After San Francisco joined several other cities around the world in opposition, White Shark Video edited a piece using footage from collaborators across the globe to poke fun at the madness of "Cullin" Barnett and his crew.  Popular sentiment at the moment is that Barnett would rather please his wealthy political friends than listen to public outcry, science, reason, or common sense.  It makes me very concerned for the future when in an age where information is more accessible than ever, we seem to be taking steps backwards.  
Using baited hooks near popular beaches to reduce the threat of sharks is enough of a mind melting concept to stop the plan alone.  However, it gets better.  This carefully thought out and humane plan is so far guilty of the following:

• Hiring a fisherman who can't recognize the targeted shark species
  
• Releasing sharks under the targeted size in the same area they were caught
• Leaving sharks on the hooks long enough to die before inspection
• Shooting the first shark in the head four times after gaffing, roping, and dragging it 
• Violating their own protection policy for these species
• Killing more sharks in three weeks than have killed humans in Australia in years
• Failing to hook a single shark of the species responsible for the deaths in Perth that spurred the cull
• Removing the hooks from the water for a public swimming event to reduce the danger of sharks being present then returning them after the event.  Let that one sink in for a while
• Violating 15 different United Nations Conventions and Treaties
• Using the Natal Sharks Board as a consultant for how to handle the issue even as scientists pleaded against this.

The Natal Sharks Board in South Africa seems to have a lot in common with Barnett's Administration.  For one, NTS is a government supported shark killing machine targeting the very species it lists as a protected species, the great white shark.  Secondly, scientific reasoning is thrown to the wayside in this stretch of beaches in Durban, much like in the specific areas now in Australia's spotlight.  What do they have in common?  Big tourism money,  In other words, sharks are dying in order to fulfill the placebo effect of a safer beach in the minds of would-be dollar spenders.

The policy is so corrupt that NTS ignores its own data, yet this is who Barnett looked to for consultation (looking outside the borders of his own country in doing so). Data collected by the KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board shows the bycatch from drum lining — which causes fatalities among small whales, dolphins, marine turtles and other endangered and innocent species — outnumbers the target catch by 5 to 1. Even when the large numbers of sharks are removed from the ocean, as took place in Hawaii in the 1960s and ’70s when nearly 4,700 sharks were culled, the approach fails to produce a measurable decrease in attacks.

Some experts are even warning that drum lines will increase the number of shark attacks. “Whenever you put bait in the water, you always risk bringing something to the area that was not there before,” says Nathan Hart, an associate professor at the University of Western Australia’s School of Animal Biology.

The most controversial aspect of the Western Australia plan is that it targets, among other species, the iconic great white shark. With great whites protected in Australia as an endangered species (due to a low rate of reproduction that makes them vulnerable to population collapse), there are thought to be fewer than 3,500 of them left in the ocean.

Credits:
Editing by Skyler Thomas
All video footage shot by White Shark Video except for Blair Ranford's footage that was kindly donated Shayne Thompson as well as the "tiger shark cam footage" donated by Eli Martines of Shark Diver Magazine. Thanks to Shark Stewards, Earth Island Institute, Meaghan McCord Gray, Kent Stannard, WASC, Maarten Josef Billen, Fin Free Melbourne, and all the protesters for your collaboration.
Music by BSOD, I take no credit for it.

As the death toll of tiger sharks rises and non targeted animals continue to be caught on the baited hooks, more of the world joins in the outrage against a shark cull that is possibly in violation of Australian law.

Perth, Melbourne, Cape Town, London, and San Francisco have all joined in the public outcry.  Will your city be next?

If you can, please join Shark Stewards and White Shark Video this Saturday, February 15th, as we march from the Embarcadero to the Australian Consulate to deliver a valentine card full of signatures pleading for the lives of the sharks. Even details can be found here.  Please join and invite your friends.  Posters for the event can be downloaded from this page.  We are encouraging everyone who can to dress "sharky".  If you have nothing, we will have t-shirts on sale for a discounted price to help offset the cost of the event.

Next week WSV will release a video featuring notable shark experts and advocates from around the world who explain how the cull is not only scientifically ungrounded, but is reportedly based primarily upon securing votes from a certain demographic.

When 'Want" is Confused with "Need" the Supposed Beneficiary Becomes the Victim.

We MUST obtain this data
We NEED to display this animal in captivity
I MUST preserve my culture
We MUST make our beaches safe
We MUST understand these animals to protect them
We NEED this data to protect them

Each of the above are choices rather than needs or musts.  When choices are misconstrued as needs these choices become excuses to do what we want, not what we need to do.  Let's see if I can defend this notion and for fun I'm going to do it from two perspectives; scientific and extremist.

Public Safety:  Let's start with politicians who state that we MUST take preventative action against shark attacks, whether this is referring to shark culls, beach nets, gill nets etc. 

• Scientific reasoning; Culls don't work.  Others have already shown this for me so you can take a moment to read this evidence here or you can take my word and keep going. 
  
• Extremist reasoning: The goal of culls is to prevent human death or injury inflicted by another animal.  This comes with the assumption that the human lives in question NEED to be saved.  An extremist might say we CHOOSE to save this life so as not to suffer the symptoms associated with loss of life, such as sorrow.  But a CHOICE was also made to enter the domain of an apex predator.  Taking action against such a predator is CHOOSING to believe 1. Our lives our more valuable than theirs 2. We have more rights than they do 3. The planet is ours and everything else on it is a guest.  
  These are beliefs, which are different than facts and when we take action based on beliefs rather than facts we are making CHOICES rather than acting out of necessity.  I'm not saying I want to be killed or have a family member killed, but the bottom line is that we have a different set of rules for everything on this planet based on our beliefs.

