North Carolina Shark Attacks - Why So Many This Year?

Photo by Steve Bouser

With the news yesterday of a seventh shark attack, North Carolina is now having it's equal worst year since 1900 (tied with 2008) for shark bite incidents. The most recent victim, a 67 year old man, was bitten multiple times on the abdomen, hip, lower leg and both hands, is in a stable condition in hospital and eyewitnesses are reporting the incident to be very similar to most of the other incidents so this raises the question, why is North Carolina suffering an outbreak of attacks and what can be done to minimise the risk?

To begin with we need to look at the different kinds of incidents for which the term "shark attack" is used because not all incidents can be justifiably referred to as "attacks" and understanding each is key to establishing what might be causing these incidents. At this stage I should also point out that, whereby we need to address the issue objectively and having stated that not all incidents are "attacks," I do not subscribe to the recent campaign to ban the word "Shark Attack" from the media, firstly, I am uncomfortable with any kind of censorship, but moreover, I find the definitions given in the linked article, purposefully misleading and far too vague. What we need is accurate reporting, not censorship and although the 100 or so phd students, researchers and communications professionals are respected individuals in their fields, I am not aware of any whose area of expertise is actually shark attack. Whereas I agree that more should be done to increase media understanding of shark bites to aid more accurate reporting, I don't think this is the way to go about it.

Consider this, from Shark Uber-Mensch Samuel "Doc" Gruber from his 1988 paper "Why Do Sharks Attack Humans," Gruber states;

"...some attacks can be accepted as legitimate attempts by the shark to feed on humans."

For me, personally, if we are to look at the broad spectrum of what the media currently refers to as a "Shark Attack" upon an individual it can be defined most accurately as "a non-voluntary contact encounter between a human(s) and a shark" and this could range from a surfer having his board bumped by a shark to a swimmer being completely consumed and everything in between.

Regular readers will know how passionate I am about avoiding hyperbolic and simplistic reports about these incidents using lazy terminology in place of detailed analysis, I have stated here, in articles and interviews many times that each incident is dependent upon so many variables that the only way to increase understanding of these incidents is to look at every detail available to assess the incident fully. The existence of human objective input into these details is not only problematic in the media, it also leads to inconsistencies in the existing databases where some attacks are not included due to being classed as "provoked," most commonly due to the victim's activity prior to the attack, usually spearfishing.

For the purposes of accurate detailed analysis, I would like to see a "Shark/Human Incident" database which includes all non-voluntary contact encounters between sharks and humans and splits them up into the following categories;

Non-Injurious (including attacks on boats)
Non-Fatal
Fatal

In each incident report, as much detail as possible would be included and where possible, a viable explanation given for the attack, on the understanding that it is impossible to always be certain on what a shark's motivation can be.

As a caveat to the above, it must be noted that, as shark attacks are so infrequent, it is impossible to collect enough reliable data to assess risks in relation to potential future incidents or, put more simply, it is impossible to create a model which will predict when a shark bite on a human will occur. Also, shark attacks are defined by many different variables from the species involved, to the victim, the victim's activity at the time of the attack, the location and various environmental factors. It is inaccurate and misleading to compartmentalise shark attacks into easily digested (pardon the pun) soundbites.

 

With regards to North Carolina, let's have a look at its history with shark attacks.

If we look at the current spate of attacks first:

June 11th - 13 year old received minor bites to her feet and two bites to her Body Board

June 14th - 12 year old Kirsten Yow receives serious multiple bites to her arm and leg with her hand severed. Arm is later amputated below the elbow

June 14th - 16 year old Hunter Treschl receives serious multiple bites losing his let arm above the elbow

June 24th - 8 year old boy suffers minor injuries from a bite which appears to be from a small shark at Surf City

June 26th - 47 year old man bitten on the back at Avon in Hatteras Island

June 27th - 18 year old man suffers multiple serious bites to his right calf, buttocks and both hands at Waves, also Hatteras Island

July 1st - 68 year old man receives multiple bites to abdomen, hip, lower leg and both hands at Ocracoke Island

Seven attacks in nineteen days in such a condensed geographic area is certainly a rare occurrence but it's not unprecedented. Contrary to a statement from one of the main voices behind the "ban the phrase 'shark attacks' campaign," incidents of shark bite on the same or consecutive days have actually happened multiple times around the world, including in North Carolina, prior to the events this year.

