occur all day, every day, the
stingrays are observed feeding naturally in the sand. At the feeding site
where Dr Burgess did his dive, informal observations indicate that a
few dominant sharks do most of the feeding, and many of the sharks
present do not feed at all.
A number of writers have pointed out that we have learned that
it is not a good idea to feed bears. I agree, but would beg these writers
to admit that it might have been a good idea to feed them at one time.
Prior to feeding them, we were shooting them. It was probably
necessary to 'tame' them temporarily, with the well-known adverse
results, in order to get enough public appreciation for them to be able
to manage them properly as desirable but potentially dangerous
wildlife.
A similar progression has occurred in the sport-diving world with
regards to moray eels. Not too long ago, they were considered
'monsters of the deep', and a threat to every diver. When spotted by
any diver of the 'excess testosterone' variety (90% plus in those days),
eels were instantly killed with a spear or 'bang stick'. After a few eels
were tamed with hand-feedings and posed for 'cuddly pet' pictures
with divers, the public image changed and feeding became the rage.
Over time, and after a number of serious injuries, resulting in loss of
fingers, hands, and lips, divers came to realise that conditioning such
near-sighted predators to associate humans with food was not a good
idea, and in most areas eel-feeding has been given up. However,
divers have not lost their appreciation of morays as beautiful non-aggressive
animals, and as a rule no longer spear them.
However, morays have little economic value as fisheries products.
Such is not the case with sharks. Worldwide, sharks are threatened
with the most determined, widespread, and intensive extermination
effort aimed at any group of animals since the great whales were
driven to the brink of extinction. Many cetologists disdain the
disturbance to the natural behaviour of cetaceans caused by whale-watching,
but accept it as necessary to achieve a constituency and an
economic value for live whales. Likewise we should embrace shark-watching
(of necessity based on artificial attraction with bait) as the
most likely salvation of many populations of these slow-growing and
slow-reproducing animals. The time will come to give up feeding
sharks for tourists, and I will applaud when it does, but that time has
not yet arrived. The public's attitude towards these magnificent
predators is going through a process of enlightenment - a process
which has already been completed with whales (also feared and
loathed at one time), bears and morays, and should not be interrupted
before a consensus for conservation is achieved.
Finally, I disagree with Dr Burgess's contention that public
aquaria accomplish this goal in a superior, or even adequate fashion.
Many of them advertise their feeding times, and promote the 'feeding
frenzy' impression as much or more than shark dives. The spectators
still believe that if they fell into the shark tank, they would be instantly
consumed, whereas divers at shark feeds learn otherwise. I agree
heartily that dive operators should and must be more honest with their
customers about the occurrence (as opposed to the 'possibility' -
which they do admit) of accidents. I believe that most of their
customers would readily accept the small risk involved.
Doug Perrine, Innerspace Visions,
75-1027 Henry Street, Suite 444,
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740-3137, USA
Fax: (+1) 808-329-6659. Email:perrine@kona.net
|
|
|
|
|
