Fatal Shark Attack In Brazil Caught On Video - A Reaction

DISCLAIMER: BOTH VIDEOS, PARTICULARLY THE SECOND ONE, CONTAIN SOME DISTRESSING IMAGES YOU MAY FIND UPSETTING. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED, IF YOU THINK YOU MAY FIND THEM DISTRESSING, IT MIGHT BE BEST IF YOU AVOID WATCHING THEM.

Following closely on from two fatalities in Reunion and One of the The Chagos Islands, now renamed Diego Garcia, an 18 year old tourist from Sao Paolo, Bruna Gobbi, has been killed in an attack at Recife, Brazil, one of the world's foremost shark attack hotspots.

What makes this incident particularly poignant is that it was caught on camera, as it unfolded, something which, despite the proliferation of technology for recording video and still imagery on everyday devices, is still an incredibly rare phenomenon, with only the attack on Heather Boswell and the remarkable tag team aerial assault on Shanon Ainslie, providing video of any clarity on what happens in the precise moment shark and human collide. Both these victims survived  but unfortunately Ms Gobbi was not as fortunate.

Before I go any further, I want to state the obvious in that first and foremost, a young lady has lost her life in tragic and violent circumstances and the nature of the scenes captured on camera are very upsetting and although I find it a little distasteful that the aftermath was filmed in such gratuitous proximity, this video does provide a candid look at the reality of a shark attack, both the attack itself and the reaction from witnesses and lifesavers in the aftermath. Whilst I offer sincere condolences and sympathies to Ms Gobbi's family and friends, I do want to take an objective look at the incident because, as regular readers of this blog will know, this is an area in which I have particular interest.

I do also want to add that some of the comments I have seen on the articles reporting the attack have been pretty appalling, both from the moronic "kill all sharks" brigade but even more so, from supposed shark lovers, everything from claiming some kind of karmic high ground using Bruna Gobbi as a scapegoat for the Shark Fin Trade, laying the blame solely on a young girl for swimming in the sea and far too many celebratory in nature sentiments which seem to see the death of a young girl as a way to point score in favour of sharks. Please stop it, you're actually causing more harm than good to whatever imaginary pro-shark campaign you seem to think you're endorsing.

With all that in mind and looking at the video from an objective, non-emotional perspective, this is a fascinating document which presents the stark reality of a shark attack and provides valuable information to aid the assessment of the attack. That is of course, of no comfort to Bruna's family, but it's something I do want to have a look at.

Recife

Firstly, before we look at the attack itself, we have to look at Recife's unfortunate position as probably the world's most dangerous beach in respect of the danger posed to bathers and surfers (surfing has been banned since 1995) from Sharks. Since 1992, there have been 58 attacks at Recife, including the attack this week and almost half have been fatal. Only Port St Johns in South Africa has a worse fatality rate in recent times at 100%, six attacks, all fatal. The areas around Perth in Western Australia are also suffering an upturn in fatalities in recent years, providing more statistical anomalies in what is a traditionally high survival rate in global shark bite incidents.

The yearly average of recorded attacks, bearing in mind not all attacks are reported, shows the average rate of fatalities is around 10% and most "attacks" (bites, bumps, scratches and scrapes) require relatively minor medical attention. The marked difference in the nature of the non-fatal incidents in areas like Volusia County, for example and the catastrophic injuries indicative of attacks at Recife, Port St Johns and Perth, is almost certainly down to the species responsible for those attacks and the activity of the victims, especially Recife and Port St Johns where it is primarily swimmers who are the victims.

All the attacks at Port St Johns have been carried out by Bull Sharks and barring only a handful of incidents at Recife in which Tiger Sharks were implicated, the same can be said of the species responsible in Brazil. The difference in Western Australia is the attacking species, where the Great White is responsible.

At this point, I just want to address one theory I have which could explain the increase in the rate of fatalities in WA, which is the protection of the Great White in Australian waters. Contrary to popular belief, this hasn't resulted in a population explosion, however, it has resulted in more sharks reaching the age of sexual maturity and it is far more likely that a human being will succumb to injuries inflicted by a large mature shark, than a sub-adult or juvenile. The sharks implicated in the fatalities in WA have all been very, very large and in at least three of the recent attacks, the victim has been consumed. These are shark attacks in which predation and aggression has been the motivating factor.

As I always say in regards to shark attacks - Every incident must be assessed on its own individual merits, there is no cover all response and reasoning behind every incident in which a shark injures a human, to rely on lazy cliches, is to deliberately misinform.

In areas like Recife, there are patterns to attacks, recurring themes and elements which aid the assessment of an incident which can't be ignored and ultimately assist in increasing an understanding of risk. Recife, like Reunion and Port St Johns are relatively new areas where the risk of attack is greater than historic records suggest it used to be. For example, in the 1950's and 60's, Amanzimtoti was the place to be if you wanted to increase your risk of attack but the last attack there was in 1984. The record books are full of locations which had a bad period of attacks which then stopped as quickly as they started and it isn't unreasonable to suggest that the same may one day be said of these three locations.

In all three places however, it is the species responsible which is undoubtedly the main causal factor in the high rates of fatality. Attacks by both Bull and Tiger Sharks are synonymous in that they are defined by the higher rate of aggression and willingness to bite the victim multiple times. The concept of the "single test bite" refers primarily to attacks on surfers by Great White Sharks, attacks on swimmers/snorkellers by Bulls and Tigers show that more often than not, the victim will face a repeated and sustained effort from the shark.

By their nature Bull Sharks are heavy set and extremely powerful, one likely reason for their physical build, is their natural diet includes other sharks so they need to be powerful enough to overpower and kill other sharks, including other Bulls. This may also suggest why they are more likely to sustain an attack over a prolonged period and attack with such aggression, if they are used to attacking other sharks, they can't risk that shark being in a position to attack them back and possibly cause an injury. What defines the attacks in Reunion, Port St Johns and Recife is this particular kind of  aggression, these are by their very nature, shark attacks.

In assessing the attack on Bruna Gobbi as an individual incident, the video provides more detailed and accurate testimony than any eye witness ever could because it is not impacted by emotion or stress, instead, it documents events as they unfold.

Bruna Gobbi

So what happened in this particular attack?

We know that Bruna and her cousin, Daniele, were swimming approximately 70 yards off Boa Viagem beach and had got into trouble in a rip, Daniele later said that both were panicking, waiting for lifeguards to reach them as they feared they were going to drown.

At 0:17 in the video, we see Bruna, clearly struggling with the current, before she is pulled underwater then catapulted upwards, almost waist high from the water as the approximately 7 foot long shark, briefly visible at the surface, bites into her leg and blood clouds the water.

Two lifeguards are swimming towards Daniele who is further from shore as another lifeguard on a jet ski approaches Bruna. The jet ski is positioned between Bruna and the shark and she is hauled aboard as the other two lifeguards assist Daniele and the five head towards shore.

In the second video, it is interesting to note the relative lack of commotion, unlike in the movies, there is very little panic, instead there appears to be more an atmosphere of shock and curiosity. This is the same as my own experience having been present in the aftermath of a shark bite, during which there was an almost nonchalant and morbid excitement for want of a better phrase.

When Bruna is taken to the lifeguard hut, we can clearly see what is a large and catastrophic bite. The bone is shattered and the flesh from ankle to knee is torn completely, the poor girl's foot hanging only by the remaining skin and tissue. The severity of the wound and Bruna's dire situation are illustrated by the lack of blood on the sand and the drained, white complexion in her right leg signifying massive blood loss.

I have seen wounds like this where the victim has survived with rapid medical attention and amputation of the limb, however, bites like this are often fatal due to blood loss and shock. In comparison with many other Recife shark fatalities, this wound is less catastrophic than others but no less tragic. Sadly, Bruna Gobbi passed away after surgery to amputate her leg fifteen inches above the knee.

The footage illustrates the reality of a shark bite in that it's all over very quickly, the courage of Daniele and the lifesavers should not be underestimated as the shark remained amongst them, attempting to reach Bruna, who remains conscious throughout, as she is pulled onto the jet ski.

There is a human pre-disposition to make sense of something where there may be none, to make ourselves feel more comfortable with what we are experiencing or to justify our own opinions on how we perceive things to be. In this instance, this is not the all encompassing and highly misleading "mistaken identity" bite, nor does it appear to be a simple "test bite," looking at the video and the surrounding information, this is an exploitation of vulnerability.