In 2001 (one fatality), 2008 and 2011 North Carolina experienced multiple attacks days and in 1995, 2000, 2004 and 2007 there were incidents on consecutive days, 1995 actually saw three attacks in 4 days.

If we look at the seven incidents so far this year, five have been confirmed as multiple bites which points towards a pronounce determination on the part of the shark, contrary to the notion that all "shark bites are a result of mistaken identity" or "curiosity," these multiple bite incidents can be more accurately described as being motivated by a degree of determination and possibly even predation. That's not to say however, that the sharks involved in these attacks are swimming around looking for people to eat, rather the unfortunate victims have encountered sharks in a natural predatory state.

Historical Statistics:

• There have been 95 unprovoked attacks in North Carolina waters with 11 of those fatal.
•  On average there is a fatality every 10.4 years with the most number of fatalities in a single year being two, this has happened only once (1905) since 1900.
• The last fatality in North Carolina was the 2008 attack on Richard Snead although there is doubt whether the injuries he sustained were the cause of his death, or came after he drowned. If we place this attack as "unconfirmed," the last fatality prior to Snead came in 2001, the victim Sergi Zaloukaev.
• Since 2000, North Carolina has seen 55 shark incidents, an average of 3.6 each year

It is also interesting that of the 95 unprovoked attacks in NC waters, 64 (67.3%) occurred in the months of June, July and August.

This can be explained firstly, by there being more people in the water due to hotter weather and also, people staying in the water for longer due to increased sea temperature. More people in the water for longer means more people exposed to sharks. The average sea temperature from early June to late August is 83.4 degrees Fahrenheit or in "real money," 28.5 degrees Celsius.

Another factor to consider is the migration and seasonal aggregation patterns of prey animals. During the warm Summer months, bait fish and other larger marine creatures move along the coastline, travelling in large numbers close to shore to try to evade predators in deeper water. This in turn attracts sharks which follow the fish into shallower water and thus, in closer proximity to bathers. Large numbers of prey means larger numbers of sharks close to shore and unfortunately, as we have seen in North Carolina this year and Florida every year, occasionally humans are getting in the way of these sharks, sharks which are in the shallows, potentially motivated by predation.

Bull Shark Photo: Andy Murch

Blacktip Shark Photo: Alexander Safonov

The most likely culprits in these attacks are the Bull Shark and Blacktip Shark. In the incidents where there have been multiple bites, I'm almost certain the attacks were carried out by Bulls. Bull Shark attacks are characterised by a propensity to bite a victim more than once, plus, their size and power often leads to serious injury and loss of limb in attacks where they are the culprit.

Blacktips are not a species often involved in shark bite incidents however they have, and do, occasionally bite people although, unlike the Bull Shark, are less likely to mount a sustained attack on a human.

Both species are regularly encountered in North Carolina waters and both will enter the shallows whilst following prey, so for me, these would be the two species most likely involved in incidents such as these in this part of the world. North Carolina is also home to Tiger Sharks, Great White, Dusky, Spinner and the most commonly encountered species there, Sandbar sharks, however, although all have historically been involved in shark bite incidents, I would be less inclined to blame any of these species above the two detailed above.

It's important to recognise a few salient points, firstly, these sharks were off these same beaches last year, the year before, the year before and so on and so on, although shark attacks in the United States have shown an upwards curve in numbers over the last 60 years, this is due solely to there being more people in the water. I've seen claims that people feeding sharks or fishing from the pier has caused the attacks but there is simply no evidence for that. Could warmer than usual water temperatures play a part? Possibly but only because it is having an effect on the migrations and seasonal aggregations of the shark's prey. Sharks go where the food is and right now, the food is close to shore off popular bathing beaches.