Display:  A big argument for the captivity of animals is that of "raising awareness", education, etc.

• The scientific argument is primarily one of physics.  Physically one may CHOOSE to observe animals in that animal's own natural environment, captivity is not the only option.  Depending on the animal in question It may be more difficult, more expensive, and less convenient, but it is still a CHOICE.  
• Extremist: Consider the awakening of attitudes toward cetaceans in marine parks; this can be applied to other species as well.  Monterey Bay Aquarium uses the same excuses Sea World is criticized for regarding orcas when justifying the capture and display of white sharks.  Do they raise awareness?  Yes.  Could I make a video of myself taking a bath in shark blood and raise awareness?  Yes.  MBA is guilty of the death of reportedly more than 2 dozen white sharks to date in their attempt to display them and they plan to continue. Use awareness as an excuse, use the ticket sales going toward research as an excuse, use education as an excuse.  Bottom line again is that it is a CHOICE and even you are unfortunate enough not to see a white shark in your life, you will survive.  I've seen white sharks in the wild and I've seen the ones on display at MBA.  Quite frankly, seeing them in captivity did little for the species.  It was a sad spectacle of a "caged animal" that would clearly either need to be set free or would die in captivity.  The difference between the white shark's agitated swimming behavior and that of the other fish, even the other sharks, was notable.
  

Science:  We NEED to understand these animals.  We NEED to see them give birth.  We MUST tag them to protect them.  We MUST know its complete life-cycle, solve their puzzle, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah.

• The scientific argument is so obvious it's sad because each of the reasons listed above is given due to the fact that supposedly more data on the species will save them.  Ironically, the only thing they need to be saved from is us.  Seriously.  There's no invasive species wiping out sharks that begs for us to step in and help, unless we're going to step in and eradicate ourselves.  Supposedly we need to tag x number of sharks, write x number of papers, pass x number of laws, determine x number of a species' populations, and so on in order to save these animals.  History shows that our documented knowledge of an animal's behavior, habitat, and population size still does not result in us taking proper conservative action.  Admittedly I'm having a hard time separating extremist views from scientific on this one, but that's because the history of science and conservation supports this extremist attitude.  Science is cool, science is interesting, but "better' science not the answer because it isn't the real problem.
• Extremist: Knowledge is a privilege, not a right.  Survival of a species does not depend upon us knowing when or where that species gives birth or if it changes color after midnight, or swims upside down at 3 PM every 3rd day on its migrational path.  Survival of that species depends upon us not killing that species.  With few exceptions are there examples of animals that would not benefit from less death suffered at human hands.  For those who would claim that "cutting edge technology" and "better data" are keys to an animal's survival, please show me a study indicating that long-lining, gill netting, trawling, finning, etc. benefit the ocean.  We already know what we need to do; stop the killing.  Businesses don't fish the ocean, they rape it.  Mercilessly.  40,000 peer reviewed papers aren't going to change that fact.  The cat and mouse game of needing more data to determine what to do next is a bureaucratic bullshit system to keep funds flowing and people employed, also known as "science for the sake of science."
  
  

Culture: "It is important to my culture to eat this or that or kill this or that."  I've already discussed this before in the blog "A Culture of Killing", but here's a sample.

• Scientific: The concept of culture developed over time as populations grew and civilizations developed.  Culture can hold many wonderful treasures.  It is not, however, necessary for life.  Period. 
• Extremist:  Humans are a blip on the map of the earth's timeline.  We are only important in our own eyes.  I don't care what ethnicity you are or what your culture has endured, or if it makes your life feel more significant because you hold on to traditions that your ancestors held on to.  The bottom line is that our short span existence has brought this planet to its knees.  If there are still beautiful cultures among us living harmoniously with the earth, they aren't the prevailing ones.  
  
  

The irony of Understanding:  This was pretty much covered already, but I'm not afraid to beat a dying horse.

• The concept that we need to understand an animal in order to save it is flawed due to the resounding theme that everything on this planet is better off without us.  Sharks don't need us, in fact all they really need is us to leave them alone.  Whenever we meddle with nature the results are negative.  What's the motivation of this meddling behavior in the first place?  For nature's sake?  For the betterment of the planet?  C'mon.  Please don't play the angel.  Killing an indigenous population is about conquering land.   Land is about expanding a people.  Expanding a people is about food and housing.  Killing other predators is about removing competition for food (or these days for sport) and making land for sale more attractive to the buyer.  Chopping down forests for the sake of planting crops means we choose to grow and harvest something other than what is provided.  To solve world hunger?  No, for profits.  

In response to the announced cull on December 9th, 2013, concerns regarding the competence of officials is raised anew. These posts are copied from Erik Brush, Ross Weir, and Senator Rachel Siewert 

Dear Prime Minister Gillard,

   My name is Erik Brush. I represent International Conservation groups who have been asked by citizens of Western Australia and the WASC (Western Australians for Shark Conservation) to assist in compiling and delivering this report to key members of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. The report has serious implications and will expose criminal acts that were endorsed by listed officials in the state of Western Australia. Acts that not only violate several long standing international accords, treaties, and conventions, but also violates many of Australia's National policies where specific conservation legislation has been drafted and signed into law or policy.


   A report has been submitted outlining the issues, mentioning the members involved, (specifically Minister of Fisheries for Western Australia Norman Moore, and State Premiere for Western Australia Colin Barnett)in drafting legislation and putting it into action which violates and conflicts with several laws and foreign interests in the name of generating greater tourism for the state of WA.