There are scores of other people in the water swimming and this shark and likely several others, were probably in the area all day swimming amongst them. The trigger for this attack is most likely the rip tide which pulled Bruna and Daniele further from shore, causing them to panic, that panicking, the exaggerated and animated movement and commotion, portrayed both Daniele and Bruna as vulnerable and as such, the attacking shark, fatefully in the location in which the girls were swimming, exploited that vulnerability and attacked.

In Recife, Port St Johns and Reunion, the reason sharks have attacked people with such ferocity and unusual frequency could be as simple as the fact that sharks inhabit these areas, people swim in these areas and every now and again, a shark is compelled to approach a swimmer or surfer with aggressive intent. Using the water in these areas brings with it an inherent risk, albeit a small one, of shark attack, that doesn't mean the victims are automatically at fault as a few too many people seem to relish claiming, it is just a small part of life in these areas.

So what is it that makes these beaches so dangerous?

Recife used to have a busy industrial slaughter house pumping waste into the river system which would work its way in to the ocean, the currents would then disperse this effluent and bovine bodily fluid along the popular tourist beaches so surely it must be that to blame, right? Well, no, not necessarily and it's far too simplistic to suggest that the presence of slaughter houses, canning factories, fisheries waste plants etc are directly causing fatal shark attacks.

The Slaughterhouse has since been shut down, in I believe, the mid 00's but the sharks are still very much present and unfortunately still occasionally seriously injure people.

The near shore coastline of Recife, in particular the areas around Boa Viagem and Piedade where more than three quarters of incidents have occurred, is characterised by a deep channel running alongside a sizable reef which acts as a natural barrier between beach and open ocean, save for a break in the reef which opens the access to the near shore bathing area to that deep channel but then, this has been the case for millions of years, Recife has been a hugely popular beach for decades, yet prior to 1990, attacks here were exceptionally rare, some reports suggest non-existent.

Opening out into Recife's coastline is the Jaboatão River, a characteristic element of Recife's landscape and it is here where we must also look for possible answers. In 1978, industrial development and construction began in and around the natural port of Saupe which impacted the landscape to the point where the mouths of the Merepe and Ipojuca Rivers, areas rich with mangrove plantations and biodiversity, were filled in as part of the industrial development. This, according to local scientist, Fabio Hazin, displaced the population of Bull Sharks using the rivers to give birth and the juvenile sharks using the rivers as a nursery, to the Jaboatão River, which runs directly out to the beaches so popular with bathers.

The development of the port also meant more shipping traffic, meaning more shipping waste and potential for more sharks accompanying these ships closer to shore, added to that, 59% of the Saupe Port complex, roughly 7500 hectares, is devoted to environmental protection, providing areas of protection for temporary and resident marine life.

Recife is an attractive location to Bull Sharks, both naturally and through man made impact, it has river nurseries, deep channels, areas of relative health and biodiversity and the attractant of increased shipping traffic waste. That aligned with high numbers of annual visitors, means that there will be times when sharks and humans collide.

For whatever reason, or culmination of reasons, Recife is a potentially dangerous place to use the ocean. It is often the case in locations where multiple attacks have occurred, that various elements combine to increase the frequency of large, predatory sharks in areas used by people and dependent upon the species of shark, the rate of attack and ultimately, the rate of fatalities, will be affected exponentially.

How can we prevent these attacks?

The simple answer is that, short of staying on the beach and out of the water, we can't, it is misguided of anyone to think they have the answer or the "preventative measures" to stop the attacks in Reunion, Recife and Port St Johns completely. Historically, the two main measures put in place have been shark nets and culls and neither are 100% effective and are even less environmentally justifiable.

You cannot prevent shark attacks in places like these, we can only do what we can to reduce the risks but sometimes, the only option outside completely banning swimming (which people will ignore anyway) is to accept that shark attacks will occasionally happen and that we are prepared for the times they do with effective medical emergency procedures, to try and reduce the number of fatalities.

There is no particular science behind shark attacks, there are just too many factors to take into account in a phenomenon which is so small scale and in which so much varies. Species, location, conditions, activity, the victim themselves, access to medical assistance, all of these affect why a shark attacks, how a shark attacks and what level of injury the victim sustains. In Recife, it is swimmers who are primarily targeted and without the barrier and potential respite of a surfboard, they are more vulnerable to repeated injurious bites and it is also harder to exit the water. The attacking sharks are almost always Bulls, meaning higher risk of multiple bites and multiple bites mean higher risk of mortality. The factors affecting the rate of attacks in Recife is different to those in Western Australia, Reunion etc so, like I said, we have to treat each attack on its own merits and in doing so, appreciate that the prevention of something with so many variables is practically impossible.

To describe these kinds of incidents as "mistakes" and "accidents" is not only factually incorrect but it also promotes the acceptance of myths as truth, much like the concept of the shark as a cold, calculating killer with a lust for human flesh. Perpetuating the fallacies and falsehoods of shark attacks is harmful in that it pushes us further away from the proper understanding needed to establish ways in which we can make our use of the ocean as safe as possible both for us and the sharks.

I am incredibly fond of Bull Sharks, yes they are potentially extremely dangerous but simply thinking of them in terms of the danger they pose to humans is to do a great disservice to their intelligence, charisma, beauty and importance, they are such a cool animal and are not the bloodthirsty killers portrayed by the media as made clear in "Of Shark and Man," if you watch the teaser trailer below, do these sharks look like the indiscriminate killers they're made out to be?

We can only hope incidents like the recent fatalities remain infrequent but one element in all of this which we can control, is how we react, sharks aren't malevolent anti-human killing machines and nor are they carrying out some kind of environmental vengeance against humans so we need to stop reacting as though they are, let's not let agendas cloud how we publicly react to something as tragic as the death of an innocent teenager.

Jesus Loves "Of Shark and Man" - Marching On Towards Release

Thanks mate - New trailer officially JC approved 

So, it's been two weeks since the second Teaser Trailer was released and thought I'd give you some stats on that and also catch up on how the first one is doing.

In the first fourteen days of release we have trailer 2 on:

•  6418 Vimeo Player and embedded player views
• Vimeo Player version viewed in 101 countries
• Facebook plays and other embeds unknown but likely c3000
• Top 10 views by country - USA, UK, Australia, Germany, Fiji, Spain, France, Canada, Italy, Norway
• Honourable mentions to views in the following far flung places - Burkina Faso, Laos, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, New Caledonia, Azerbaijan, Northern Mariana Islands

In regards to that last point, it was also interesting to see that in the wake of the fatal attack last week there was a spike in views that day and in the following two days in La Reunion, the first time I've got stats for views of anything in that part of the world.





In the six months since the first Teaser Trailer, the available stats show:

• 22,878 Vimeo Player and embedded player views
• Vimeo Player version viewed in 140 countries
• Facebook and other embeds unknown but likely c10,000
• Top 10 views by country - US, UK, Canada, Germany, Australia, Switzerland, Spain, France, Fiji, South Africa
• Honourable mentions to views in the following far flung places -Yemen, Reunion (as a result of the above), Cape Verde, Honduras, Mongolia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Bhutan  

All this is of course, with promotion from only social media sites and I must stress again, if you like what I do, please, please join the street team, you only get emailed when there is something cool to share, you don't get spammed, your details aren't shared with anyone and it is so easy and requires only the most basic effort but it really, really helps get the word out there and in order for this film to achieve anything, it needs an audience.

The feedback on the new trailer has been slightly different to the first in that where the first piqued people's interest and had them wondering what the film was really about (mission accomplished, go me...) this second one has seemingly encouraged genuine excitement for the film thanks in no small part to the "Shark Effect" phenomenon, which actually exists by the way, wherein simply putting sharks in stuff makes more people want to look at it.

It's not quite that easy though because we now live in a world where art isn't as valued as it used to be because everybody has developed a sense of entitlement whereby they automatically feel they should get everything for free.

You've probably seen on your Facebook, at least one person share the trailer for Blackfish, which, if it lives up to the trailer and promo campaign, could be one of the best documentaries in years.

It's a great story, looks very well made and carries an important message and as such, I am going to make a point, despite being broke, to pay to see this film and not download a pirated copy, simply because it deserves to be valued and this relates directly to "Of Shark and Man," in a specific way.

The fact the trailer keeps appearing on your Twitter feed and Facebook Timeline is because it's good, but mainly because it's had money spent on it, a lot of money. Promo campaigns as good as this don't emanate from Facebook shares and likes, nor do they come from out of nowhere. There is a team of creative and dynamic people leading this campaign, who will have been paid handsomely to do so and rightly so because the campaign has been very good.