There will be more shark bites off America's east coast this year, Florida is unusually quiet at the moment but as the Summer gets hotter and the sea gets warmer, more people are going to be in a position where they may just get in the way of a shark following its natural prey so what can you do to minimise your risk of being bitten?

Firstly, stay out of the water, you won't get bitten by a shark on the beach! If you do however want to go into the sea and let's be honest, I don't blame you, avoid if possible, areas where the water is murky, where people are fishing, avoid swimming near the mouths of inlets or estuaries and if you can, speak to local fishermen, like sharks, they follow the fish and if the fish are in big numbers, there will be sharks there.

Most importantly though, use your brain, you know there have been incidents in North Carolina so if you must swim in those areas, realise it is your responsibility to ensure the safety of both yourself and your family, not the sharks'. Sharks do what sharks do and when you make the choice to swim in areas where you know there is shark activity, you must accept you are taking a risk, it's a small risk of course, but the responsibility is on you.

Try to be shark smart, the best people to talk to about the shark activity in your area are the people who use the beach all day every day, lifeguards and fishermen. If you're not sure whether you should be swimming somewhere, don't be afraid to ask!

Finally, don't panic, shark populations aren't exploding in numbers (quite the opposite) and moving closer to shore to eat people. Although this is a bad year for shark bites in North Carolina, it is unusual and certainly not the norm. Statistical anomalies in areas where shark bites occur, or if you want a simpler description, spikes in shark bite activity where a year's number of incidents exceeds a statistical pattern, however, are not that out of the ordinary. It happens, many places around the world have experienced a flurry of incidents followed by years, sometimes decades without a single bite.

Be safe!

Edit: Case in point regarding misleading and factually inaccurate public statements can be found in this article

"It's commonly accepted that sharks aren't intentionally trying to bite humans, either: "Scientists believe that most shark bites are a case of mistaken identity. From below, a surfer in a black rubber wetsuit looks a great deal like a seal, for example," explains David Shiffman, a PhD candidate at the University of Miami's Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy."

This is quantifiably incorrect. None of the victims were surfing, none were wearing wetsuits (which incidentally are made from neoprene, not "rubber") and although some attacks throughout history have been a result of "mistaken identity," it's a tiny proportion and almost always incidents involving Great White Sharks. The notion of "mistaken identity" is misleading because it implies over 400 million years of evolution, sharks are unable to differentiate humans from their natural prey items.

None of these attacks provide any evidence that "mistaken identity" can be used as a reason, especially in the five incidents where the victim sustained multiple bites.

Radio Interview Wednesday July 1st And OSAM FB Page Now Live

Just a bit of news to share, I will be on WGN Radio in Chicago tomorrow (Weds 1st July) doing an interview about Of Shark and Man and also the recent shark attacks in North Carolina. The interview goes out at 3:35am local time, 9:35am UK time and I'm looking forward to it. It's nice to be approached for stuff like this.

Also, the official Of Shark and Man Facebook page is now live along with the official Twitter account so be cool and give both a like/follow. The From the Office... page will still be very much live and used as often as it is now, it's just that the OSAM page will focus solely on the film, extra content etc and all relevant subject matter and it will get that stuff first so if you want to keep up to speed it's good to climb aboard on that for sure!

The website is coming soon and that means the trailer will go live very soon also!

Have a listen to the interview if you can, if you can't I'll post up the link if they put it online and as always, keen to hear your thoughts on everything!

This is really good, well said Christopher Neff!

I've been critical of Christopher Neff on this very blog in the past, indeed, I still hate the Erich Ritter invented "shark accident" nonsense which was the thing which brought him to my attention a couple of years back however, that aside, his paper at the time, regarding the politics of shark bites had some great stuff in it, he seems a nice fella and on top of all that, he's still the only person in the history of this blog to have the balls to discuss points raised herein, using his own name, in a public arena and I respect him for that, if only more people shared his candour.

