Shocking images reveal the moments during which a diver desperately fought off a massive Fanged “Vampire” Shark of Madagascar.

British Diver Simon Cowardson was vacationing in Madagascar when he decided to try out the ever more popular sport of shark diving.  This became a decision he almost didn’t live to regret.

“The shark just kept coming at me”, Cowardson told reporters later.  “I think it had made up its mind that it wanted to have me for breakfast.”

The 52 year old lawyer was spearfishing at the time that the shark suddenly appeared out of nowhere.  Fanged Madagascar sharks are known for their two prominent teeth that hang down like fangs, thus prompting the frightening nickname “vampire shark”.  Sightings of the species are rare, but scientists believe the fangs are used to puncture their victims then let them bleed out before feeding.

“First I shoved the shark with my fists, trying to avoid the sharp fangs.  When it was clear the shark wasn’t going to leave me alone, that’s when I used my spear to ram a hole in its stomach.” An estimated only 50 of these sharks remain in the wild and Simon stated that he’s glad there are only 49 now.  “I feel like I’ve done my part to make these oceans a little safer for the rest of us.  The only good predator is a dead predator.”  When asked if he wasn’t also a predator Cowardly responded “I’m not a predator, I’m a human being.”

“That shark had no business coming at me like that.  The bleeding tuna I had tied to my spear gun were clearly mine and the shark should understand that.”

This video from Discovery Channel is inaccurate to say the least, and is horrible PR for sharks...but is a good summation of the downward spiral of Discovery Channel's Programming.  I feel bad even sharing it, but perhaps in doing so you'll know why I disapprove of most of 'Shark Week'.

Here's this week's video breakdown:

• Title of Video: '18 Foot Shark Attacks Cage / Great White Serial Killer'. First, there's no attack.  A slow swimming shark investigates the cage (probably after hours of baiting and chumming). 
  
  Next, there's never been a white shark "serial killer" or "rogue shark" despite any myths, stories, or movies.  Even if there had been a set of unfortunate events this title is not good for sharks
  
  
• Opening line from narrator, "Can sharks sense vulnerability in people?".  Barf. Fear mongering.

• Follow up from narrator indicates that the goal is to lure the shark into an attack, "such as the ones endured by surfers at a beach".  You're trying to simulate an attack?  Comparing a surfer at a beach to a diver in a cage?  Those two scenarios are nothing alike.  Secondly, if this is indeed their goal, where's the outrage that they are attempting teach a shark to attack someone?  I don't think this can be done, but never the less, what a disgusting line.
  
  
• The hosts states that there's a shark down there with a bad attitude.  By bad attitude they mean a shark that actually paid attention to them despite the efforts to chum and bait it into behaving aggressively, while the others stubbornly remain docile despite the crew's best efforts to get "TV worthy footage".  (list continues below video)

• The host says he needs his head checked for getting in.  Actually there is no danger.  Since my early days of working on a boat in South Africa in 2004 I've probably gotten into a cage for white shark diving over 400 times.  The only potential danger comes in the form of operator or diver error.
  
  
• The host says the ONE SIDE of the cage that is made of clear plexiglass will cause the shark to think the diver is an easy target, as though the animal is so dumb and eyesight so bad that it will be unaware of the the metal bars on all three other sides.
  
  
• Listen to the fake "underwater screams" that are added for dramatic effect.  These scream are played continuously while slow motion footage of the shark biting the float is shown.  Note, the float is bitten once, but the footage is played slowly to drag out the drama.
  
  
• The on-deck screams of "Get him out of there" I assume are fake as well.
  

This actually looked like a magnificent encounter with a gorgeous shark that was slowly, and rather gently investigating the cage.  

Who knows how much of this drama was added by the producers after it was filmed so I don't know how much to criticize the host.  From what I hear these shows go in and change the final product so that it is this reality TV drama crap... so if you ever see me on a shitty show like this, before you condemn me, write to me, because there's a good chance what you are being shown is not what was set out to be created.

The green light for the monster shark tournament in Newport points to several things that are wrong, besides the killing of the sharks.  

1. Using the death of a family member or loved one to sway opinion based on emotion is wrong.  I realize that makes me calloused, but if you're a decision maker, shouldn't you be able to say, "I understand your emotional attachment to the tournament, but it has no place here nor during this age"?  I'm referring to the emotional plea given to the city council regarding a desire to carry out "the dream" of the recently deceased.  We don't always get what we want and often we shouldn't.  That's an opinion. Tell me why I'm wrong.