   The report will show clearly that the draftsman of this cull order (Mr. Barnett) and the person to approve and put it into action (Mr. Moore) are not only guilty of the actions listed in the report, they also do so at risk to human life. You must forgive me if I refuse to use the title of "The Honorable" before either man's name as there is nothing indicated in their actions to merit my inclusion of that title in either the attached report or within the body of this correspondence.

   Further the Government of Australia has allowed these men to foolishly jeopardize not only the well being and health of endangered species in Australia, but endangered tourists and locals alike by creating a deadly situation whereby the very thing that they are allegedly trying to prevent increases in likelihood dramatically. This has been done by perverting a loophole in the EPBC Act which was promulgated by members of Parliament enacting an exception in the protection status of white sharks in the event of a bite incident involving a human or human fatality. The report will show that no one in your administration, in any cabinet, office, or indeed even in the Nation of Australia is qualified to make a determination of what has been deemed "imminent threat" where these animals are concerned (As per the justification for the WA Cull order) nor does the hunting down and killing of an animal involved in a bite incident do anything to prevent future incidents. It is the most knee-jerk ineffective way to respond to an incident where a shark bite is involved (whether lethal or not). Most of the time the animal responsible is not the one Government and local sources destroy and this has been shown to be the case in ALL countries where such attempts are made.And given the lack of repeated offenses after such an incident occurs, this is further proof that such bite incidents are not a habituated predation behavior for a White shark (or any other species) accidentally biting a human.

 You are asked to take action once you have read, reviewed, and shared the report among members of Parliament. You are asked to immediately repeal the Cull order, currently in affect in Western Australia. Also to reconsider and remove the ineffective loophole in the EPBC Act that allows for the provision of destroying animals involved in bite incidents with humans. We are also asking that Mr. Norman Moore and Mr. Colin Barnett be held accountable for public endangerment and various counts of violations of the International Laws and National Laws and accords of the Commonwealth of Australia as any other citizen would be were they guilty of such offenses.


   International Press packages are being prepared by all of the organizations involved in this action and we will be asking our global affiliates and NGOs as well as private parties to distribute these along with those press releases already set up to be distributed to global and national media. We feel that with elections on the horizon the results of this material being disclosed to the citizens of Australia could have strong implications for involved officials. Not only those responsible for the cull order, but all members with whom a copy of this report was shared.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this critical issue. We are very grateful for your indulgence and efforts to help resolve this in a manner that saves human lives as well as the lives of hard pressed species.


Sincerely,


Erik Brush

Founder/Director of SHARKS FOR LIFE!


Here's the paper:

Mr. Moore and by association and empowerment the state of Western Australia (and thus the Nation of Australia as a whole) is in violation of Section 3 Article 21 of the United Nations World Charter for Nature.

21.  States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, 

groups and corporations shall:  


(a) Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common activities and other relevant actions, 

including information exchange and consultations; 


(b) Establish standards for products and manufacturing processes that may have adverse effects on nature, 

as well as agreed methodologies for assessing these effects; 


(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection 

of the environment; 


(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not cause damage to the natural 

systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction; (keep reading)

I had heard stories that fishermen were stapling fins to shark corpses in order to comply with the "fins attached" law, but I didn't know they went to this much effort.  Apparently the law became more specific, stating that the fins must be naturally attached to the shark's spinal column...so now they are cutting away the body surrounding the fin and spinal column.  Wow.  I guess this helps put in perspective just how much more money the fins demand on the market compared to the flesh of the shark.

With all credit to Ticotimes.net and Lindsay Fendt, I'm simply copying and pasting the rest of their article here.

Tipped off by Costa Rican authorities, Interpol released a purple alert Wednesday to warn countries of a gruesome shark-finning technique that could bypass some countries’ anti-finning laws.

Costa Rican law stipulates that shark fins must be naturally attached to a shark’s body in order to be landed legally and exported. The law is designed to prevent shark-finning – a practice in which fishermen catch a shark, cut off its fins and throw it back into the ocean where it dies slowly, unable to swim. Due to the popularity of the expensive Asian delicacy shark-fin soup, fins can go for as much as $700 a kilogram. The shark meat, however, has little commercial value.  

In 2011, shark-finners operating in Costa Rican waters on the ship Wang Jia Men thought they had found a loophole. By cutting away all of the shark flesh and leaving only the spinal column and a strip of skin attaching the fins, the fishermen were able to free up valuable space in their ship’s hold, while technically having the fins attached to the body, a press release from the Judicial Investigation Police (OIJ) stated. The same method was also used by three ships from Belize in the same year.

The new method did not last long, as the president of the Pacific Coast Fishermen's Union, Javier Catón, filed an official complaint prompting a ruling that the fins were not “naturally attached” to the shark’s body. Luis Dobles, president of the Costa Rican Fisheries Institute (Incopesca), now faces an ongoing criminal complaint filed by a Puntarenas prosecutor for allegedly authorizing the ship to unload the sharks. He and Katy Tseng Chang, the legal representative for the Belizean boats, both face charges in Puntarenas. 

Dobles has denied any wrongdoing and says the charges are frivolous.

The Costa Rican Coast Guard reported the case and requested the purple notice from Interpol in August following a National Environment Security Seminar held in San José. Interpol releases purple notices to inform other countries about new criminal operation methods. The notice is intended to warn the 48 other countries with shark-finning bans that this method could skirt their current regulations.