Last week I saw a short piece written by Neff relating to the supposed increase in shark attacks/bites (not accidents, it's never an "accident") and it's really very good, especially this bit;

"Shark bites fall into a special statistical category known as “random, independent events”. This means that the likelihood that a shark bite will happen at a given time and place does not depend on when or where the last one happened. Just like a like a coin toss, if you get heads on the first time, you still only have a 50-50 chance of heads on the next flip.

Yet shark bites often do not look independent or random. Their nature makes them look like intent-based incidents. Any increase in frequency can also look like part of a new pattern, despite these events being independent, random and rare. As a result, the public understandably wants these vivid and frightening incidents stopped, and the government wants to diagnose a problem so it can come up with a solution."

You can read the full piece here.

Bravo!

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!

More South African Shark Based Nonsense

 

Anyone my age or older, who lives, or has lived in Britain growing up, should recognise the woman above as Mary Whitehouse, an ultra-conservative, right wing, religious zealot, often best described as a "busybody" due to her war on the media and her downright insistence that the Great British public should be exposed only to what she deemed acceptable, i.e. no violence, no sex or nudity, no bad language, no homosexuality and enormous portions of Christian propaganda. In other words, she was a professional spoilsport.

 

This is Rafael Benitez, an unemployed football manager who had six years as manager of Liverpool Football Club, before a year at the then current European Champions, Internatzionale, who in the space of twelve months, he managed to turn into the laughing stock of Serie A, by turning an almost invincible side that won every major trophy the season before under their previous manager, into an Italian version of Stoke City.

Benitez's downfall can be traced back to a bizarre press conference where, after a question from a journalist, he produced a sheet of paper with various points he wanted to make so as to address certain "facts." The problem was, not one of these "facts" was actually true, as was gleefully proven in minute detail, by various newsgroups and internet sites over the following days. This was a man without answers to questions and who, in wanting his version of the answers to be correct, decided to call them "facts" and hope he'd get away with it.

The thing is, people who do that, rarely do get away with it.

 

Why am I writing about two regular butts of British jokes? well, Whitehouse and Benitez were the first two people that sprang to mind when a friend forwarded this to me.

Arguments against cage diving with Great White Sharks are nothing new, they've been going on since the industry first began in earnest in the early nineties and the arguments have never changed, they are the same now as they were back then, it's just that now most people have access to the Internet, meaning those detractors can reach a wider audience.

In the interest of fairness, I am going to provide a counter argument to various points raised on that site and also ask that you "please send this information (attached) to as many people as you know,
especially those involved with the Great White chumming/cage-diving industry, the so-called shark 'experts” & “researchers', and all people/organisations involved with ocean use activities, coastal
tourism industry and all relevant government departments."

The word "fact" is used a hell of a lot on that site, much like when people want to win an argument and say things like "Titanic is the greatest film ever made, FACT!" The sad truth being that the kind of people who do this, are the same types of people who say things so utterly stupid as that and even worse, actually believe what they're saying.

Let's start with the section "Cold Facts" as that seems as good a place as any to start...

1. There has been a massive increase in Great White Shark attacks on humans in Cape waters since 1991

The author goes on to show a breakdown of attacks in Cape waters which he classes as "between Cape Town and Port St Johns"  so I am assuming that he is taking into account the attacks at Port St Johns which were not carried out by Great White Sharks but almost certainly Bull Sharks which should therefore be discounted if his argument is the solely the impact cage diving has had on attacks by Great White Sharks on bathers since the advent of White Shark cage diving.

Look at the "Cold Fact" box here.

Look at the attacks details section here.