Basic business follows the principle that you have an idea for a product, in this case a film, you then create that product to be absolutely the best it can be and when it's ready, in order to sell it to make money (to pay off your own cost in making said product, pay rent, eat food, feed your kids etc) you need to alert the consumers in your intended market as to its availability and all this costs money and this is a stage I am closing in on with "Of Shark and Man" now.

I can unequivocally state that, unlike "A Ray of Light," "Of Shark and Man" will not be hosted online to view for free. It simply can't be from a financial or realistic perspective, if I was a millionaire, I would make it available for nothing but I'm not so I can't.

One of the coolest things about this entire project for me has been the involvement and support of brilliant, talented and kind hearted people, friends and strangers alike. It's a big aspect of the whole production really, beating the odds and making something truly special with people volunteering and chipping in where and when they can, I really get a kick out of that. The animation team have blown me away with what they have come up with so far, there are people who regularly share and get involved with the promotion of trailers, Mark and his help with music and sound and of course, the commercial support I get from Novatech (especially Tim who is a dream to deal with), Fourth Element, Canon UK and of course, Tourism Fiji / FijiMe along with the continued support and encouragement from Mike Neumann.

So with that collaborative goodwill in mind here's a bit of a scoop on what to expect in the upcoming weeks and months with the release in mind, as such, let me begin with what my release plan is at present although, this could change dependent upon advice and suggestions from people with a lot more experience than I, so in order of what there is left to do...

1.  Finish the first cut with finished animation
2. Sound Design and Audio Edit
3. Soundtrack (composition, recording and collect third party submissions)
4. Colour Correction and Grade
5. Final touches to the look build

That will mean a final version first cut signifying the start of the final process before release:

1. Individual, Industry Test Screenings
2. Re-edits and adjustments based on feedback
3. Public theatre Test Screenings
4. Re-edits and adjustments based on feedback
5. Final Version DVD sent to handpicked VIPs and press
6. Premiere Screening Event
7. Submissions to Festivals
8. Fee Paid Screenings with Q&A session Nationwide
9. Secure distribution
10. Blu-Ray and DVD release

The above ten points are all dependent on various things but this film will have a "proper" release and the success of that is reliant upon two areas, how much I can spend on it and how many people are prepared to help along the way.

In the next few weeks there will be a new crowd funding campaign to raise the funds for the release of the film, stuff like screenings, Legal Documentation, Digi-Beta copies, merchandise, marketing support, promotional material, sound-design production, special edition DVDs, design work and so on and so on. I am working on the perks to offer and have some cool ideas but I just need to figure out how to offer them so in the event I don't reach target, I end up having to spend any money raised on the perks leaving me with nothing and the whole campaign rendered completely pointless! Incidentally, to those who donated to the first Indiegogo campaign, those perks will start going out (the physical object perks anyway) when the film has its premiere.

I also have some very cool ideas for things to promote the film which would go online for free, stuff like a Behind The Scenes look at the film, songs from the soundtrack, stuff like that and in order to actually present the film properly and give it the best foundation possible I am looking for the following people so if you think you can help, please get in touch at david@officetoocean.com or david@scarletviewmedia.com

• Distributor
• Graphic Designer (posters/DVD covers/merchandise etc)
• Promotional Teams
• PR Firms
• Marketing Consultants
• Independent Cinemas

It goes without saying that all well meaning people offering their services is always hugely appreciated and humbling but I would ask at this stage that if you want to offer your services that you be of a professional standard or a ridiculously talented and enthusiastic semi-pro looking to break into that field. The stuff I can't do, the stuff I just don't have a talent for (graphic design being a prime example) I need that to be really, really shit hot, the kind of quality you would expect from a major studio release.

Part of the point of the crowd-funding campaign is to raise the money to pay for exactly this type of thing and it's an uncomfortable truth that without the help of others and being left to do this on my own, this film will almost certainly fail.

You can actually be a part of revolutionisingg how we view sharks and their relationships with humans on film and that's pretty cool no? With Shark Week looming and the obligatory campaigns about how it damages the public perception of sharks, you have a chance to actually do something to change that so if you don't like it, do something about it and climb aboard the good ship HMS OSAM!

Thanks to everyone who has shared the trailers so far, if you haven't yet, please do so, if you have a blog, please write about it, if you think you can help with the release, please get in touch and most of all, keep talking about Fiji's amazing Bull Sharks.

Here's Trailer 1...



All you aspiring Film-makers out there, watch this beautiful and inspiring piece by Philip Bloom about Cinematography

Have a look at this old John McCosker doc that was linked on Facebook yesterday, I really enjoyed watching it again :)

Have a great weekend!

Here It Is - Teaser Trailer 2

"Of Shark and Man" Teaser Trailer 2 from Scarlet View Media on Vimeo.

So then friends, it's been a long ride but here it is, Teaser Trailer 2!

If you remember when I released the rather ambiguous and slightly "arty" first teaser earlier this year, with a flashback to the very first promo video included, I did say that there would be three teasers and I haven't hidden from the notion that part II would be "a lot more sharky" and it's fair to say it is.

This teaser focuses on the aspects of the film which centre around the sharks, their importance to the reef, to the people, to me and of course, addresses my own personal journey to shark nirvana with a hint of the absolutely epic shark feeding controversy debate thrown in for good measure.

As I mentioned when I released the first one, the point of a teaser is to tease so don't expect any questions to be answered by this, however, it does do a couple of very important things:

• Proves the shark footage has what it takes
• Gives a first look at a first draft of the film's look. Cinematic, stylised and tailored specifically to the story, this isn't a standard colour balance job, it's about taking you into another world and using a variety of palettes to tell that story
• It gives another example of the film's musical content which is a big aspect of the design of the film
• It also, importantly, introduces you to some of the many people featured in the film
• It offers and insight to the depth of content in the film

From the outset, I said I was going to make something very different, something with vigour, style and its own identity and I hope that comes across in the two trailers I have released so far.

Of course, that couldn't be achieved without the help and input from the people who not only believe in the project, but who actually give a damn, not only about sharks, but their portrayal in the media. Please read the description that accompanies the trailer on Vimeo because it highlights these individuals and also, the people who donated to the first crowd funding campaign.

In case you haven't seen it yet (where have you been you maniac?!) below is Teaser Trailer 1


"Of Shark and Man" - Teaser Trailer 1 from Scarlet View Media on Vimeo.

I can't emphasise enough the importance of sharing this amongst your various social media sites, mailing lists, websites etc so I will repeat what I said last time:

"If you like the look of the teaser, you are into the concept of the film or you just want to help support independent film, please share this stuff. This is about representing an incredible story and an incredible animal properly and accurately, treating the audience with respect and as people who can look beyond what they're used to and who might just enjoy something a little different."

It costs nothing to watch, nothing to share and the work that is going into this film is monumental, seriously, not just me either. There are people donating time, creativity and energy into helping me finish this thing and the amount of work and passion that has gone in this far is gargantuan, that deserves 60 seconds of time to post on Facebook/Twitter etc right?

With talent and the donation of time and energy in mind, a huge thank you goes to Mark Burrows for producing the soundtrack with me (yes, we even did that from scratch ourselves too) who continuously and generously gives me his time and talent and has done for the last 16 years. He's a super talented dude, part of Scarlet View Media and has his own seriously badass Rock band, here they are with a cover of The Osmond's "Crazy Horses" with Dug Pinnock of King's X and it's absolutely brilliant!




If you like the sound of the track in the trailer and want a proper listen to it in isolation, here it is...

So, what now?

Back to the edit, a little more filming which I want to add then Teaser Trailer 3 which will cover the conservation element addressed in the movie.

There will also be another crowd-funding campaign to help raise funds for the film's release. That all costs money, money I don't have, and to give this film a proper release it needs a proper campaign behind it, I have big ideas and some unbelievably cool things to put out there to help the film gather momentum and hopefully get distribution but I can't do it without the help of the people, the people for whom this film is ultimately made. Keep an eye out for that.

The trailer also has "Tip Jar" enabled on the Vimeo page, please feel free to make a little donation, it all helps!

Please as well, feedback is always welcomed here, don't be shy, knowing you enjoy these helps me get through the bad days, knowing the things you think could be improved makes me better at what I do and suggestions for what you want to see help me understand exactly what you all think makes a great shark film!

Finally, "Behind Blue Glass," is still available and still selling! Why not treat yourself this weekend and see where all this madness began?!

That's enough from me, now, get yourself off and start sharing the trailer! ;)

An obsessive and fascinating look at JAWS

Durr duh...Durr duh....Durr duh....