In 2011, shark-finners sought to beat Costa Rican law by hacking away shark's flesh and leaving the spinal column. Two years later, Interpol issues an alert about the technique, prompted by the Costa Rican government.

To test a Costa Rican law that stipulates that shark fins must be "naturally attached" to a shark's body, fishermen in 2011 had cut away the sharks' flesh, leaving only spinal columns and skin attached the fins. Courtesy of Judicial Investigation Police

Guest Blog From Western Australian Local Explains Something More Horrifying Than the Death Toll Caused by Shark Nets; the Real Reasons a Faulty System Persists.

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 anthropomorphize 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.

In Sydney, New South Wales Shark nets were put in place in the 1930's and fear keeps them in place today. No politician will risk pulling these nets and then being blamed for an attack. Shark nets do not provide a consistent barrier to protect bathers, rather it minimizes the amount of large sharks that could reach the coast. Between 40 and 50 percent of sharks have been found on the Beach-Side of the nets and in 2008 there were 2 shark attacks that occurred on netted beaches.

The other problem with establishing shark nets on coast lines is the high rate of by-catch. In NSW between 1950 and 2008, 15,135 marine animals that weren’t sharks were caught and killed in nets, including turtles, whales, dolphins, rays, dugongs and also killed 377 of the now critically endangered and harmless grey nurse sharks.

Queensland also runs a shark control program and they use a mix of shark nets and hooked, baited drum lines so is their model worth adopting? Between 1975 and 2001, 11,899 great white sharks, tiger sharks and bull sharks were killed in nets and drum lines. Over the same period 53,098 other marine animals were killed. 505 sharks were caught between January and 20th November 2009. Less than half of those sharks caught were considered the dangerous or target species. Also killed were 16 dolphins, 6 whales, 1 dugong and 30 turtles.

So the evidence is in, the studies completed. Shark nets are indiscriminate and do not provide a proper barrier and drum lines have the same problem, on top of the fact that baiting drum lines attracts sharks, it doesn’t repel them. The studies done for The Department of Fisheries all made the same clear statement; Western Australia’s coastline should not be netted or subject to drum lining in order to protect the marine eco-system. Premier Barnett and Mr Moore made their decision, in the face of all the evidence, they chose Drum Lining as their solution.

It didn’t take long for them to test out their drum lining solution, when it was alleged that a white shark was ‘behaving menacingly’ (whatever that means) in WA’s south west near Dunsborough, The Department of Fisheries issued a kill order and contracted a local vessel called ‘The North Islander’ to set up drum lines and kill the shark… which didn’t happen, 2 tiger sharks were caught and released but the ‘menacing’ great white never showed up.

The public were outraged at this fiasco which took place in this tourist hot-spot. Citizens were demanding to know how much the useless effort cost and surfers complained that the drum liners had endangered the beach for days.

As more and more images of people swimming with sharks appear on the web, many speculate that disaster is only a matter of time away.  Along with this disaster is the potential crackdown of all shark diving operations in order to “protect us from ourselves.”  But is that what should really happen?

Yes, the media would have a field day.  The term “shark attack” still sells papers like nothing else, so if a diver should happen to be killed by the same animal he/she was an advocate for; I imagine the irony would leave the press drooling.

Actually this sort of disaster already occurred once in Bahamian waters when a bull shark bit a recreational shark diver who did not survive the incident. Perhaps there are other similar incidents that I’m unaware of, but I haven’t heard about them. It seems unlikely that the media wouldn’t have run such a story for a month straight so I feel fairly confident that no more incidences have occurred, but to be safe, let’s go ahead and tack on a couple more.  Three bites, total, in decades of diving with sharks globally, an industry whose latest estimates claim to have brought in 3 million dollars worldwide.

By contrast let’s look at how many people die during recreational diving from equipment malfunction, drowning, jellyfish stings, etc. and we’ll see that these numbers dwarf the incidents in which something has gone awry while swimming with animals DESIGNED TO KILL.  Think about that for a minute.  The perfect predator, equipped in every way to dispatch from existence at a moment’s notice, yet we get away with swimming with them all the time.  That’s not a credit to us, that’s a credit to the shark.  It’s almost baffling how tolerant these animals are of our presence, which makes them that much more intriguing.  We forgive each other all the time for mistakes, mistakes we make often, but when we intentionally and repeatedly go into the domain of an animal legendary for its killing ability we can’t find it in ourselves to forgive it for a handful of mistakes.  How many people reading right now have ever tasted something you regretted?  Heck, how many of you have even bitten another person in anger?  Now imagine being hunted and condemned for such a mistake.

Anyway, my point is that I love sharks and I love being around them.  I enjoy watching them and watching them watch me back.  It is humbling and fascinating, and weird as it may be, being in the wild with these magnificent animals makes me happy.  First dove with Caribbean reef sharks,  then snorkeled in Shark Alley, followed by a season filming at the Farallon Islands where I would leave the cage from time to time, followed finally by hanging out of open faced cages in Guadalupe.  I’ll go ahead and say that the Shark Alley move was pretty dumb and I probably wouldn’t do that again.  However, I have every intention of swimming / diving with sharks as often as I can.  Whether a cage dive operator is taking me to a remote location or whether I wander into the ocean solo from a beach, I welcome a shark encounter.  The ecotourism operator isn’t responsible for my decision and the shark isn’t responsible either.  I am responsible.  I made the decision to take the risk.  Contrary to how many people approach the planet, it is NOT OUR RIGHT to be wherever we want whenever we want without accepting the possibility of encountering another predator.  Furthermore, if such an encounter occurs we should not retaliate by killing every animal of that species in the area.  If we decide to swim, surf, kayak, or paddle-board in the ocean, we are essentially deciding that the experience of that recreation is worth the risk of being “investigated” by a larger predator than ourselves.  And why is it so tragic anyway if one of us perishes?  There are 7 some billion people left to fill the void, whereas 90% of all pelagic species of shark are now threatened or near threatened with extinction.