• There are four "freak" years, 1994, 1998, 1999 and 2005 where the attacks were higher in number than we would statistically, normally expect.
• In 1994, of the 9 attacks, 3 of the victims were spearfishing
• In 1998, of the 15 attacks, 1 was spearfishing, 1 was "moving a shark in a net,"  and 1 was "washing bait off hands."
• In 1999, 1 victim was spearfishing
• In 2005, 2 victim activities are unknown and 1 was spearfishing

Using the records provided from 1992 - 2009

• From 1992 to 2000, there were 52 attacks and 5 fatalities, a rate of one in eleven.
• From 2001 to 2009, there were 41 attacks and 10 fatalities, a rate of just under one in four

In the interests of being fair, it is worth noting that in the years pre-cage diving, the statistics show;

• 1991 - 2 attacks
• 1990 - 6 attacks
• 1989 - 9 attacks
• 1988 - 11 attacks
• 1987 - 6 attacks
• 1986 - 13 attacks
• 1985 - 9 attacks
• 1984 - 12 attacks
• 1983 - 15 attacks
• 1982 - 8 attacks
• 1981 - 9 attacks
• 1980 - 10 attacks
• 1979 - 7 attacks
• 1978 - 6 attacks
• 1977 - 7 attacks
• 1976 - 11 attacks
• 1975 - 10 attacks

In the seventeen years between 1975 and 1991, there were 151 attacks, an average of 8.9 attacks per year before cage diving.

In the seventeen years (post cage diving) between 1992 and 2009, there were 93 attacks, an average of 5.5 attacks per year.

So this "massive increase in Great White Shark attacks on humans" since cage diving started is actually a gradual decrease in shark attacks since cage diving was introduced.

I know what you're saying, we didn't say "shark attacks, we said Great White Shark attacks" and to you I say, go back and look at the data this site provides, in many cases a species is not attributed to the attack and in South Africa particularly, species attribution for shark attacks was notoriously inaccurate. The simple "cold fact" here is that, as more people enter the water and more people actually purposefully enter the water with Great White Sharks in the waters from "Cape Town to St Johns Beach" attacks are decreasing.

Even as cage diving gets more an more popular in the seventeen year period this site uses, the statistics show that attacks are actually decreasing!

Hardly a "massive increase," in fact, quite the opposite.

 

The other favourite tool of the person who wants to win an argument, is to use speech marks, they are the people who do that annoying thing where they make quotation marks with their fingers, I use this sometimes so I am far from perfect, but this guy uses this a lot, almost entirely, surrounding the word "expert" and "researcher."

You see, this creates doubt in the mind of the reader as to the credentials of these people, it says "expert *snort* yeah right! expert, whatever lol" and like saying "FACT!" at the end of a sentence, is used entirely to win an argument without having any basis of fact to back up what you're saying.

Like this;

"There is a definite correlation between feeding wild animals and an increase in attacks"

Is there? Is there really? Says who? You have a picture of a baboon and a picture of a man in hospital, you follow this with a picture of lions kindly helping a driver with a push start for his Land Rover and a collage of pictures of Great White Sharks, cage diving stuff, and people who were bitten by sharks that weren't Great White Sharks. That's all the proof I need!

Seriously, people feed sharks in Fiji, big badass sharks and lots of them, Bulls and Tigers especially and Fiji averages between 0-3 attacks per year. People feed sharks in The Bahamas, big badass sharks and smaller Reef sharks and The Bahamas averages 0-3 attacks per year.

Florida doesn't allow shark feeding and averages between 10-30 attacks per year. There are no feeding operations currently operating in Brazil yet Brazil averages between 5-15 attacks per year. Hawaii banned chumming for sharks, hell they even implemented a shark cull once but the rate of attacks, with a cull, before the cull, with chumming and without has stayed pretty much exactly the same.

The following statement is my opinion, so I won't say "FACT!" or anything like that but in my opinion, anyone who claims that "shark feeding dive operations are causing sharks to attack more people, associate humans as food or cause sharks to become more aggressive" has zero credibility when speaking about sharks and doesn't know what they're talking about.

There is a world of proof which actually proves feeding sharks responsibly, as the vast majority of operations do, has no effect on shark attack dangers or rates of risk of shark attack, the primary source of this proof being that there is absolutely zero proof to suggest otherwise, absolutely nothing, nada. Not one single credible shark expert, researcher, scientist or behaviourist has ever claimed a correlation. Ever. As in, EVER.

Incidentally, sharks aren't baboons, baboons aren't lions and lions aren't sharks, all three are "animals" but any correlation between three completely different animals in three completely different ecological environments is spurious at best, completely mental at worst.

