One pattern I've noticed in this past year of documentary making is the tendency for we humans to apply our own limited level of understanding of survival to the lives of wild animals when in fact the two do not coincide.  Since our lives are quite secure and threat free, It is all too easy for us to forget that these animals are in a constant struggle to survive and as Andrew Fox states, "Predator prey relationships are finely tuned and it's easy for our intrusion to upset that balance."  I immediately think of the injuries Junior sustained at the hands of OCEARCH and MCSI at the Farallon Islands.  While Junior did not die on the platform that day he was badly injured, including a jaw that appeared to be dislocated in photos that surfaced later.  When he reappeared he was also covered in bite marks from other sharks and according to James Moskito of Shark Diving International had gone from a huge, dominant male to an emaciated shell of his former self.  Is it really such as stretch to believe that Junior's ability to hunt and feed properly was affected by his jaw injury?  Is it not possible that his decrease in health led to him being targeted by other sharks?  Yes, sharks bite each other, but on this scale its usually males biting females during mating, not the targeting of a large male shark.  It's hard to say what happened exactly, but the bottom line is that Junior was healthy prior to his tagging episode and spiraled toward death following.

Another pattern worth mentioning is the drastic difference between independent researchers (self-funded) and those pressured by the competitive world of  "publish or perish", meaning those dependent upon grants and other forms of government funding.  The independents tend to shy away from unnecessarily invasive methods that benefit the tagger far more than the "taggee"

Amidst the convoluted stories the taggers want you to believe there is another story...the harsh reality of the truth.  James Moskito and Mick Menigoz have become familiar with sharks after their many years at the Farallones and give their own take on the scenario in these two videos.

I can't deny that I am becoming less of a fan of tagging every year, but that's not without good reason.  What you should be aware of is that I once was a starry eyed participant as I held down a sand bar shark on the deck of a boat in 2006 in the Dry Tortugas as we punched holes in its dorsal fin to attach a plastic ID tag.  In retrospect, not my proudest moment, but it was new to me back then and I thought I was participating in something great.  What can I say except that we all have a learning curve.  Next let me state that the last two years of my life have been 100% focused on researching some sobering realities of shark conservation.  The link between actual conservation and tagging hasn't been particularly convincing.  My personal findings are that social pressure upon governments as well as the ever-increasing realization that we can make more money from living sharks than dead sharks has led to some of the biggest conservation movements in the history of the saga between man and shark.

With over 500 species of shark playing various roles in different locations across the oceans, it would be unfair to claim that tagging sharks hasn't provided a benefits to any of them.  Next let me state that scientists hold important positions and many do good work, and yes, tagging has contributed evidence to arguments for conservation measures to be taken.  However, I feel that people should know that the word scientist does not mean conservationist, nor are scientists obligated to be conservation driven.  Last, let's remember that being a scientist is a job, and just like everyone else, jobs are meant to provide paychecks.  

Now that we have that out of the way we can focus on the specific topic of white sharks and the tagging thereof.  Let’s use OCEARCH as our primary example since the uneducated masses seem to think they invented tagging and discovered white sharks.  Keep in mind that you don't have to take my word for it.  I've included links to papers as well as interviews with eye witnesses throughout this blog.

OCEARCH and SPOT tag history with white sharks in California


SPOT tags provided redundant data provided years earlier by far less-invasive tags (PSAT tags) regarding movements off the coast of California and Mexico, essentially tracing lines over the maps already published.  What were the conservation benefits of this data?  None.  Don’t believe me?  Please prove me wrong.  Monterey Bay Aquarium in association with Stanford experimented with SPOT tags shortly after publishing their findings of the White Shark Cafe and I quote project leader Sal Jorgensen, “The cost to the animal outweighed the benefits of the information.