Until we fund a full time fleet of ships and planes patrolling areas known to be congregation sites of white sharks, I think ecotourism operators serve a very important role in providing a watchful eye against poachers.  Also to the credit of ecotourism, I have yet to hear anyone, I mean ANYONE, who has seen a shark in the wild for the first time not be blown away with admiration while losing all previous misconceptions about the animal.  That’s powerful!

Thanks for reading!

Videos related to this blog:

Swimming in Shark Alley, my first shark film ever, filmed in 2004 in South Africa.  Swimming around on the surface with cape fur seals, even if I was somewhat close to the rocks, was simply stupid.  I blame Lalo Saidy for taking me out there after an evening of drinking absinthe.  Just kidding, Lalo.

Elasmo 3 (Free diving with whale sharks).  When all 35 feet of these animals passed under me multiple times, I was very tempted to grab the dorsal fin and go for a ride, but out of respect I did not.  I doubt the massive animal would have noticed me much, but rumor has it that our contact rubs off an important protective layer covering their skin.

Hammerhead Love.  As soon as I sat at the bottom of this aquarium, a beautiful scalloped hammerhead became brave enough to come in and take a closer look at me…again, and again, and again.

The Farallon Islands (2006). 

Petting a nurse shark.  I swear this shark wanted some affection.  

Today's entry is a discussion topic and I hope you'll participate as it helps me know when my theories are on target or misguided.

The most disturbing part of editing my documentary today was hearing Fischer say to a journalist "If not us, then who? There's no one behind us, I'd be helping them if they were there."  Obviously this statement dismisses the multitude of researchers who have been working hard for decades before OCEARCH came into existence while also dismissing published data and efforts to change legislation. It also implies there was no one for him to donate his wealth to support rather than starting his own company.  Which leads me to my discussion topic.  I know researchers that decided to team up with Fischer and I know researchers who rejected him on the grounds that they didn't like his reputation or methods.  The theme that keeps ringing in my head is that this all seems to boil down to money, or rather a lack thereof. Researchers need funding and equipment to continue their work...so perhaps the root of the problem is a general lack of funding.  If there was no lack of funding perhaps there would be no foothold for people like Fischer to jump into the game.  

If you don’t mind taking the time to discuss, please focus on these two questions:

• If given the opportunity to work with OCEARCH and receive funding from them, would you?  What if you had no lack of funds so money wasn’t an issue...would that affect your decision to work with or not work with them?
  
  
• If you are one of the researchers who previously worked with Fischer then distanced yourself from his organization afterward, what keeps you quiet? Fear of retaliation from someone with money or a contractual agreement not to say disparaging things?

• Have you been approached by OCEARCH or a similar opportunity? What was your decision and why?

A couple of years ago I made a very short film explaining how the disappearance of white sharks from Gansbaai, South Africa affected the local human population, particularly the fishermen.  To summarize, the white shark population had been greatly damaged due to over hunting and as a consequence the seal population exploded, which in turn led to a decrease in fish available for fishermen.  The white shark was eventually protected from hunting, its population rebounded, and the seal population returned to a more manageable number.

Thousands of miles from Gansbaai, a similar story has been taking place.  The characters are the same, but the order of events is different, and this time it’s happening in New England.  In this case it was the over hunting of the seal that led to the disappearance of the white shark from the area, thus when the seal became protected and its population rebounded, the white sharks began showing up again to hunt this food source.

I personally find it intriguing to learn about members of nature’s food chain playing out their roles, especially when the same roles can be seen taking place in multiple locations on the globe.  For me it’s a reminder of the how unique the white shark is (the only fish designed to hunt mammals).  At the same time I find it disturbing to see the similarities in man’s role in these stories.  It seems that every time we take matters into our own hands we end up disrupting a balance that had previously been set in place by Mother Nature.  Removing ourselves from the system is what allows balance to be restored.

Since 2009 there has been a slow increase in white sharks returning to the area, undoubtedly catching on to the fact that they can once again find yummy seals.  While the appearance of white sharks on beaches may alarm many, it’s actually good news, especially for the fishermen. I don’t know the magic number that constitutes a “healthy population” of seals, but I did see a lot of them when I visited Cape Cod in August and the fishermen are not too happy about it.  And thus we reach the point in my blog where I inevitably become cynical about mankind.  Read on if you dare. 

In theory, when the population of white sharks reaches a higher number, the number of seals will in turn be reduced, hopefully reaching a nice balance over time.  However, this requires man to be tolerant of an increased presence of an animal that can, albeit rarely does, kill humans.  When a mistake is made and a person is bitten, or God forbid killed by a white shark, will there be a cull to reduce the numbers of sharks as is happening in Western Australia?  In an interview with the Boston Globe, fisherman Kenny Kassan states, “Until somebody’s kid doesn’t come out of the water, they’re not going to do anything about it”.  Ken Murray, a fisherman of Nantucket adds, “It’s just a matter of time before a shark mistakes a kayaker or a windsurfer out there for a seal,” he says. “Somebody’s going to get bit. “

Maybe someone will.  Maybe someone won’t.  But how we react if does happen will be very interesting.  Will we accept that we are sharing the planet with other predators and accept this as an unfortunate incident, or once again take nature into our own hands?  The seals will be to blame or the sharks will be to  blame, but somehow we will remain faultless.  I find this particularly ironic since Chatham just received the media sensation OCEARCH into their waters with open arms, who, according to an eyewitness on the research vessel, “use a massive hydraulic press to pump out a chum slick behind the boat all day long, every day at sea.” A chum slick that is carried by a current to other beaches in the Cape Cod area.  Several beaches were closed due to shark sightings during this time.  Coincidence?  Maybe, maybe not, but for some reason the sharks showed up at bathing beaches far away from their normal seal hunting beaches.