Now, read this and look at this absolute madness.

There is no point in me addressing all of this, I'll leave it to you to make your own mind up, I'll just pick the highlights;

To stop chumming/cage-diving in its current unacceptable form immediately, the industry must be investigated. A comprehensive audit (including financial) must be instituted to find out what is actually going on and everybody involved with the industry (including the “so-called experts”) must be forced to respond to the following questions:

1. who is actually being paid what, where exactly is the money going?

One would imagine the money goes to the business owner and ultimately, a percentage of profit (millions and millions of rand) is paid in tax to benefit South Africa.


2. why does it appear that there are no previously disadvantaged members of society involved in the industry and providing the services?

If you know me, you'll know I like a bit of socialism, helping those with less than ourselves but this argument is nothing less than insanity. It costs money to set up a business like a cage diving operation and thanks to apartheid, millions and millions of people are still suffering from the oppression forced upon them. This is tantamount to going up to a homeless man and saying "why don't you get a job?!"


3. apart from “shark spotting” which if the sharks were still behaving normally, would not have been required, can you confirm what, if any, job training/skills opportunities, community investments the cage-diving industry is making to help ordinary South Africans?

Hotels. taxis, airport shuttles, restaurants, bars, souvenir shops, takeaways, millions of tax rand etc etc. As far as I am aware, pre-cage diving, Gaansbaii could hardly be described as an epicentre of tourism, ditto Port Lincoln in Australia.


5. why, after every unfortunate shark attack, do the so-called “experts” immediately respond by saying in the media that “chumming is no problem and that there is no proof that it conditions or modifies shark behaviour in any way. The shark made a mistake and we should accept that there is always a normal, slight risk of being attacked by a GW if we venture into their domain.” Does this argument still hold true if the sharks are abnormally aggressive and the number of attacks is increasing?

They say that because for the most part, it's factually accurate.


6. where did the Fischer boat (Shark Men Program) millions actually end up?

Almost certainly in Fischer's back pocket, I'm as little a fan of his as you are.


7. why do people like Gregg Oelofse talk in the press about “the small immaterial chumming by permitted cage divers”. The Fischer boat does actually tag the sharks and does not hang humans in the water. Is it not possible constant chumming by permitted cage divers is “hugely material” and actually the real cause of the problem?

When you say "the problem," do you mean the decrease in attacks since cage diving in South Africa began?

9. if chumming is no problem, why did Boyd stop the Fischer boat “5 ton chum permit” immediately after the Kogel bay attack?

That's a fair question actually. Most likely an immediate reaction to public pressure but that's for the man himself to answer.


10. why do we read articles saying it was impossible for the Fischer boat chum to reach Kogel bay because of the wind, also that the shark that attacked David Lillienfeld, (the Springbok body boarder who was tragically killed), wasn’t a tagged shark. Why are these people defending chumming and tagging so vehemently?

Why are you so vehemently against it?


11. a few years ago, after protecting alligators in Florida, their numbers increased logarithmically and they became a pest. Authorities in Florida were forced to institute a culling program. Can you please confirm that you are sure that the South African Great White population is not increasing logarithmically to dangerous totally unsustainable levels?

Alligators reproduce at a much. much faster rate than Great White Sharks and how can a naturally sized population of an animal be described as "unsustainable?"


12. in what way are the sharks actually being helped. If they are protected, how is the cage-diving helping them further? Can you be sure that the chum/cage-diving industry is not conditioning sharks to be abnormally, aggressive towards humans & therefore directly responsible for the recent increase in the number of shark attacks?

Tourism creates money, cage diving creates tourism, a regular and increasing annual financial boost to the South African economy means there is a financial benefit for a government to protect Great White Sharks. Without the financial support of tourism to see live sharks, what's left? The financial incentive in dead sharks and shark fishing.

Shark diving relies on live sharks.


13. why do the “experts” like to explain that the reason that the sharks are coming inshore and attacking more humans is because they have less fish to eat. This may be true, but how can our response be to just sit back and accept it. Why are there no measures being instituted to try to increase the fish or limit the shark population?