Shark researcher Michael Domeier was approached by Chris Fischer after Fischer sunk his money into a ship (and TV show idea) that could haul white sharks out of the water.  Fischer’s invasive methods break every law regarding a protected species, so Fischer needed a scientific permit, which Domeier was happy to provide at the reported tune of nearly $90K per episode.  It certainly made for good redneck television.  Keep in mind this was after thorough mapping of white shark movements on the West Coast, including Guadalupe, The Farallones, and the White Shark Cafe were already published.  Afterward, Domeier published "new research" in the wake of his Fischer provided SPOT tags.  This data was once again redundant with the exception of the scientists receiving the data more quickly and with more detail of points along the migration paths already published via PSAT tags.  Conservation changes as a result? None.  In fact, scientists such as Domeier actually fought the effort to move white sharks from vulnerable status in California to endangered status.  Why?  Well, endangered animals come with more rules, rules that would prevent invasive research.  If scientists fight movements to conserve sharks is there any question that the motive of there research is for themselves and not the conservation advancement of the sharks? 

OCEARCH and SPOT tags in South Africa

South Africa used SPOT tags in the early 2000’s, well before Fischer ever SPOT tagged sharks, despite Fischer claiming to be the first (which he claimed again this week.)  These tags in South Africa led to a study showing horrific damage to the fins of white sharks.  Amazingly, not long after this study came out (2011), OCEARCH gained access to South Africa to continue using these invasive methods…and some of the scientists who authored the SPOT tag damage paper actually chose to be involved with this “expedition”.  Confusing?  Well, you can imagine how difficult it is to get research funding in a third world country whose government is allowing their big animals to rocket toward extinction.  Chris Fallows helps explain this odd scenario in this video.   Again, it’s a case of “Publish or Perish"; a benefit to the researchers, but not the researched.  

Time for a little history regarding white shark conservation in South Africa.  South Africa listed the white shark as a protected species in 1991 after a combined effort of ecotourism operators and researchers to pressure to conservation move.  This was a social movement, not a research-based movement, meaning that tagging had little to do with this listing.  Furthermore, it wasn’t until 2003 and the famous white shark Nicole’s trip from South Africa to Australia and back that white sharks gained listing in CITES Appendix 2.  Nicole’s journey was documented with a PSAT tag and photographs, not a SPOT tag.  Now let’s talk about CITES.  Exactly what good do you think a piece of paper does in the middle of the ocean against long-liners, trawlers, and nets?  Add to that the fact that Australia is currently looking to opt out of its CITES agreements and you have the ultimate slap in the face example that when it comes to economics verse the environment, economics wins every time.  As for OCEARCH data and conservation in South Africa?  Absolutely no change and no benefits to the sharks, but a few more papers might get published.  Is also notable that Fischer and crew killed at least one white shark as a direct result of their methods.  How can anyone (Greg Skomal) claim this method doesn’t significantly stress or harm these animals when some of them die from it?  Watch the sharks being killed here.
On a side note, if you've been impressed with their self-proclaimed 15 minute process, you might want to consider who is running the stop watch.  

Let’s go back to the USA for a moment since I’ve been picking on South Africa.  The biggest benefit to white sharks according to Dr. Chris Lowe was the removal / moving further out to sea of gill nets along the southern coast of California, where juvenile white sharks are known to spend time.  These gill nets were not removed because of the sharks.  They were removed because the public was outraged by images of dead whales, seals, dolphins and turtles that made it into the press.  The Marine Mammal Protection Act has done for to conserve white sharks than any single white shark research paper ever has.  A great quote from Dr. Lowe, “If you ate shark in California in the 70’s, you likely ate white shark.

Great White Sharks; awe inspiring, majestic, and magnificent and conversely they are deeply feared 

and misunderstood. I live in Perth, Western Australia and work for the conservation of this 

vulnerable animal, but it is a difficult job. We aren’t talking about a cute and snuggly bear cub that 

people relate to, we anthropomorphise cute animals with big brown eyes. You can’t do that with 

sharks, saving them is a tough sell, especially in Australia.