I love obsessive people, I am one in fact, people who don't just like things, they love them, they immerse themselves in every single detail and aspect of something and strive to uncover the minutiae of their obsession. Obsessive creatives are great, I can relate to it personally, why do you think "Of Shark and Man" is taking so long? It has to be perfect, the nuances must be just right, each colour and sound must have a reason. I don't do rush jobs...

Nor by the looks of it does Jamie Benning, someone who makes my own obsessive personality seem positively lackadaisical. Jamie researches his favourite films with a passion and dedication few others could hope to match (seriously, check out his vimeo page linked in his name above...)

Jamie has just released a sixteen month long project on JAWS which I watched the other night and thoroughly enjoyed. I am also a JAWS obsessed nerd, I've seen the film well over 300 times, easily over 400 and likely nearing 500, I know pretty much everything about it after seeing pretty much everything ever made about it but Jamie has managed to squeeze a little more juice out of the JAWS orange that was new to me which is in itself an impressive feat.

What Jamie does is essentially play you the film with narrative overdubs from the people involved discussing what you are seeing but also, and for me most pleasingly, the real fan-boy, minuscule details that only the most ardent fan of the movie will notice or think about. Very much like a "Director's Commentary" feature so common on modern DVD and Blu-Ray releases, it really fleshes out lots of fascinating details about the making of the film, includes some great stills and provides insights from people you almost certainly have never heard from since their involvement in the film, including a generous contribution from Kevin Pike who was a labourer on the film and even input from people who played the tiniest roles in the backgrounds of certain shots.

This is not really for the casual observer, this is very much a film for the most dedicated JAWS fan and as such, I loved it!

Please bear this in mind...Jamie put in 16 months of work on this and has released it for free, yes, totally gratis! I would have paid for it, so should you really but you don't have to. This kind of dedication to something done purely for the love should be admired and applauded.

If you are a JAWS freak then you will have seen or heard much of this in the superb "The Shark is Still Working" and on the bonus featurettes on the multiple different DVD and Blu-Ray releases over the years alongside Carl Gottlieb's brilliant "The Jaws Log" but this is still well worth a look for the stuff those other works didn't include.

Jamie, this is a great piece of work and I salute you, "...here's to swimmin' with bow legged women!..."

If you watch and enjoy it, please make sure to add your comment and thank him for taking the time to make this.

Inside Jaws, A Filmumentary by @jamieswb (2013) from Jamie Benning on Vimeo.

I Met Paul Scholes...

Me and "The Ginger Prince" Photo: Mrs Scholes

If you're asking yourself, "Who's Paul Scholes?" then to be quite frank, I am appalled at you, but to help you along here, Paul Scholes is one of the very small band of humans I can say I have genuine admiration for. One of the greatest footballers ever to play the game and a man who has given me more moments of absolute, sheer joy than most other people.

He's not just a bona fide great of the football world, he's also a down to earth, "no-frills," unaffected guy who I would admire for all the same reasons if he wasn't a Manchester United legend and was instead a postman or a builder.

I had the pleasure of meeting him today whilst on a filming job in Oldham and had a brief but very pleasant chat about life in general and I also got a chance to actually thank him for all the enjoyment he has given me over the years which was actually really nice for me.

I could gush about the man all day but I'll leave it at that, I've met a lot of very famous people over the years but I don't think I've ever felt as in awe of someone as I did today when I met a genuine hero of mine.

For those of you who don't know about "The Ginger Prince," here is a nice, albeit brief, summation of just some of the things which make him quite possibly the most popular Manchester United player of all time.

MKBCC8 - Paul Scholes - My Tribute by aditya_reds from aditya rathod on Vimeo.

Falmouth Beaneath The Waves Film Festival - A Roaring Success!

A great turnout for the first ever UK Beneath The Waves Film Festival

Last Thursday (the 6th) saw me making an appearance at the Falmouth stop of Beneath The Waves Film Festival, the first time the UK has hosted one of these events and it was a really, really great night!

Six films were shown, "Bertha's Blues," "Mikono Ya Wivuvi," "People of the Coral Triangle" and "A Reef's Tale" along with, of course, A Ray of Light, there was also a competition for local film-makers and photographers, along with three guest speakers, Fergus Kennedy, Jeff Goodman and yours truly, all packed into a hugely enjoyable two and a half hours.

Photo by Nicky Crawford

The turnout was superb, almost a full house, the response to the films was very positive and there was a real sense of people genuinely wanting to learn more about the issues raised in the films. The organisation of the event was absolutely top notch as well so full credit for the success of the evening must go to Phil Doherty, Lucie Buckland and Sarah Paul, all of whom dedicated a great deal of time and effort into the evening and they did a phenomenal job, I would love to see them involved in a similar event next year, it was an absolute pleasure to spend the evening with them and also Fergus, Jeff and Jeff's partner.

A word also about the venue, a fantastic independent cinema in the beautiful town of Falmouth, called The Poly, a traditional, art house cinema staffed almost entirely by volunteers. Places like this need, nay deserve the support of anyone with an interest in film and are a far more enjoyable place to watch a movie than a faceless multiplex costing an arm and a leg to get into. I very much hope that Thursday isn't the only time I get to watch one of my films in this awesome place, in fact, I will be making an effort to ensure that happens again...



Beneath the Waves Film Festival - Summer and Fall 2013 World Tour Movie from Triakis Films on Vimeo.

The festival is currently on its world tour and details of venues can be found here along with regular updates and I strongly advise you make the effort to go if it comes within reasonable travelling distance from you!

In other A Ray of Light news, yet another film festival has requested its inclusion in their event, this time, in Australia as part of the Cairns Underwater Film Festival taking place on Saturday, August 24th at The Cairns Civic Theatre. The event's organiser is the very cool Mike Ball so it is guaranteed to be a great event. More news on that to come!

Once again, huge thanks to all at Beneath The Waves, The Poly, Lucie, Phil and Sarah and last but certainly not least, all who came on Thursday!

Phil, Sarah, Me, Lucie, Fergus and Jeff

Pathe News Footage of Sharks - Awesome!

Pathe News - Gotta love it!

I love Pathe News footage, it's brilliant, there's something really "British" about it but more importantly, it's a fascinating look into a bygone age where everything seemed so much more innocent, wildly uninformed and on occasion, mindblowingly weird!

Why am I talking about Pathe news? Well, if you're anything like me, you'll love watching all the old shark footage from a time when hardly anyone owned a camera and there where sharks everywhere! Yes, believe it or not, once upon a time, there used to be tonnes of sharks all around the world.

With that in mind, check out this link with loads of Pathe News shorts about sharks going back as far as 1920! It's a fascinating look at the attitude towards sharks back then, including the wartime trend of representing sharks as NAZIS and vice versa, something I touched on here on this very blog.

If you have some time spare, make sure to watch through the videos in the links, they really are, very interesting.

Hat tip to Anton Desmazeau for sending me the link, this isn't the first time he's hooked me up with some very cool stuff either, he has a very interesting blog with some weird, wonderful and rare shark stuff so I strongly recommend you follow him and have a read, if you are able to parle en Francais of course but even if you can't, he shares my love for the vintage shark films and always links some super cool stuff.

Thanks again Anton!

Some Behind The Scenes Stuff from the Edit Room!

Thought I'd give you a sneak peak of some behind the scenes footage from the "Of Shark and Man" Editing Suite...

Enjoy ;)

June 6th in Falmouth...Get Yourselves There!

 One of many international screenings of A Ray of Light

Bit of a heads up for you English people, especially those of you lucky enough to live in the Cornwall area...

On Thursday June 6th, the international touring film festival, Beneath The Waves finally reaches our shores and not only will A Ray of Light be screened on the night (which it is at every Beneath The Waves screening around the world) but I will also be there in person, to give a brief talk about this film, "Of Shark and Man" and a little bit about how I ended up in a position to call myself a professional Film-Maker and Cinematographer.

The Falmouth Beneath The Waves Film Festival is being held at The Poly on June 6th and will feature films and still photography from some passionate and brilliantly talented people and, if I am correct in thinking, is followed by drinks and a chance to meet new people and discuss, amongst other things, the films on show earlier in the evening.

If you can't make it to Falmouth, I will be at Robin Hood Watersports on June 12th to screen A Ray of Light and do a bit of a presentation as part of their open night as they launch their new travel centre.

The London Eco Film Festival was apparently a huge success. Unfortunately I wasn't able to make it to the event but I am told photos from the night will be available soon.

I'm really excited about the Falmouth Film Festival, I love Cornwall and it will be the first time I will have seen one of my films in a cinema setting so it should be a great evening and one at which I would love to see as many of you as possible!