"Increasing the fish" would mean severe fishing quotas. Take those to the local commercial fishermen and let me know how you get on with that. Killing off the sharks would also potentially lead to a further decrease in fish stocks meaning even less for the fishermen to catch and a totally fucked up marine environment, meaning nobody wants to go in the water anymore, meaning tourists go elsewhere.


14. how can the controlled killing of “rogue”, territorial sharks near human attack areas and drum lining be regarded as best practise in Australia and other countries (where they have less attacks) and regarded as totally unacceptable in SA?

Because "rogue sharks" don't exist.

 
15. will the so-called “experts” including Alison Kock, explain why the usual excuse for a shark attacking a human used to be “the shark bite was simply exploratory and they made a mistake because it is clear that GWs don’t like to attack humans” has now been replaced by “the shark attacked the surfer THREE times until it tragically killed him”. Is this migration from “unfortunate mistake” to “relentless aggressive attack” not proof of negative conditioning caused by chum/cage-diving?

Shark attacks cannot be generically classified by Alison Kock or anyone else, each instance must be classified by its own specific and individual nature which depends on dozens, maybe even hundreds of external factors and elements. Some attacks are aggressive  in nature, some defensive, some exploratory, some with specific intention to kill and consume. This isn't restricted to South Africa, this is simply something that relates to sharks and shark attacks everywhere.

16. how can it be possible that society accepts the opinion of the so called “shark experts”, that “there is no proof that chummed sharks are becoming more aggressive” when no-one is searching for that proof and doing any of the required essential investigations. Is there “no proof” because perhaps everybody is conveniently avoiding looking for it?

People have tried to find a correlation and guess what, they couldn't. The proof that chumming sharks for cage diving makes sharks more aggressive doesn't get discussed because it doesn't exist.

It's not for the non-believer to prove God doesn't exist, it's for the believer to prove he does.


17. can it feasibly be true that “nothing has changed at all with regards to shark behaviour” if during a morning news bulletin on SA FM (Saturday the 28^th of April), a “Great white increased activity warning” was issued for False bay. Is this not clear quantification that the shark situation is currently nowhere near being close to normal?

It's all relative. Sharks frequent False Bay less than they did fifty years ago because there are less sharks. In correlation with that, we now have more media, the Internet, camera phones etc meaning more sightings are reported and visible to a wider number of people. There aren't more sharks, just more people with the capability to tell people when they see one.



19. is it not possible that the great argument that “chumming/cage-diving brings in much needed foreign revenue” totally incorrect because this revenue is way less than the millions being lost because beach going tourists and locals are avoiding SA in their thousands because of shark attacks?(ask the Muizenberg and Fish Hoek businesses)

Please do an extensive study of every single business in the areas near cage dive operators, comparing their takings, profits and taxes paid to before the cage diving operations appeared and include with it, the numbers of people, local and foreign, visiting the beaches every year, then come back to us with your findings.


20. finally and most importantly, please tell us what you think about the following future quite feasible scenario: Those parties or experts who continue vehemently and blindly to defend the chum/cage-diving industry and thereby prevent its immediate shut down and the essential scientific investigation that is required, are thoroughly investigated themselves. If it is found that their behaviour was motivated by money and a blatant conflict of interest exists, that they are held liable for damages/compensation to injured parties and if possible within the law, prosecuted and punished if criminality can be proven. The size of the feeling of outrage and opposition to the chum/cage-diving industry amongst South Africans, throughout the country (just look in the newspapers) should not be underestimated. Raising the finance that will be required for the investigations and the necessary class actions, from so many people, is totally feasible. STOP THE CHUM/CAGE-DIVING INDUSTRY IMMEDIATELY!

Are you saying that everybody who supports the cage diving industry should be forced to justify their reasons and provide financial records so you can ascertain whether you think their motivation is financial or not? Is it not fair to say that the operators themselves are of course motivated by financial reasons as this is their business?