2. People are slapping the word "scientist" on everything to justify their actions.  "A biologist will be on hand" is offered as pacification for those worried about the shark slaughter being for nothing.  "Oh, good, a scientist will be there" sadly satisfies the concerns of many who imagine that the data is whisked away to a miracle lab that somehow brings an end to long lining and shark finning.  This is not an attack on scientists.  Many scientists work their tails off attempting to collect hard data to present in the face of those who demand numbers to justify conservation-minded action to be taken.   It is however an attack on the idea that sharks as a whole are going to benefit tremendously because of some tissue samples or the tagging and release of some of these sharks.  Yes, it is extra information, but it is not the key to the survivability of these animals.  The key to survivability is NOT FISHING OUT THE BIG ONES, which is exactly what a monster tournament is about!  Yes, there are worse offenders out there than shark tournaments, but if our attitude is to justify our actions because someone else is worse, then we are already lost.  Samples are already being taken and tags are already being applied and this is being done within the confines of actual studies that scientists have worked hard to develop, present, and have approved before they even get to proceed with the study.  To think that a few random tags and tissue samples at a tournament are going to lead to an end that justifies the current cost is...well, hopeful.  Sorry, but having a scientist on hand appears to be a way to make people feel better about something that shouldn't be happening.  Yes, that's an opinion.  Tell me why I'm wrong.
(Please note that scientists will make use of any data they can possibly use.  And yes, they are capable of even potentially incorporating data obtained from tags at a tournament like this.  My attack is not on scientists and power to them for putting a silver lining on a fishing tournament; rather my criticism is on those who host these tournaments or those who report on these tournaments portraying a scenario in which scientists are pleased that this is happening.  A closer depiction of reality is of scientists making the best of a bad scenario.  People are catching sharks.  Some might die.  Let's at least tag them so we can possibly learn from those who survive.  Notice the use of the words "potential" and "possible".  I personally would prefer that animals be tagged within the parameters of a specific study conducted by the scientists seeking answers to a question as opposed to the chance of collecting useful data from tags administered during a tournament.
Dr. Neil Hammershclag cares enough about best practices and a few topics I touched on that he gave me permission to share a paper he wrote.  This doesn't mean he agrees with me, but does want to share knowledge, so take a look at 'Killing for Conservation."  As my tagline says, many people won't read research papers so let's hope Neil will do a video interview in the future highlighting this paper.  And thank you for writing it, Neil.

3. Permits and special permits.  These last few months have been filled with me reading about laws set forth for the preservation of marine animals that are not to be tampered with or harmed...except when permits are issued (or a law is danced around; think Wester Australia).  Let's just say I'm not impressed with some of the permits that have been given and I'll leave it at that.  These permits are starting to sound like loopholes to me.  And what's with a city not being able to stop a tournament even if they say no to it as this article describes? Scary.

4. Parallels.  It's not the same thing, but there sure are a lot of similarities to the cull in Western Australia as I see it:

• Needless catching of sharks
• Attempted pacification by the fact that "professionals" trained for the best possible care of the animals makes me think of a correlation between Western Australia's seemingly amateur Fisheries Department and having a scientist on hand at a shark tournament.
• Tagging.  The sharks in Western Australia are also being tagged.  To what end?  There's a tag on the shark...so, now please connect the dots to the preservation of that species for me.  On this topic, the article also pointed out that a shark caught in a previous tournament  was spotted many miles away in southern waters.  Wow.  Great info.  Now the sharks will be saved.  Show me a scientist who isn't aware that sharks migrate long distances, often to warmer waters during certain cycles of their lives, and I'll show you someone who should think about a new career.

Here is the article about the tournament approval

Let's skip over South Africa for the time being (seems to be an uphill battle on a slope covered in mud over there) and go to Australia, another first world country that "cares about the ocean".  Their feds are trampled all over existing laws and the opinions of its voters to push an expensive, ineffective, and ecologically disastrous slaughter of sharks.  Yes, by the government that simultaneously lists the animals its killing as protected and vulnerable.   From a shark's perspective I'd be thinking, "with friends like this, who needs enemies?"

We continue to spill oil although we haven't recovered from the last ones.  We pursue drilling in the arctic when it's already proven that the arctic is melting away from use of the very thing we're drilling for.  Rain forests are destroyed, proposals to dump sediment onto the Great barrier Reef, natives pushed off their land, poison allowed in approved food, and we worry about offending the cultures of people who's cultures seem to be hell bent on killing every last thing on the planet.  