Here in Australia we have numerous species of sharks including the big 3; Bull, Tiger and of course 

White Sharks. I have lived in Perth for about 25 years and every year or two there is a shark related 

fatality. It is brandished in the media, and the government always does the same thing, going out on 

a ‘Rogue Shark Hunt’ making a sacrificial killing to appease the public that it is safe to go back into 

the water, then people forget about it. 

It is important to the powers-that-be that people feel safe at the beach, Perth and the South West of 

the State rely heavily on the continued flood of tourists attracted to our white sandy beaches.

Nothing could have prepared WA for the tragedy that took place in WA over a 10 month period in 

2011-2012 with 5 people dying from Shark Attacks. The attacks were seemingly random and 

unpredictable; 1 person died while diving at Rottnest Island, another died while surfing at Cottesloe 

Beach and 3 of the deaths occurred in WA’s South West on relatively remote beaches. The attacks 

covered the entire south west area of the state and Perth. 

That is how Western Australia earned the infamous title of ‘Shark Attack Capital of the World’ and 

everybody had an opinion. Following the attacks, the media ensured that the danger of sharks in the 

water was emblazoned on our minds, a shark swimming past a beach was headlining news, it 

seemed as if you couldn’t pick up the newspaper, go online or flick the TV on without seeing sharks. 

According to Sentia Media, West Australian media outlets had produced almost 15,000 stories 

on sharks in the year ending 2012.

Australia has a history of shark attacks from Aboriginal times through to the first attempts at 

European settlement, especially in southern waters. Research into Great White Sharks has been 

headed up by Barry Bruce from the CSIRO for more than a decade. His research stipulates that Great 

Whites have 2 nursery areas in the Eastern States, 1 at Cove Inlet Victoria and another at Port 

Stephens in NSW. When they reach about 4 metres in length they generally head for the cool 

Southern Waters of Australia and a reasonable concentration of them are found off Port Lincoln 

South Australia where they have moved to dine on seals. 

Once the White Shark has reached that size and is in the southern waters, naturally it doesn’t 

respect state lines and it can roam around South Australia and come up the Western Australian 

coast. Only around 300 individuals have been tagged, while our coastline does boast an array of 

acoustic monitors, those are only picking up movements of the small number of tagged White 

Sharks. 

Following the fatalities that occurred, the WA Government was allocated a total of $13.65 million to 

reduce the risk of attacks along our coastline and ensure tourists that this past summer would be 

nothing like the one before it.

$2 million was allocated to kill sharks that could be considered dangerous, basically they are guilty

until proven innocent; something that doesn’t work in nature. The legislation became what is known 

as the Imminent Threat Policy. Fisheries Minister Norman Moore told reporters in November 2012: 

“Previously, the orders were used in response to an attack, but now proactive action will be taken if a 

large white shark presents imminent threat to people.”

Premier Colin Barnett and Minister of Fisheries Norman Moore were in charge of choosing the 

methods which would kill sharks, particularly White Sharks which have been protected since 1997. 

Barnett turned to existing shark control programs that have been in place in the eastern states for a 

long time.

There were many positives that came out of the plan; over the summer period the surf life savers

were able to patrol multiple beaches daily, helicopters were in the air to spot sharks and research is 

being done into shark repellents at the University of Western Australia. 

A minimum of $2 million was put towards research and tagging through the Imminent Threat Policy, 

shark conservationists like myself sat back in anger as we waited for The Department of Fisheries 

and Forestry’s (DAFF) to get in the water and start tagging sharks, it didn’t happen all year until last 

week, finally a tagging expedition into WA’s sharks which was motivated by the new Minister of 

Fisheries Troy Buswell directly following an attempt by the Ocearch to come in and tag sharks in WA 

waters. Mr Buswell was agreeable to it but permits are issued by the Federal government and they 

don’t approve of Ocearch’s methods. Both ways it is a positive for the sharks and the people of WA, 

tagging and research will finally be done. 

Apart from the Ocearch issue, the onset of winter silenced the shark debate… until October 9th.