Thanks to everyone who has so far taken part in the shark feeding discussion on the last blog which, for the most part, has been a really well informed, balanced and intelligent discussion. If you know someone who has opinions on the issue and wants to discuss it away from the crazies and angry lunatics you find on social media, feel free to invite them over!

Finally, if you haven't already, make sure to get your hands on a copy of the current issue of Sport Diver and check out my five page, cover article about the experience of my final dive on Shark Reef!

Let's talk about Shark Feeding (again)

 Rusi doing what Rusi does (Fiji) - Photo: David Diley

Yes, we've done this before, I know, but a proper, intelligent discussion about shark feeding is something I am always interested to be a part of and also because it never ceases to amaze me that many of the myths and untruths surrounding it, continue to be perpetuated, usually in social media circles but more worryingly, occasionally in the wider media spectrum. Let's not forget, it wasn't long ago that a group of Hawaiians took to burning boats, so outraged were they by the frenzy stirred up in the media.

A big part of "Of Shark and Man" is that I am telling the full story about Shark Reef in Fiji, and I mean the full story, all the nuts and bolts, the protocols, the environmental benefits, the economic benefits, the sharks, the people and everything in between. This cannot be done without addressing the issue and controversy surrounding Shark Feeding and in the last few weeks, I have spent a large amount of my time putting together a section in the film dedicated to that controversy, so much so that I would speculate that at 24 minutes, it might be the most in-depth look at the subject, on film, in existence.

Part of that is presenting both sides of the argument and I was hugely fortunate to get the opportunity to get the Anti-Feeding side from the impressive, articulate and well respected Helen Sykes of CORAL, who spoke eloquently, from a position of shark welfare and conservation. I could go to social media and collect this argument from the rabid hordes of people with loud voices and angry opinions, but in an intelligent debate, that helps nobody. Helen and I disagree on certain things, but I respect Helen enormously and she makes a fantastic contribution to the piece in the film.

Whilst working on this portion of the film, I came across a discussion about shark feeding consisting a wild statement and a couple of replies. Despite knowing better, I took the bait and the discussion exploded into a contentious debate with some interesting points being made by both sides, before, as is always the case with social media debates, it descended into name calling and toys going out of the pram, so I figured, I'll address it here and encourage you to get involved in the debate here (more on that in a bit.)

 Anti-Shark Feeding protest (Hawaii)

To do this properly, I need to address both sides fairly. This is primarily an opinion piece so I am not telling you what to think, however, my opinions have been formed through my own personal experience and research, the research and experience of others more experienced than I and also through dissecting the issues at hand from a neutral perspective. I have no vested interest in shark feeding, my motivation is the welfare of sharks, full stop. I do not financially benefit from shark feeding and I am comfortable with scientific advice and more importantly, the findings of people who have extensive personal experience with shark feeds and the ancillary effects of their existence, both positive and negative.

You are not being told to believe what is right and wrong, you're getting a detailed dissection of the issue and are being invited to make up your own mind. I believe I have a degree of credibility on this issue, but there are those out there with far greater credibility than I, if you think that's you, you are invited to join the discussion where you will be warmly welcomed.

Before I begin, I want to clarify a few things first so as to quantify from where I and others, are coming, in respect of this discussion. This is not an angry outburst or a group of wild, ill considered statements and this is especially not a discussion borne of intolerance, if you want that, spend the day on Facebook or read The Daily Mail.

Before I start, let me clarify that I am fully aware that not every shark feed is run responsibly and not every shark feed uses protocols that I would consider suitable or conducive to a safe diver/shark experience. No shark feed is 100% safe, simply involving SCUBA diving ensures that.

Here goes:

• Conservation is an integral part of this discussion so be aware that conservation in the 21st century is not merely an environmental issue, more and more, conservation has become an issue of economics
• "Shark Feeding" as discussed here, is what I would classify as an operation which specialises in offering paying customers a chance to take part as spectators, in an organised dive based around a professional feeding sharks as part of a spectacle for said customers. These shark feeds will be a regularly repeated operation using the same protocols on each dive, those protocols being specific to each operation. Some good, some undoubtedly bad.
• The examples I use are examples about which I know and/or have experienced personally, please don't get upset if you have had a different experience on a feed not referenced here, that's not my fault.
• I have no agenda for or against anyone or anything referenced here, if you are referenced and you don't like what you read, please get in touch in the comments where you will be warmly welcomed to discuss further without fear of being called names or condescended to. I respect anyone who wants to be a part of an open discussion.
• My own experience comprises about 150-160 dives with sharks of various species in various locations, many have been baited dives, some have been the rigidly organised, beginner type dives (Stuart Coves Caribbean Reef Shark Feeds for example) and others have been more what can be called "proper shark diving" adventures from which I learnt more about sharks than I ever could as part of a larger group.
• I would say my main areas of interest and knowledge regarding sharks would be shark attack and shark behaviour, both of which make up a large part of the shark feeding debate so I would say I'm pretty well placed to discuss it but I am not a scientist and nor do I undertake any scientific research personally. I will defer to the expertise of others in this piece and the people to whom I defer will be those with the experience I don't have and those with that scientific base of research.

 Photo by Matthew Meier

To begin with I want to look at the arguments against feeding sharks as part of a commercial operation. These arguments primarily centre around the following:

• The risk of shark attack to people on the dives but primarily, the risk posed to bathers, surfers and divers using areas in close proximity to feeding areas
• The ecological effects on sharks and natural shark behaviour
• The ethics of humans feeding wildlife
• The use of wildlife conditioning for the financial benefit of commercial dive operations.
• The conditioning of sharks to humans as a provider food
• Aggregating sharks in ares where they may become vulnerable to fishing fleets

Shark Feeding and Shark Attack

Shark feeding as a source of generating commercial income began on a wide scale in the mid-nineties and shark attacks have been happening ever since man first started using the ocean as a source of subsistence and recreation.

According to the International Shark Attack File there have been 2,569 "unprovoked" shark attacks worldwide between 1580 to 2012. I am using the ISAF as the source here for the only reason that it is currently the only extensive source of data for shark attacks available. In my opinion, the ISAF is not 100% accurate primarily for its classification of what constitutes "unprovoked." There are omissions from their records which I feel are not reflective of the true data, however, for the most part, it is a valid source of statistics for this particular discussion.

Shark feeding operations started to become truly widespread around the globe at the turn of the 21st century. According to a 2012 study by the University of British Columbia, there are seventy dedicated "Shark Watching Sites" in forty-five different countries, classified as locations where dedicated baited and non-baited shark encounters occur.

The results from this study show that an accurate estimate would suggest over 590,000 people, each year take part in a shark watching experience. Most of these will be as a diver or snorkeler thus meaning, over half a million people knowingly enter the water with sharks each year, around the world. Of course, not all these operations bait the dives. This study would confirm of what we have all been aware for some time, that more people than ever are encountering sharks in their natural environment and that number is also steadily increasing.

Between 2001 and 2012 there were 812 "unprovoked" attacks around the world, with Florida, Australia and Hawaii providing most of the victims. This league table reads as following:

1. Florida
2. Australia
3. Hawaii
4. South Africa
5. California
6. South Carolina
7. North Carolina
8. Brazil
9. The Bahamas

As a caveat, I will add that Fiji had 11 attacks in that same time period.

During that period and in one of those locations, there was a fatality during a baited shark dive, when Markus Groh was bitten by a Bull Shark (although reports vary on the species responsible) during a feed in The Bahamas. It is not my place to give a definitive account of what actually happened that day as  wasn't there and do not want to speculate, however, this remains the only occasion whereby a spectator on a shark feed has sustained serious (in this case fatal) injury.

The popular argument is less about the safety of participants on these dives and more about the risk to recreational water users in areas close to those used for shark feeding. Looking at the list above, we need to link those attacks to shark feeding to give this argument any credibility, or of course, provide proof of a lack of any connection:

Florida - Shark feeding is banned and there are currently no shark feeding dives operating within federal waters

Australia - Shark feeding operations are surprisingly sparse with those that do operate, primarily being the Great White cage dives in South Australia and the shark rodeo dives in the North East. Western Australia, particularly around the Perth area and South West which is currently experiencing an unusual spike in incidents, has no shark feed operations.

Hawaii - Shark feeding is banned. There are no longer shark feeds in operation here.

South Africa - A shark diving hot spot with several baited cage dive operations in the Cape Town area and baited open water dives off the Durban coast.

California, South Carolina, North Carolina and Brazil - There are no recognised, dedicated shark feeds in any of these areas.

The Bahamas - The shark feeding capital of the world where shark feeding is a major source of tourism.

Fiji - Fiji has two main shark feeds on the same area, a mile apart. None of the eleven attacks occurred in areas within close proximity to this area.