Maybe the government knows something we don't know.  Maybe it really is too late.  Maybe it's better for them to help their buddies make as much cash as possible on the limited time left on this planet.  Maybe they'll be the ones who can afford a flight to an off-planet living facility.

Remember foot binding? Probably not.  That's because it went the way of the dodo, as should other cultural practices that are outdated or should never have existed in the first place.  Let's be honest with ourselves, humans come up with some pretty messed up cultural traditions so it doesn't exactly break my heart when certain cultural practices are forcibly brought to an end (read more about my particular take on culture here).  

But in all honesty the shark fin battle is about money, not about culture.  That's why I almost cheered aloud in the theatre when a female Chinese-American stood up on the senate floor and stated the quote on the left in response to a paid-off lobbyist who claimed the anti-fin ban was a racist attack against the Chinese.  You can see this wonderful moment in Phil Waller's new movie Extinction Soup.

California won another battle in the ongoing struggle to get its own shark fin ban going full force.  Sadly its the feds that the state has had to deal with.  A federal judge on Tuesday upheld California's ban on possession or sale of shark fins, rejecting claims that the law discriminates against the Chinese community - where shark fin soup is a traditional delicacy - or interferes with federal management of ocean fishing.
The law, passed in 2011, took full effect in July, when selling and serving shark fin soup became illegal. It was challenged by Bay Area organizations of Chinese American businesses and by shark fin suppliers, who argued that the legislation targeted the Chinese community and exceeded the state's authority to regulate fishing.

The federal law "is intended to preserve the nation's fishery resources and to promote conservation," purposes consistent with those of the California law, Orrick said in his most significant ruling since Obama appointed him to the bench in May. He said Congress did not intend to "maximize fishing or the sale of fish" and did not require states to "allow the possession or trading of shark fin - even shark fin lawfully landed."

Orrick also said the state law would have more of an effect on the Chinese American community than it would elsewhere, but federal courts require proof of intentional discrimination to overturn a law, and there was no such evidence in this case.

"People of Chinese origin or culture undoubtedly overwhelmingly comprise the market for shark fin," the judge wrote. "However, a law is not unconstitutional simply because it has a racially disparate impact."

The law applies equally throughout the state, Orrick said, and was based on legislative findings that the California shark fin market boosted the market for shark finning, which was contributing to the decline of a species critical to the health of the ocean's ecosystem.

Lawyers for the law's opponents were unavailable for comment. They could appeal the ruling.

Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt has given the WA Government an exemption from the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to set baited drum lines to catch sharks until April 30, agreeing it was in the national interest.

However, most of the sharks caught have been tiger sharks, rather than the great white shark species blamed for attacks on people off WA.

The Greens will push for a vote on its private members' Save our Sharks Bill this week.  This is the final sitting week before the WA Senate vote and Parliament does not resume until May, after this year's cull is meant to finish.

Greens leader Christine Milne, in WA for the party's campaign launch on Saturday, told _The West Australian _Mr Barnett had underestimated the level of public opposition to the shark cull.

The poll commissioned by the Greens found 57 per cent of WA voters thought the Abbott Government should use its powers to halt the cull, with 38 per cent strongly agreeing.

Greens leader Christine Milne says there is overwhelming opposition to the cull, introduced by the WA government with support from the federal government following a spate of attacks.

"We will stand up for the great white shark and the marine ecosystem against Tony Abbott and Colin Barnett," she told reporters.

"There is huge support to say end this cull and never do it again."

Greens marine and WA spokeswoman Rachel Siewert said the federal government facilitated the WA government going ahead with the shark cull through an exemption granted under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Senator Siewert said the private member's bill would retrospectively bar federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt from granting an exemption.

"The federal government should never have used that provision," she said.

Now this is what I call taking action.  Kudos to everyone involved and let's see more of it.  The following article was copied from WA Today.

Protesters say there have been no repercussions for illegally removing a shark drum line off a Perth beach on the weekend.

A group created what they referred to as a "late entry to Sculpture by the Sea" on Saturday after they removed a shark drum line from the ocean.

Members of the Forest Rescue group, which is against the state's shark mitigation program which involves killing large sharks that come within one kilometre of the coast, posed with the item while dressed as mermaids on Cottesloe beach.

Whether you love sharks, hate sharks, or are indifferent, can the niche of the shark...its purpose and contribution to the planet be questioned?  Of course that requires one to have a clue what the shark does on a daily routine, which, believe it or not, has nothing to do with eating people.  Now, examine your contribution to the planet today, this week, this year...maybe even your lifetime.  How has the planet benefitted from your presence?
white sharks, great whites, white shark video, tiger sharks, shark cull