On October 9th, Greg Pickering was attacked by a suspected white shark whilst free diving for 

abalone in Southern WA Waters. He survived the attack and was airlifted to hospital but what is 

particularly amazing about his case is that he was attacked once before, in 2004 whilst spear fishing, 

in a totally different location. Nobody saw the shark that attacked him and therefore the species 

couldn’t be confirmed. He was diving in waters where white sharks are known to aggregate and 

wasn’t using the protective cage that most abalone divers use. A kill order was issued for the shark 

responsible.

The fact that a kill order was issued on an unknown shark really highlights the ridiculousness of the 

WA Imminent Threat Policy. The Department of Fisheries admitted they wouldn’t know which shark 

was guilty until they had the dead body and did DNA sampling… talk about going on a fishing 

expedition! After a few days, they saw the error of their ways and rescinded the kill order.

Kill orders, Shark Nets, Drum Lines… isn’t there a better system we could use to protect people and 

sharks?  Michael Brown of Surfwatch Australia says yes. 

Michael and his team have developed something called 'Shark Guard' he says: 

"The primary reason we developed Shark guard is because we are aware that unless we come up 

with a viable alternative that there is no way the government will remove the nets." 

Shark Guard works by dropping the buoys into the water about 300 metres apart with a hook with a 

fake fish. The buoy is large and bright yellow. When the bait is seized with a bite force that can only 

come from a large shark, the guard is triggered. Once the shark does bite the unit, it will then detach 

from the main mooring and then the shark will start to tow the unit and as soon as it does, it 

activates a GPS transmitter and a video camera.

Shark Guard buoys set up in place of nets and drum lines means that the shark will be easily seen by 

swimmers or surfers as it is dragging the large yellow buoy and the Control Centre can watch the 

animal remotely and inform the authorities. Once the shark is out of the danger area, near a public 

beach for example, then the unit can be released from the shark remotely from the control centre, 

or by boat. The potential for this technology can save lives of humans and sharks alike.

Another idea being researched is magnetic repellents. The principal is that they over-stimulate the 

shark's electro sensory system and induce a repellent response. These have been tested successfully 

with other shark species such as Bull, Tiger and Hammerheads. It is showing promise in White Shark 

research, but not really ready for sole use under the guise that it will definitely stave off white 

sharks. There is of course also the eco-friendly shark exclusion barriers being tested which work like 

a wall so no marine life gets caught in it, unlike shark nets.

So what about the poor Great White Sharks; persecuted by fear, captured in fishing nets, finned for 

black market sale, poisoned by our waste and killed by our shark control programs... what can we do 

for them, they are vulnerable to extinction? We can educate ourselves and the future generation 

and understand that, when we go into the water we are entering the domain of the sharks, once you 

step into the ocean for any reason you are accepting a risk.

As a shark conservationist I put a lot of hope in technology like Sharkguard, it has an amazing 

potential to keep beach goers safe and sharks alive. This is the sort of research that money should be 

funnelled into. For the sake of my coast line I hope for a day when I don’t have to worry about drum 

lines being dropped into the water and I hope for a time when NSW and Qld pull their shark nets and 

lines out of the water, god knows we as humans damage the ocean enough already, it’s time to 

really start minimising harm. 

SOS – Save Our Sharks

Melissa Smith

I think I may have found a new way to approach this incredible fear of sharks phenomenon.  Bare with me because this admittedly sounds absurd at first, but I actually gave this considerable thought.  What if the RARITY of sharks bites is the problem rather than the frequency?  Yes, I’m suggesting that if more people were bitten and killed annually it might actually calm this whole thing down.  No, I didn’t just hit the crack pipe, so please read on.

Some of you are familiar with actual shark statistics, others are not and likely have opinions based on news reports.  A few short minutes of research on the web will provide ample evidence that the media LOVES to talk about sharks, usually with some sort of fear-factor involved even if no one was injured or even threatened. But if someone was injured or killed it’s a gold mine, exceeding any other story option they may have been prepared to run that day. Chew on this for a minute; how many times have you heard about a person bitten by a shark on the other side of the world while you simultaneously don’t hear about the four people that died in car accidents only few towns away?  Why  do I need to know that a fishermen in Brazil was bitten by a shark when he decided to jump in the water after the shark when it broke his fishing line any more than I need to know that a hunter in North Dakota was fatally kicked in the head by a deer?  Because it sells!

The take away from that example is the regularity at which things such as car accidents, poisonings, and even murders take place makes them less interesting. This regularity raises our level of callous toward such events therefore making them less and less newsworthy.   Lack of interest equals lack of sales thus such stories get pushed to the back page (if they make it to print at all).  Forget the fact that cape buffalo killed 200 people last year or that 20 people in the U.S. alone were killed by cows.  Who the heck wants to read about buffaloes and cows, especially that frequently?! With that in mind, sharks are doing the press a favor by killing people infrequently enough that it is still worthy of headlines when it does happen.  

But how many shark-related deaths would it take for it to stop selling?  

Consider acts of war in which large numbers of people are killed.  Death on a large scale while being worse in terms of actual numbers of lives lost is in some twisted way easier to deal with because we can't relate to a faceless number the way we can the personal suffering of an individual who experienced something we've all seen in the movies.  Here’s another way to think of it.  Imagine you’re a journalist that wants to reach an audience on an emotional level and your two story choices for the day are of 50 soldiers who died in a bombing in Afghanistan or printing words that cause people to relive in their minds the opening sequence from JAWS.

The strange twist I’m getting at is that our fear of sharks is in part fueled by the fact that they remain mysterious due to entering our lives with great infrequency. How many people reading this have ever even seen a shark for themselves?  Human fatalities related to a shark encounter are among the rarest of causes of death on the entire planet. Yet in our minds sharks and humans are constantly encountering each other in a death struggle because of the media's desire to tell us about anything shark related, even if that means the story is nothing more than a shark that swam by a beach at the same time that someone on a hotel balcony happened to be looking out into the water and snapping a photo of that shark on their phone.  A natural occurrence suddenly becomes a headline stating that "vacationers had a brush with a deadly predator stalking a beach".

Now what if sharks killed people on a monthly basis rather then a couple of times a year? What if they did it on a weekly basis?  Would the allure of a shark headline begin to diminish if our callous regarding such situations began to thicken? Would such horrific “tragedies” slowly stop being listed as tragedies?

There are clear selling points of a story about a creature with razor sharp teeth that lives in a mysterious world below the surface and out of sight when compared to a story of a dog or bee killing someone…for that matter it’s even more stirring than the idea of a lion or bear biting us.  But nevertheless, if it was happening somewhat regularly, let’s say at the rate that elephants kill people, wouldn’t the intrigue die down a bit? It might even change our entire perspective on the matter.  

When a shark bite fatality only happens a handful of times a year across the entire planet it gives the impression that its an issue we can actually bring down to zero.  I mean the gap between five and zero is pretty small!  Whereas if 500 shark-related fatalities were happening per year it might  instead force us to rethink the way we use the ocean.  Largely we approach the ocean as thought it’s a giant swimming pool rather than the dynamic ecosystem that it is, and the rarity with which marine animals harm us only strengthens that frame of mind.  

Shark bites is not a solvable problem. Period.  We should get that idea out of our minds.  With 70% of the planet covered in water that makes for a f-load of coastline and with 7 billion people that makes for a ton of potential human activity along coasts as well as out at sea.  We’re upset that 5 people a year die from sharks?  Across the entire globe?  Really?  I mean that sounds almost impossibly low.  Instead of wondering why sharks bite us we should be grateful and bewildered by the fact that they don’t.  We’re talking about a statistic so low that trying to lower it even further is almost mathematically impossible... unless of course, we kill every single shark out there, which would be a very bad idea for our oceans, us, and the entire planet.