In this time period, shark attacks have remained at a consistent average yearly rate in California and both South and North Carolina. Brazil, the Bahamas and Florida are seeing a slight decline in attacks and South Africa, Australia and Hawaii are experiencing a minor increase although in Hawaii, the jump from three attacks to ten in the space of twelve months is unusual in itself but it is not unusual that locations with historical records of annual shark attacks see brief periods with statistical anomalies where attacks spike in excess of what would be considered "average."

The global trend shows a decrease in annual attacks in the first half of this period followed by an increase in the second half.

Where we need to look for proof that shark feeding increases the risk of attack is in the areas where shark feeding is widely practised, the three prime examples being South Africa, The Bahamas and Fiji. Where South Africa has seen a slight increase in attacks, primarily as a result of a spike in 2010 which would qualify as one of the aforementioned statistical anomalies, the increase is in no way reflective of an increase in perceived danger posed by shark feeding as these attacks did not occur in a proximity anywhere near close enough to locations used by shark feed operations. The Bahamas has actually seen a decrease in the attack rate and attacks in Fiji remain consistently rare.

There has now been well over a decade for the argument that shark feeding increases the risk of attack to be proven but the simple fact, that sharks will pose a greater threat to humans because of shark feeding, has widely been discredited, the stats just don't add up. By that argument, The Bahamas and Fiji should be the two most dangerous parts of the world to use the ocean, when in reality, of the global areas where shark attack can be conceivably argued as a "natural risk," both The Bahamas and Fiji, where large, potentially dangerous sharks are relatively plentiful, are statistically the two areas you are least likely to be attacked.

We must also balance out the argument by recognising that both Mexico and Cuba, where shark feeds are undertaken have experienced a slight increase in shark bites on swimmers in the last two years but this cannot be reliably linked to those feeds unless this continues at the same rate for the next few years which is extremely unlikely. Russia, Vietnam and Egypt have also seen spikes in shark bite but none of those countries have organised baited shark diving operations.

So, statistically speaking, you are less likely to be bitten by a shark in areas where shark feeds occur, a fact which on its own completely discredits the notion it poses an increased risk to ocean users. The rate of global shark attacks has not been affected by shark feeding, the stats are there for everyone to see.

In the simplest way of looking at it, there is absolutely no evidence or proof to claim that shark feeds increase the risk of attack, whereas there is statistical and anecdotal evidence which does in fact suggest the opposite.

 Martin Graf - Wow!

Feeding sharks will weaken their natural predatory instincts

This argument is based on the assumption that if you feed sharks enough, they'll stop hunting in their natural way and that migratory sharks will instead, maintain an unnatural site fidelity.

In Fiji, Beqa Adventure Divers operates an active daily research data process on each shark feed, during which individual sharks are recorded as present on each dive. This is primarily in regards to the Bulls as the dominant species and is essentially, a register, like you had at school, to maintain and update a log of all the sharks that appear on the dive.

The feeds take place five days a week and up to one ton of food is introduced into the process every week. That's a lot of Tuna heads!

There are around 150 individual Bull Sharks which have been recorded on Shark Reef at this site since 2002. A small number of these individuals could be classified as "resident" in that they spend most of the year on or around Shark Reef but the majority are transient. Bull Sharks are by nature, wide roaming and the individuals which do not fall into the local population will visit the feed sporadically over the year, most return, others do not. The returning animals will stay, on average between 2-10 days (Mike, correction if required) and the data suggests that many of these individuals appear at roughly the same time, in cycles of around ten days, before disappearing again.

As part of my filming "Of Shark and Man" I tested whether the sharks would still aggregate on non-feed dives, carrying out a number of dives in the arena on Shark Reef on the "off days" during which only 6-10 individuals were present, never approaching closer than ten feet and in no way displaying any aggression.

During feeds where up to 100 individuals are present, only between 5-10 individuals actually feed, the others preferring to seemingly be part of what is something of a social gathering, observing the action in varying degrees of proximity. This feed uses Tuna Heads which have an extremely low calorific value, being that they are made up of mainly bone, ensuring the shark's natural hunger is in no way affected by their intake of between one and three heads per dive. Over the course of a week, different individuals will feed meaning a single shark may only take one head during an average ten day visit to the feeds. Most sharks will spend their time on the feeds without actually feeding before again disappearing.

This paper by Juerg Brunnschweiler dissects this particular area of research in detail and is well worth a read. This from the conclusions:

In conclusion, our results and the still few studies that looked at the behavioural response of sharks to food provisioning all indicate that residency patterns and site fidelity to long-term shark provisioning sites are species specific and that intraspecific variation exists. Furthermore, evidence is accumulating that chumming and food provisioning are unlikely to fundamentally change movement patterns at large spatial and temporal scales, and seem to only have a minor impact on the behaviour of large predatory sharks [14], [16], [44]; hence, the creation of behavioural effects at the ecosystem level seems unlikely [44]. It is further worth noting that sharks that were both visually observed and tagged in this study were individuals that have a higher propensity for showing behavioural responses to provisioning. We found that C. leucas do not appear to be strongly conditioned to the provisioning tourism and also exhibited diver avoidance. However, the sharks monitored in this study are biased to being individuals ‘more likely’ or ‘more comfortable’ to be observed or tagged. Thus, it stands to reason that the overall impacts of provisioning tourism on the C. leucas population as a whole is even less.

Not all operators undertake this kind of rigorous data collection and research but if we look at many other feeds, the suggestion that sharks natural predatory instinct and migratory behaviour can be viewed as incorrect by the very fact that those operations exploit natural seasonal aggregations of target species. Bull Sharks in Playa Del Carmen appear on the feeds periodically between December and March, Great Hammerheads in the Bahamas between January and March, Great Whites in Guadelupe between August and November and so on. There are feeds which take place in the tropics, including in The Bahamas which centre around resident Reef Shark species which exhibit naturally high site fidelity meaning the behavioural effect on those animals in regards to migratory patterns is negligible to non-existent.

Barry Bruce and Russel Bradford undertook a study in the Neptune Islands, South Australia to investigate the effects of chumming for sharks by cage dive operators, it's a big one but again, from the conclusions;

"As seen in previous research, white sharks tagged during the study were found to be temporary residents of the Neptune Islands. Despite berleying, sharks continue to arrive and leave the Neptune Islands. As in previous years, the number of sharks present at any one time was highly variable.There were some periods when no sharks were present.These patterns are probably driven by differences in the ocean conditions between years and seasons.

Increased berleying has not led to sharks taking up patterns of permanent residency and sharks left the Neptunes Group for other destinations across their Australian range during the study period. For example, three tagged sharks were detected by acoustic receivers moving through south-western Western Australia after leaving the Neptune Islands during the course of the study."


Research and current data points heavily to sharks maintaining natural predatory and site fidelity behaviours in and around areas where shark feeds take place. There is no data that I am aware of which would suggest this is not the case so it would appear again, that this concern, whilst valid, is not applicable as a reason not to feed sharks in organised shark feeds.

It is ethically and/or morally wrong to feed wildlife

Point one, assigning the ethics of human/wildlife interaction as a cover all set of rules for all wildlife is not only wildly misleading, it's also pointless. "Bears do this, lions do that, Ospreys do those..." etc etc ad nauseum is not a valid argument when discussing sharks. If it were, we would believe in "Rogue Sharks" because crocs, lions and tigers occasionally go rogue, it's a proven fact, that there is ZERO evidence to reliably confirm the existence of "Rogue Sharks" is also proven.

Point two, morality and a code of ethics is a personal thing, what you consider morally abhorrent may be seen as perfectly acceptable in other cultures and vice versa, your morality and ethical viewpoint is not fact, it's a belief system.

There are people who believe feeding sharks is ethically wrong and that is of course, their right, however, this is not and never will be, a point by which something should be proven right or wrong. I don't like scripted reality shows so I don't watch them, other people do so I don't demand they be taken from our screens. Demanding something be banned because you don't like it is extremism, it is oppressive and in itself, is in my code of ethics, morally wrong. If you think something should be banned purely based on the fact you don't like it, then you are not approaching the issue at hand from anywhere verging on being in the same post code as an intelligent or informed place.

If you don't like something, don't do it, if you are concerned about the wider reaching effects of something then you absolutely must inform yourself with information from both sides of the argument before even beginning to consider requesting something be altered, ceased or legally outlawed.

The majority of arguments for and against shark feeding come from a place where people are speaking on behalf of sharks and the uncomfortable truth we have to address is that the vast majority of these people are not qualified to do so with the authority that is required to address the issue properly and as such, with anything, we must always defer to what is proven to be or not to be or at least, look at the evidence ourselves and know what it is we are looking for. It is not the fault of the layman for being a layman on many important issues, it's not a weakness or a criticism, it is what it is. There are always people out there who know more than you or I on a whole host of things so it is for us to question what we see (including this very blog) and to inform ourselves as much as possible.

Your code of ethics is not sufficient to demand anything when not aligned with material to validate why you feel the way you do.

 Photo: George Konig

Conditioning animals is bad, conditioning animals for money is really bad

Two forms of conditioning take place on shark dives, the conditioning of the sharks to the process of the feed and the conditioning of divers to sharks. I believe the latter is the more dangerous (more on that in a minute...)

Using the Beqa Adventure Divers Shark Reef feed as an example again, the protocols are extremely strict, as they themselves will tell you, this is not the dive if you want to improvise, you do as you're told, if you don't, your dive is over.

That approach extends to the sharks. The dives occur at the same times on the same days in exactly the same ways, at the same depths, with the same crew and protocols without exception. The sharks there have been conditioned, they are in fact, the most conditioned Bull Sharks on the planet. With that in mind, in answer to the question, "do shark feeds condition sharks?" the answer is yes, they do.

In Fiji, with B.A.D, the Bull Sharks are quickly conditioned, showing a level of intelligence which may surprise you, that they will only get food if they approach from left to right and that they will only be fed if they behave appropriately, any aggression or if things get a little too hot, the box is closed and the feed is over until, if at all, it can be recommenced when they have settled down. The sharks have also learnt that the wall where the spectators are placed, is a no go area, forming what seems like an invisible barrier the sharks do not cross while the feed is under way. When the feed is over, the sharks remain in situ, before dispersing.

This is undoubtedly conditioned behaviour and similar procedures are evident around the world so ask yourself this question, is this conditioning a bad thing? The only real answer is, "it depends."

The Bull Sharks in Fiji are displaying behaviours conclusive with being at least partially habituated to humans, the same applies at many other shark feed sites. This habituation however does not seem to equate with aggression as implied in my earlier experience with the sharks there and at other feed sites around the world, the habituation seemingly applies primarily during the feed and on non-feed days, in my experience, manifests itself as indifference to human presence. They would seemingly appear less cautious of humans which in itself raises questions about their welfare and vulnerability to "non-friendly" humans but I will address that in more detail later, what I am sure of though, is that in my experience and the experiences of others I have spoken with, this habituation is not linked to aggression.

Where conditioning of sharks can be problematic is when multiple operators utilise the same site with different protocols, for example, one operation hand feeds, another uses chumsicles and another dump feeds. The benefit of hand feeding is that it is more selective, the opposite end of the spectrum is the more random elements of dump feeding which makes a feed harder to control. I have heard reports that these variances in feeding techniques have been causing some concerning changes at one particular site in The Bahamas, where the different feeding protocols is creating confusion amongst the animals with several large individuals becoming "beggar sharks," sharks which are behaving as they would on a dump feed, during the more controlled process of piecemeal feeding. This isn't proof that shark feeding is bad but it is proof that stricter control of protocols is needed to ensure the site remains as safe as possible and this is the sole responsibility of the operators to work together, realising that ensuring safety, equates to ensuring longevity at the site as far as opening dives to the paying public is concerned. 

The golden rule of shark diving is to stack the odds in your favour, by creating confusion amongst the animals, you are losing the ability to do that and that's when things get dangerous.

As for the exploitation of wildlife to make money being bad, again, that's a case of one's own moral code deciding how you feel. Some shark feeds make a lot of money, how much of that they put back into the welfare of animals is up to them but I would personally like to see all shark feeds ploughing money into the protection of the animals from which they earn a living. Many feeds ensure financial input into shark welfare, some don't but we live in a world unfortunately ruled by capitalism and if your moral code causes questions in your own mind, choose an operation which actively promotes shark welfare or don't take part in shark feeds. If you really have an aversion to the exploitation of the natural world for money, I would suggest sitting down and making a list of products and services you yourself use that don't impact the natural world and only use those entirely. That would, I assume, lead to a dramatic change in lifestyle for all of us.

What I feel is more dangerous is conditioning humans to sharks, by that I mean humans believing that, after emerging from a shark dive unscathed, that sharks are not potentially dangerous or even worse, that they now somehow possess the ability or even the right, to manhandle sharks, to ride sharks and to dive way beyond their capabilities. Sharks deserve, nay demand, respect, if we teach divers that sharks are benign creatures who just want to be friends, we are creating people who are severely misinformed and giving them a carte blanche to behave irresponsibly with animals which could easily inflict fatal injury.

Any shark dive should, in my opinion, impress upon all their clients the importance of "look don't touch" and instill at least a modicum of educational content in their briefings.

Shark Feeds aggregate sharks in areas where they are vulnerable to fishing

So far, my argument has been heavily weighted towards disproving many of the anti-shark feeding issues but this one is more difficult. The simple fact is if you spend enough time creating an area where sharks will visit or in some cases live full time, it will become an attractive place for fishermen to go and catch sharks. Playa Del Carmen is a prime example and this argument, above and beyond all others, is the one which must be addressed by anyone looking to open a shark feed site. If your opening a shark feed is going to aggregate sharks to an area where they can be wiped out by as few as a single fisherman, then don't do it, it's not worth it.

If there is one operational lesson that all shark feeds should learn, it is that which makes Shark Reef so special, first of all, protect the area. If you can show that a shark feed can create jobs and financial incentives to a local community and it would provide an improvement in the lives of the people in the area, then you must also caveat that with the importance of longevity. The longevity of that economic boost to your community is directly affected by the continued presence of sharks, no sharks, no dives, no money. 

Without exception, protect your site, if you don't, you're asking for trouble.

Now let's look at some of the arguments in favour of shark feeding. At this stage I want to again qualify, that the pro-feeding arguments I present from my own viewpoint are based on environmentally sound, ethically handled (by my own code of ethics of course), responsibly run and strictly controlled shark feeds. I acknowledge that this does not apply to every shark feed in existence.

This in itself can be applied to the entire SCUBA Diving industry, some do it better than others, you will have experienced this yourself, poor underwater practise and procedure is not limited to shark eco-tourism.

The main arguments in favour of shark feeding  and baited shark dives can be listed as the following;

• Economic influx to often third world countries and the emergence of career opportunities
• The reliance on healthy shark populations
• The environmental benefit from healthy shark populations
• The creation of passionate new shark lovers
• The economic initiative to governments to protect sharks to maintain and develop tourism
• Ancillary financial benefit to other businesses in the community

The benefits listed above can also be applied to non-baited shark dives and dives which have no connection with sharks, however, I am concentrating on the shark related examples of which I am aware and of which I have personal experience.

Shark diving and Shark Feeds create economic growth in third world countries

Poverty is an uncomfortable truth in modern society, I read a statistic a while back stating if you earn £14,500 per year, the average wage of a call centre worker or McDonalds employee, then you are amongst the top 5% of the world's richest people.

Read that again. Now read it again and let that sink in.

Shark conservation, in fact almost all wildlife conservation is now less an environmental issue and more one of economics. Capitalism ensures that we as a society value only that which carries a financial incentive. The governments of the world will, on the whole, rarely do something because it is the right thing to do, they will do it if it pays.

Some of the best places in the world to encounter sharks are third world countries where many of the indigenous people live in wretched poverty, we visit these places, we buy our souvenirs and wax lyrical about how wonderful and warm these people are and then leave, back home to our comfortable lives and well paid jobs (yeah, even those who work part time in Topshop, read the above stat again) whilst they remain in poverty.

Many of these third world countries rely on tourism and dive tourism is a major source of income. Diving is expensive, we have money and we spend it in their country, directly in the services and products we pay for and indirectly, in the jobs that it creates in resorts and local businesses.

Using the study by The University of British Columbia again, every year, shark tourism generates over US$314,000,000, that's three hundred and fourteen million dollars, every year from sharks, supporting more than 10,000 jobs within the industry. Of course not all of those are baited shark dives but without this industry we see 10,000 jobs gone and exactly $0 of that income in circulation.

This money means careers, it means training opportunities, it means financial freedom for the employees and their families, all of which then gets circulated through the local economy as those employees and business owners pay for products and services themselves. For the businesses which pay tax, that tax then improves local infrastructure, schooling and education, public safety and communal utilities and hygiene, all of which is reliant on the shark dives. If these dives were to cease, the reality is that there are areas which would suffer enormously, potentially seeing a whole local industry collapse, in many other places, tourism would still occur but the money that is no longer in circulation is now no longer being spent in or on the local community.

The feed at Shark Reef ensures the survival of the village which owns the reef, provides full time employment to members of its youth and pays for the materials to build homes, village halls and areas in which they can grow crops. Every diver pays a levy of F$20 per dive that goes directly back to the village and has, since 2006 raised more than F$160,000 in direct income for the upkeep of the village. The Feeders and Dive Masters are also paid extremely well and rewarded for performance, contrary to the general pay scheme in the dive world, where passion for the sport is exploited with often pathetic salaries. At Beqa Adventure Divers, the senior guys earn more than a lecturer at Suva University and the money paid to employees supports whole families through their schooling and care.

During a discussion this weekend, one individual was adamant that shark feeds "should be banned" stating along the lines that they "don't give two hoots about the humans involved," but I would wager should that individual visit a village like Galoa, in a developing third world country they wouldn't be so ardent in their claim they would happily see them no longer receive the financial assistance the Shark Dive offers them, I would like to think instead, they would feel a sense of humility whilst experiencing hospitality afforded to them by people who know more about the impact of shark feeding than most people ever could.

The financial incentives to support shark eco-tourism including baited shark dives aren't only limited to the operations and their employees. Ancillary financial benefit is also enormous, by ancillary I am referring to money that circulates through an economy which has been generated by people visiting a particular business, whilst spending money in other parts of the community as part of their stay.

An example, I visited The Bahamas in 2008 purely to dive with the sharks, the sharks were my reason for going and whereas the operator made money from my visit, so did the following:

Airline

Airport Shops

Taxis

Restaurants

Bars

Souvenir Shops

B&B

Supermarket

Every year, The Bahamas alone generates approximately $78million in direct and ancillary income linked to the baited shark dives.

This is intrinsically linked to the following point...

Shark Diving directly influences Shark Conservation

It does, that is an absolute nailed on, stonewall fact.

The Bahamas is a shark sanctuary because of its shark dive industry and the Shark Reef Marine Reserve exists because of the shark feed.

Marine Reserves and Shark Sanctuaries can of course exist without shark diving, but in areas where shark feeds are present and generating sustainable economic contributions to the community, the likelihood those habitats can be protected is far greater. As I said earlier, conservation is a social issue and one of economics, if it pays it stays. Shark feeds rely on healthy shark populations, if you allow the eradication of that shark population you lose the long term money and the fear of that is helping to drive conservation initiatives.

Most of the readers of this blog will be all too aware that a live shark is worth far more than a dead shark and if that value is apparent in third world countries, then it means the fight to protect the world's sharks swings further to the side of conservation because it makes it more difficult for the Shark Fin industry to exploit the poor because that's what they do, they exploit the poor.

There are stories of Shark Fin traders exploiting the Fijian sugar shortage, encouraging islanders to fish out their sharks in return for sugar, other pacific islanders are given tobacco, in the Marshall Islands, before the sanctuary, a kilo of shark fins would make the fishermen $2.50. Whilst these Pacific islanders were given sugar, tobacco or loose change, these fins were changing hands in Asia for up to $900 per kilo.

If there is no financial incentive to protect sharks in developing nations, the alternative is shark fishing, more often than not, to provide fins. The encouragement comes from incredibly wealthy companies, paying next to nothing to fishermen to potentially destroy local eco-systems upon which they may have relied for centuries. The sharks are gone, the eco-system goes to shit and the Asian traders disappear with pockets full of money, leaving them with nothing.

If shark dive operators protect the areas they utilise, it means the sharks thrive, their business thrives and it can continue to make money for the local economy. It's basic economics, a live shark can be "used" again and again and again, a dead shark can be used only once.

 Photo: Mike Neumann

Shark Diving, including baited dives, encourages people to care about sharks

I've seen it myself, two friends accompanied me to The Bahamas, neither was massively keen on encountering sharks but with a little cajoling into joining me on a shark feed, at the end of the week, both are now passionate shark lovers.

Seeing an animal as awe inspiring as a shark in the flesh is a life changing event, I don't know of anyone who has done a shark dive and surfaced with an opinion of the animal which has been negatively influenced from that they had before the dive. Shark feeds can also encourage educational possibilities, not just that, the level of inspiration gained from the privilege of seeing these incredible animals up close creates a bond in the diver to the sharks and unquestionably instills a passionate sense of the value these animals provide in the natural world.

To ensure these animals are present on these dives, often means baiting so can it not be argued, that baiting dives is a small price to pay for all the good it does for shark conservation?

Sharks ensure, promote and maintain health on coral reefs

Many species of shark play a role as Apex Predator on reef systems around the world. It's a widely renowned fact that sharks are the guardians of many healthy marine environments, balancing the food web, controlling the populations of predators and eradicating the sick, weak and dying. The effect of this is felt at the very base of these food webs and carries all the way to the sharks themselves at the top.

Again, I will refer to the story of Shark Reef, where a reef devoid of life, destroyed by industrialised fishing and unsustainable practise, was brought back to life as a direct result of baiting the area to feed sharks. Now, a little over a decade later, almost 500 species of fish, including eight shark species, thrive, including, contrary to concerns raised by Marine Biologists, herbivorous species. Each marine species on Shark Reef, from the tiny to the huge, benefits from the wealth of life present and that all relates back to the sharks, sharks which were attracted back to the area by introducing food into the reef, purposefully to create a sustainable shark dive.

It's not just the fish that benefit either, if an area is protected as part of a shark dive, it creates refuge and allows fish to reach sexual maturity and breed, that means more fish swimming around the boundaries of protected areas, spilling out into non-protected areas where local fishermen are now catching more than they ever have done. Shark Reef has not only provided sanctuary, it has provided a sustainable source of food to Islanders who rely on subsistence fishing.

If you create a protected habitat where sharks are allowed to thrive, you are by proxy, creating a habitat where, nature is allowed to do what nature does. The fear that overloading an area with sharks will effect resident fish species would seemingly be one which hasn't transpired, I am not aware of a location where this is the case however, I am happy to be proven wrong.

Other benefits can even be seen in ways that human interference has put eco-systems at risk, for example, the explosion of non-indigenous Lionfish in the Caribbean where sharks are doing their bit to help fix a man-made problem.

 Photo: Jim Abernethy

Conclusion

This piece isn't designed to convince the non-believers to join the church of shark feeding, nor is it claiming to be the definitive argument on the issue, it's a discussion piece where I have in places, given my opinion and in other places provided some facts and where possible, some balance to the debate.

There are a lot of myths surrounding shark feeding and a lot of loud voices shouting things which do nothing of any benefit on a wider scale where shark welfare is concerned. Some of you may agree with all the above, some may agree with none and others in between, as such, you are invited to discuss the issues raised and those which maybe aren't present, in the comments section below. A few rules though, as the benevolent dictator of this blog I make the rules, no name calling and no tantrums not only that but please, put ownership on your comments, include your name! Everyone will be given the respect to air their views how they see fit, be warned, people might disagree so if your natural reaction to that is mud slinging and tantrums, this isn't the discussion for you.

So, to conclude, I will nail my flag to the mast:

I wholeheartedly support responsibly run, environmentally sound and strictly controlled baited shark diving which supports the welfare of the sharks it utilises and the people in the local and nearby communities. I am a staunch believer that shark eco-tourism, both baited and non-baited, is the best chance sharks have for widespread protection. This has undoubtedly affected my writing in this article but I have tried to provide balance where I can. My motivation is based solely around one thing, the continued long term, sustainable welfare of sharks around the world. I do not financially benefit from shark feeding and at any point in this blog where I may have provided information which is less than factually correct, I am happy to make alterations using proof otherwise, provided with credible sources.

In my opinion, shark feeding exploits perfectly natural shark behaviour in a non-natural man-made scenario, we as humans have been feeding sharks since the dawn of the growth of maritime activity, it's just that now, instead of simply throwing this food over the sides of boats, we are taking it down and giving it to them in person.

A final point on protocols: Shark diving protocols are species and location specific so this must be taken into account when discussing specific feeds in specific areas.

I am as against poorly run and irresponsible feeding techniques as the next man and for all the stories that come out of Egypt, of Divemasters feeding Oceanic Whitetips so paying punters can get "the shot," I have not included them in the above discussion for the simple reason that they are not shark feeding operations. There is a marked difference between a shark feeding dive operation and a dive operation feeding sharks.

This is not the complete discussion or the definitive document on shark feeding, this is merely a starting point where I hand it over to you, don't be scared, get stuck in!

Edit: Thanks to Mike for the repost!