I was in Chatham to learn about the white shark research taking place there, but I unexpectedly got a taste of the battle between seal and fishermen.  While grabbing lunch in Chatham Harbor I witnessed a boat unloading its catch for the day.  Several gray seals were in the harbor hoping to catch a dropped fish during the unloading process.  Now, I don’t have anything against fishermen or fishing, but I did find myself questioning the methods that we now use to catch fish as I watched the longline boat unload its catch.  For close to an hour, I watched one boat, a small boat, in a line of many boats waiting to unload, dump crate after crate of dead fish that had been taken from the sea that day.  “Fishing” is not the term that came to mind as I watched this.  Rape of the ocean or an attempted genocide of a species rang more true.


I’ve read several articles showcasing the comments of fishermen who feel their livelihood is being robbed from them due to the seals eating their fish.  Indeed, as the ocean struggles to produce the numbers of fish it has in the past, for whatever reason(s) we want to blame, it seems fishermen are going to have a harder time making a living.  But what does “making a living” mean?  Should that term be equated with fishing?  Should it be equated with putting food on the table for the family?  I don’t believe so.  Instead, I think the problem is that we as a species don’t think we should have to adapt to survive.  Instead we think we should change our surroundings to match our own desires.  

When a fisherman brings in 30,000 pounds of fish in one catch, I don’t believe dealing with hunger is the pressing issue on his mind.  More likely the concerns are profit margins, paying a mortgage, paying for a car, paying for kids to go to school, etc.  Don't get me wrong, you should be able to send your kids to school, but let's not pretend we've worked hard to adapt to the current environmental challenges we've brought upon ourselves.  I’ve read several articles in which fishermen are quoted as saying they are the next species to go extinct.  At a naturalist training for the Gulf of the Farallones Marine Sanctuary, when it was announced fishermen were restricted to a certain area to fish due to low numbers of certain species of fish, one man declared “I’m the next species that’s going to be extinct”.  I was debating whether or not to feel sorry for him when he followed up with “I only made $170,000 last year”, at which point my thought quickly changed from potential sympathy to “$#%& you.”

“We can’t catch anything because of the seals.” says Cape Cod Fisherman Ernie Eldridge.  He only caught several dozen menhaden and squid that day, a far cry from the 30,000 pounds of fish he once caught daily -NY Times.  Yes, that sounds like a measly catch by comparison until you stop and actually think about the numbers, I mean really stop and ingest this information.  30,000 pounds?  Daily!!?  Even the bad catch of several dozens is still no small amount of fish.  What are we talking, 36, 48, a hundred fish?  In one day?  You might not be making your mortgage payments, but you’re not anywhere near in danger of going hungry or extinct.

“I guarantee those seals have caught a hell of a lot more cod than the port of Chatham has,” said John Our, another fisherman.  Well, John, after having filmed the video below, I’m going to have to disagree.

You may not like with what I said in this article, and perhaps I’m wrong about some things.  But I’ll put money on this; if mankind does go extinct it won’t be due to sharks, seals, or any animal other than the most dangerous animal to ever inhabit this planet.  You don’t need me to tell you who I mean.

Quick shout out to Sharon Young for stating in the Boston Globe article. “We have a stewardship responsibility,” says Young. “It’s our obligation to be benevolent to those over which we have power.

I’m learning a lot in this crazy, fever-pitched world of sharks.  Not the least of which is a lesson I should already know; it’s not smart to make assumptions. For example, “scientist” is not synonymous with “conservationist” and it was my mistake to assume they went hand in hand.  While many scientists may be conservation minded, it is not a requirement.  It is their job to gather the data, not to save the shark.  Hopefully the data they gather can be used to help conserve the shark, but again, that isn’t their job. So who’s job is it?  That’s the million-dollar question and we’ll get to that.

Something else I learned is that “researcher” is not the same as “scientist”.  I recently paid off my graduate school loans and was burdened by the idea that I needed to go back to school again for a biology degree in order to back up any films or statements I might make. It was at that time that a biologist friend of mine told me not to bother.  Marine biology degrees or other such credentials are not required to conduct research*1, in fact, a surprisingly large number of “shark experts” do not have educational credentials in the same field of their research. Look no further than Shark Week if you doubt this. Not only are the majority of their “experts” not biologists, sometimes you’re lucky if they aren’t paid actors (See Megalodon Lives). 

I’m not insinuating that one needs a degree to know what they’re talking about, there are number of people who spend ¾ of the year observing sharks in their environment, but don’t have credentials, yet I would say their time in the field qualifies them to know what they’re talking about, perhaps more so than those with credentials in some cases.  Nevertheless, it was a bit of a revelation to discover I could go out and “study” sharks as long as I could come up with the means to do it.*2

When I was growing up, watching shark specials from a living room thousands of miles from the closest ocean, the mysterious and almost surreal world of the white shark struck me as one that only the elite of the scientific realm were allowed to enter… a who’s who club where not everyone was allowed to play…that those dealing with the sharks were the most capable available and the sharks were in the best hands possible.*3  

But I digress.  The point I’m slowly working my way to is that I’ve begun seriously wondering about the data that is being collected.  Yet another assumption of mine was that the data being collected on these sharks was being put to the best use possible.  What is done with it?  Is all of it used?  Does some of it end up in a file that work conditions simply make it impossible to ever have a chance to analyze?  Is the collection of this data always useful?  If not, why else gather it?  Why else indeed. Sadly, the more people I talk to the more I hear answers indicating the data is less about the shark and more about the person doing the collection…From hoarding information, fighting over naming sharks, sabotaging tags, to fabricating stories about the competition, there’s definitely a blemish on the face of white shark research.  Let me say that by no means am I putting all researchers in this category.  And even those who are career oriented I can’t judge too harshly, for if they don’t have a career with funding...well, that makes it hard to have a career.  But that in turn opens the door to question the motivation behind the research.  After all, as a researcher, if you’re not out collecting data you’re not going to get your next grant, sponsorship, TV contract, paycheck, name in Science Today, or whatever the specific case may be, so doesn’t it behoove a researcher to not only justify his research, but to perhaps withhold findings from the rest of the scientific community or make misleading statements as to the value of the study being conducted?  One "researcher" in particular has become a millionaire by justifying his sensationalist approach of gathering data. (If you're a researcher and hate my guts right now take a deep breath.)

Here’s some background.  My introduction to white sharks came in 2004 when I spent a month and half volunteering to work on a boat in South Africa.  Even then I remember the locals debating the value of tagging, referring to ‘tag overkill’.  Here it is seven years later and every one of those years has been filled with the tagging and attempted tagging of sharks globally. "To date more than 300 sharks have been tagged with acoustic pingers in South Africa", says Chris Fallows, of Simons Town.  If we were approaching tag overkill back in 2004 then where are we now? Granted, past tagging has proven to be very informative.  We learned that white sharks swim between South Africa and Australia, from California to Hawaii.  We learned about the mysterious “Shark Café” in the Pacific Ocean.  I even learned that white sharks sometimes come under the Golden Gate Bridge into San Francisco Bay from time to time.  But what about future tagging and data collection; How much do we need?  What do we truly need to know?  When does it end? Does it? When does its value reach a zenith? Have we already reached that zenith? Ichthyologist Jeff Reinhardt states, “As a shark biologist, I am against using extensive and lethal measures to find data that really doesn’t need to be known at the expense of a rare and protected species.” 
Below I examine one organization that might be blurring the truth of data in order to ensure its own success.

There is currently a massive media sensation following an organization called OCEARCH, which is tagging sharks around the world.  They happen to use methods of tagging that I disagree with (if you want to know why I disagree continue reading the fine print)*4.  But who am I to disagree?  Fair enough, ignore my opinion and let's put the tagging method aside; I am bothered by the fact that public interviews aired on television and published in papers include what I would consider misleading, if not altogether false statements.  Why make such statements?  To justify the research?  To secure the ongoing career(s) and funding of the individual(s) involved?  I’ll give you some examples of such quotes:

1. “We don’t know where they (the sharks) are, where they go, what they eat, why they are here”.  This has ben repeated multiple times in news articles as well as video interviews.  Well, I must offer disagreement with such statements.  Other scientists published this data long ago with less invasive methods.  Those scientists simply didn’t become TV celebs, and if you're not on TV, that means most of this country doesn't know who you are.

2. “This is the first research of its kind”, "pioneering new research that's never been done before", "the first of its kind in history". The number of times this is said in the course of just one interview and at least once in every interview shows that OCEARCH knows how important it is to mesmerize the public.  And I have to disagree with these statements on multiple levels.  Position tracking of white sharks has been taking place for a very long time.  If OCEARCH is referring to this specific method of hauling the shark and attaching SPOT tags I also have to disagree since this method was taken from another scientist, whom, whether I agree with his methods or not, is the one who pioneered that method.  OCEARCH took his method and ran.  Financially it seems to have been a brilliant move.  Ralph Collier, president of the Shark Research Committee had this to say “The record should be clear that any such study by Fischer and his group, is not the first study for this topic."

3. “We can’t put policy in place to protect these sharks if we don’t have this data.” Well, I would like to clarify some things.  Policies are in place. They just aren’t enforced well.  When existing data is ignored by the powers that be (those who set fishing restrictions, etc.), what assurance is there that more data will change that?  Furthermore, this particular organization has been conducting its work for the better part of a decade.  In their defense I’d like someone to please list policy changes that have been made as a result of their work thus far.  Please list any bills or proposals this organization has started or authored in an attempt to further the conservation of these sharks.  The irony that really bothers me is that marine sanctuaries such as the Gulf of the Farralones National Marine Sanctuary has policies in place that prohibit people from even approaching these sharks up to a certain distance for "the good of the shark"...yet this policy was thrown out the window when the OCEARCH guys came into town.  These sharks that were so strictly protected that you couldn't approach them were suddenly allowed to be "wrangled". OCEARCH has been collecting data for 7 years.  Which year are they going to approach the politicians mentioned in this interview?

4. “Risking their lives to save the sharks”.  The only lives in danger here are those of the sharks.  These guys are operating on a boat the size of a battleship.  Even the revenge seeking shark from JAWS 4 couldn't get to these guys.

5. "Scientists are really surprised by these discoveries" (referring to the tagged sharks moving on the Atlantic coast).  What scientists are surprised by this?  Insect scientists?  If you're a white shark scientist and you're surprised that these sharks move up and down a coast, especially after more than a decade of migration tracking studies, you're a bad scientist.

6. Here's a quote justifying the killing of sharks they study.  "If you have to catch 100 sharks to solve a 450-million-year-old puzzle and you know you’re going to kill three of them to save the rest is it worth it?"  Well, that's a glittering generality statement made to dazzle people that don't know any better.  Rather than be dazzled, stop and ask:

• What is this puzzle exactly?  Why does it need to be solved?  
• An animal that has existed 450 million years with no natural predators*, yet has made its way onto the threatened species list during the short span man has existed on this planet tells me one thing.  Man is the problem.  Mystery solved.
• What exactly is the proposed method of "saving the rest"? Saving them sounds great, sure.  It also sounds great for me to say I don't approve of sharking finning, but as far as you know I had another spoonful of shark fin soup as I said it.
• These aren't cows, rats, or even a more common species of shark.  This is a relatively rare shark, one that doesn't reproduce quickly.  In fact, many scientists agree that these sharks don't reproduce until reaching the 15 or 16 foot mark, the very sharks that are being targeted.  So, to refer to the killing of a few being OK for the good of the many, when the population in question is already low, I believe conservation should come first and experimentation second.

I just returned from a trip to Cape Cod where this organization is currently conducting its work.  I interviewed many locals who attended their publicity events.  The leader of the campaign referred to himself as the next Jaques Cousteau.  He implied that they were the pioneers of tagging the Atlantic white shark…right in front of the tagging team that, ironically, is currently grounded due to OCEARCH’s presence in town.  It's worth noting that the existing team in Cape Cod successfully tagged 30 white sharks since the sharks began making their return to the area in recent years.  These guys and their work were not mentioned at all.  In their present campaign, costing a reported $750,000 dollars for the month of August alone, OCEARCH has not tagged a single shark to date.  I think I could come up with other ways to use that money on shark conservation.*5

If you don’t already disagree with me, pretend that you do now.  Let’s say someone films a white shark giving birth for the first time.  What’s going to change?  So my question regarding data is, "How much is the right amount before conservative action is taken?"  What is the grand goal we are striving for?  After we film white sharks mating and know what their body temperature is at all hours of the day, what comes next?  A brief headline then business as usual?  Or will one of these events be the magic event that brings salvation to the species?  What does the best data amount to when the powers that be ignore the advice based on that data anyway? What’s going to change?  Despite what Fischer says, we know where they spend most of the year.  We know which direction most of them head to when they leave and what their destination is.  And we know they are still being caught on long lines, drowning in gill nets, being “accidentally” caught by fishermen (who smile and pose for pictures with their “accidental” trophies), and white sharks continue to be blatantly, outright hunted by poachers.  Hey, I may have just solved Mr. Fischer's 450 million year puzzle; do away with what I just listed above and I'll bet money the white sharks will be just fine.

I’m afraid I made this sound like an attack on researchers.  It’s not, it’s more of an invitation for us to all look at ourselves and question what motivates each of us.  Remember I said that it is not the job of researchers to save the sharks?  Remember the million dollar question at the beginning, “Who’s job is it to protect the shark?”  I believe the answer is that it is the job of all of us. We are stewards of the earth and we need to start doing things because it’s the right thing to do and not because of financial or personal gain.

So the next time you hear about senators suddenly vetoing a shark protection bill they originally helped write, or hear about juvenile white sharks dying in fishing nets (in the same place, year after year), or watch a video of a shark that looks like its being mistreated, even if its in the name of science, question what you are seeing and hearing and make your voice heard.


Questions I leave you with to discuss openly here:

Is tagging the same as research?  Why or why not?

What percent of research is conducted for personal interest rather than for the shark?

What is an example of past / existing data that aided the formation of a new and helpful conservation policy (they exist, I’m not saying they don’t).

Do you have an example from your geographic location (Australia, South Africa, Southern California, etc.) of advice provided by researchers that was ignored by those who establish and control policy? 

Opinion to debate:  Nature knows what it's doing.  The best thing we can do is leave it alone.

The fine print that I promised:

*1 "There are scientists that have honed their skills within a multi-disciplinary course of study however; these people include those who study the science and policy management integration. This is the leading edge of pure science and management capabilities that combine a strategy for effective decisive action". - Jeff Reinhart, marine biologist.


*2  While a permit or research credential are not always required to initially conduct your work, once you have brought enough attention to yourself regulations may often follow.



*3 Instead, big game fishermen with a history of fishing shows get to team up with scientists badly in need of funding to experiment with controversial methods on a protected species while getting rich.  According to "policy", anyone else doing this would be breaking the law.


*4 Why I disagree.

• Dorsal fin damage (usually permanent)
• High rate of failure in tags.  
• Trauma to shark during hooking and hauling.
• Trauma to shark while out of water.
• Trauma to shark while its weight (tons) rests on a hard platform rather than supported by the ocean.
• Altered hunting pattern of shark
• Inhumane (in my opinion) manner of hooking, fighting, dragging, and exhausting the shark.
• Falsified justification for pursuing the tagging.
• Ignoring already existing, less invasive methods.
• Confirmed killing of sharks subjected to this treatment
• Confirmed disappearance of sharks from their feeding ground after being subjected to this treatment.

*5 Things to do with the money.

• Give it to the researchers who were already doing a good job with less invasive methods.
• Develop smaller tags.
• Influence lobbyists and senators to work toward shark conservation.
• Fund fleets of boats that free sharks from nets.
• Patrol known feeding grounds for poachers.
• Remove long lines from known and suspected pupping locations