Pretend for a moment that we don’t live in this present reality where our thought processes have already been shaped by everything we’ve seen and heard our entire lives.  Now pretend you grew up in a world where 1,000 people a year were killed by sharks and this had happened every year you’d been alive as well as the generations before you.  This would be a world very aware that sharks live in the ocean and aware that it might be a good self-preservation act to avoid certain areas rather than assuming we can use any section of the ocean our self-entitled asses happen to be next to at that particular moment.  By the way, even at that fake rate, shark-related fatalities would still be coming in nearly 2,000 people fewer than hippos.

Can this idea of sharks being a problem get any more ridiculous?  Well, yes, actually.  When you add in the fact that we aren't forced to be doing the things we’re doing when these fatal bites take place.  Let me repeat that.  We are opting to engage in recreational activity in areas known to have sharks.  Surfing is amazing, it might be one of the coolest things ever, so I’d never tell someone not to surf.  But if that person doesn’t want to surf with the risk of a shark encounter he/she might want to choose very specific locations where shark risk is extremely low.  But that would be inconvenient.  So rather than suffering an inconvenience we choose to surf in waters known to have sharks, in shark hunting grounds, and even in waters with a history of shark bites.  It’s the equivalent of someone wanting all lions in Africa to be killed because he wants to be able to go jogging on a game trail without any risk.

A mean person might say such a choice results in natural selection; also known as winning the Darwin award.  
A nice person might say it wasn’t a great moment of wisdom.  
But a fool would call for the murder of sharks.  

There are ongoing debates whether the cage dive industry significantly affects the natural lifecycle of white sharks as well as debates of whether that same industry is teaching sharks to bite humans.  Let’s set those debates aside for a moment and look at whether the cage dive industry does anything good for white sharks.  Do white sharks benefit from this industry as a whole, or is it just another money-driven industry exploiting an threatened species?

That answer might depend upon where in the world you are asking the question.  According to Michael Rutzen, of Shark Diving Unlimited, based in Gansbaai, South Africa, the cage dive industry is directly responsible for the current health of the population of white sharks along their southern coast.  Keeping in mind that South Africa is a third world country (or some awkward place between first world and third world) let’s compare that location to the Farralon Islands in the United States.

The Farallones lie 27 miles from any beach that humans use for recreation.  Additionally, the use of chum and bait are strictly forbidden.  Combine those factors and it would be difficult for anyone to win the argument that cage diving is changing the sharks’ behavior, particularly in regard to “learning to eat humans”  in that part of the world.

And let’s not forget that the California coast isn’t exactly facing any economic hardships.  Why does that matter?  Well, again, in contrast to South Africa, we’re comparing populations of people that might be more susceptible to breaking the law in order to ease their financial woes in one place than the other.  Translation: If a fisherman in South Africa is faced with a challenging time of feeding himself and his family and can earn enough money from ONE set of shark jaws to significantly change his financial status, it shouldn’t come as a shock that this person might consider doing some poaching…especially if there is no one around to stop him.

"No one around to stop him"?  But South Africa declared the white shark a protected species in 1991, in fact they were the first country to do so.  Aren’t white sharks protected there?  Well, yes and no.  First of all, that same government kills a shocking number of sharks, including white sharks, in the shark nets that lie upon their migration route off the Kwazu Natal coast.   Furthermore, it is the opinion of many I’ve interviewed in South Africa, including people who worked for the Marine Coastal Management, that coastal management is all but non-existent; Meaning there are no government resources actively preventing the sport-fishing or poaching of white sharks.  In fact, when word got out in 1997 that people like Michael Flatly were willing to pay $30,000 for a single set of white shark jaws, it reportedly spawned a surge in illegal targeting of white sharks.  Who is there to stop them?

Cage dive operation owners may be motivated by money or they may be motivated by their love of the animal or they may be motivated by both.  But as long as long as they have a vested interest in keeping the white sharks alive we at least have someone fighting for the sharks, regardless of their motivation.  In South Africa the cage-diving boats go out almost all year round, multiple trips per day.  If the sharks are gone their business is gone.  

This is a country that considered opening white sharks back up to commercial fishing in 1998.  What stopped that from happening?  The cage dive industry and the researchers who work on those cage dive industry boats.  

But what about a location such as Guadalupe Island?  Mexico isn’t exactly a country known for resisting bribes when it comes to upholding the law. But Guadalupe Island is 180 miles out at sea, roughly 24 hours to reach from Ensenada.  The poachers would have to be exceptionally well funded and equipped to make a venture out there worthwhile, especially with cage-dive operators around 24/7 (during the peak white shark season) ready to report suspicious behavior.

Tangible arguments exist in defense of the cage-dive industry possibly acting as watch dogs against poaching, not to mention providing a group of people ready to oppose efforts to open white sharks up for legal fishing.  But, what about intangible arguments?

I can say that after ten years of watching tourists getting on and off cage dive boats that NOTHING changes one’s perception of the white shark like seeing it in person.  You can tell someone what a white shark is really like until you are blue in the face, but until they can visually replace JAWS with their own personal experience, it just doesn’t seem to sink in.  It’s true that in the end we’ll only save what we love, so helping people to give a crap about the well-being of these animals has merit.  Are all these tourists going to turn around and become advocates for sharks and our oceans?  No.  Are some of them?  Yes.

But back to the tangible.  As long as we live in a world where money talks and governments don’t enforce conservation laws, our best bet for shark protection may be in those who have figured out how to make money from living sharks as they fight against those who want to make money off dead sharks.

Cage diving; a popular activity and ever increasing topic of controversy.  Does this activity teach sharks to correlate people to food and thus increase the chances of being bitten?  

Skyler Thomas compares his interviews with Chris Fallows in 2007 and 2014 to see what, if anything has changed regarding this topic.  Fallows, of Apex Shark Expeditions in False Bay, South Africa, has been running cage tours for 20 years and uses his experience to defend some of the accusations against him and his industry.  As a tour provider he has an obvious motivation to argue for cage-diving, however, that does not make any of his arguments less true.

What’s your stance?

A few points to keep in mind while watching:

1. Are sharks intelligent, conniving animals capable of creating the association between bait and people in the cage, or are they mindless killing machines?  Or do they lie somewhere in between?
2. Does the cage-dive industry use red meat? What about surfboards and body boards as decoys?
3. Why are we tolerant of fishermen using bait that is often eaten by sharks, but not cage-dive operators?  For that matter, why are we tolerant of fishermen chumming, especially near-shore, while cage-dive operators chum significantly further from shore?
4. Do all cage-dive operators use chum?
5. Is there a positive food reward for the sharks?
6. What have studies shown on the matter?
7. Why have more shark bites on humans taken place during the cage-diving off season if the chumming is responsible for bites?

Next time we’ll look at whether or not cage-diving actually helps save sharks.

When things don't make sense, look for the money.  South Africa was able to claim being the first country to list the white shark as a protected species, but that same government spends money killing more white sharks than any other threat to the white shark in South Africa.  why does something this horrific and outdated continue to exist?  Perhaps it is because the NSB has become its own source of income for certain people...

I would have a hard enough time doing this in water that white sharks are not known to frequent.  For me it's the mental battle, not the actual risk. Anyway, this guy's main goal was to get some peace and enjoy the waves by himself, so he created a board that would illuminate the waves.  
Some people believe you are at greater risk of a shark encounter at dawn and dusk and almost certainly your chances are higher when you are alone as opposed to in a group.  But what about lights?  White sharks have been described as curious, so perhaps the lights will draw them in.  That doesn't mean a bite will follow, but being bumped by a massive dark shadow at night would make me $%&* my pants, even if it ended up being a seal (which, by the way, he says has come up to check out his lights).  
Chris Twormey accepts his risks and will not seek revenge upon any animal that bites him and opposes anyone else doing so, as does his wife.