THE SIMPLE SOLUTION
1. Stop dangling humans in cages from boats into chum trails immediately and use technology to allow the tourists to watch the sharks underwater from the chum boats.

But this still means the boats will be chumming...

2. Use modified “glass bottomed boat” technology to view the sharks underwater.

But this still means the boats will be chumming...


3. Keeping humans out of the water will stop the electromagnetic fields that they emit, being incorrectly associated with food by the sharks and their normal behaviour will stop being negatively modified.

What you're saying is that sharks will see humans in cages and associate them with food, meaning that innocent divers, surfers and swimmers, surfing, diving and swimming inside cages will always be associated as food. Read all that back to yourself...

 
4. Make sure that there is an immediate investigation instituted to quantify as far as is possible the balance between shark numbers and available food. After all, it is essential for this balance to be correct for future sustainability. The controlled culling of elephants in game parks to restore this balance is accepted as essential for their survival.

There you go with the culling again...


5. Cull (by helicopter, boat or drum lines) resident aggressive conditioned territorial sharks, as well as all sharks that are found lingering around shark attack sites for the first 3 hours after the attack, for a period of 5 years.
Eventually all negatively conditioned sharks will have been removed, the remaining shark population will return to normal behaviour patterns and the incidence of unfortunate attacks on humans, reduced to a minimum. This will result in a natural situation for ocean users and if managed correctly, continued protection of the environment and the Great Whites.

 Again with the culling...

This is nothing short of madness. Please tell me how your death squads will identify "conditioned" sharks.

 

This is about two things. The owner of the site "Justin Othersurfer" who posts on this Facebook group seems to me to be not a concerned citizen wanting fair play for all and "responsible cage diving," but is instead a surfer local to the area who wants to go surfing without the risk of shark attack and is using the Internet to make a noise.

I understand he doesn't want to get chomped by a shark, nobody does and that's understandable, it's just that the Internet allows misinformed, ill informed or just plain agenda led people to have a platform to preach to like minded souls.

The second aspect is that this has all come to the fore again because of Chris Fischer's insistence of taking "Shark Men" to South Africa. This was a PR disaster from day one, from what I can tell there was no real public outreach, their approach has been clumsy and arrogant and I can understand why local surfers and beach goers are pretty pissed off about them being there. Pretty much nobody wants them there doing what they do and for all the obvious benefits of greater understanding of shark movements for conservation, it's the way they do it which makes it so distasteful

That's the problem, when television and shark research collide, it has occasionally produced televised dog turds of epic proportions with "Shark Men" and "How Sharks Hunt" being the nadir. When the media get involved and stoke up tensions, it leads to every man and his dog wanting his say on something they don't actually understand and with social media being the thing of the 21st century, you don't have to go far to find a minefield of hyperbole, lies, untruths and twisted statistics that are used not to educate, but to influence.

There is no point me trying to convince you to think the same as I do, I don't want to, I just want to give you another option and side to this debate. I look at it the same way as the argument from certain women's and religious groups, that pornography causes rape. To lay the blame for what motivates individuals to do something as terrible as to commit rape on something as simple as the availability we have to watch two consenting adults do something completely natural, is of course, absurd. The reason for this argument is not that these people are concerning themselves with rape, it is because they want pornography banned and use the worst scare tactic they can think of to get their way. It disingenuous and also offensive.

The similarity here is that the motivating factor is surfers want cage diving banned and are using false information to gain support for their cause by relying on the fear of shark attack. Nobody wants anybody to be attacked by a shark, but we also don't need what veers from misinformation to absolute nonsense, being spread around gullible people to initiate support for shark culling and the closing down of economically sound businesses which support and influence positive movements in shark conservation.

Make your own minds up of course, use all the available scientific research out there if you want and if you want to discuss whether you agree or disagree, then please do so in the comments section here. As always, when I highlight what I see as something not so good, as done by others, I invite you to address your points here in public for respectful discussion so Justin, if you want to discuss any of my points, please feel free and welcome to do so below.

Have a good weekend everyone.

My profiles: