The below permit was just made available to me by a shark advocate on the east coast.  It is the most incomplete, unprofessional, ridiculous farce for a permit I've ever read.  The bulk of the permit pertains to not holding Massachusetts responsible and doesn't mention anywhere safety concerns for the sharks.  The sharks are simply allowed to be "taken and possessed" for "scientific purposes".  What does "taken and possessed" mean?  What about the method of possessing them?  Any regulations there at all?  Any size or sex limitations?  Any time restrictions?  What about determining if the shark has already been tagged and what to do in that situation? 
"Take and possess"has a scary ring to it, particularly when not followed up by any definition.  And that's where mention of the sharks ends.  Everything else is about the area to be worked in and not being held responsible for anything that goes wrong.  No where does the permit list or demand any safety procedures defining acceptable methods for obtaining the sharks.   Nor is there a list of what is unacceptable.  This is a free for all.

Can anyone tell me what defines "smallest zone of attraction possible", because this permit certainly doesn't define it in even the broadest of terms.  Is this for OCEARCH to decide as they go?  Apparently so.

Making it worse is the fact that the marine fisheries just rejected recommendations from local researchers not to allow the exact type of methods OCEARCH will be using due to concerns for both man and animal.  That was rejected and in place a permit was issued with pretty much no regulations whatsoever.  

Oh, excuse me, they aren't allowed to do this on Saturdays and Sundays.  (Let's see if they even follow that rule).

Reed and weep.

1 Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Paul J. Diodati 

Director 

Deval Patrick 

Governor 

Richard K. Sullivan, Jr. 

Secretary 

Mary B. Griffin 

Commissioner 

Division of Marine Fisheries 

251 Causeway Street, Suite 400 

Boston, Massachusetts 02114 

(617)626-1520 

fax (617)626-1509 

Scientific Permit Number: 167281 

Date: July 10, 2013 

RESEARCH PERMIT 

Pursuant to its authority under M.G.L. Chapter 130, Sections: 17(2) and (3), 38, 69, 75, 80, and 83, the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) hereby grants this Research Permit to: 

Chris Fisher 

OCEARCH 

1790 Bonanza Drive, Ste 101 

Park City, Utah 84060 

The following activities are authorized by this Research Permit: 

To take and possess white sharks for scientific purposes, subject to the conditions below. 

Aboard vessel(s): M/V OCEARCH (126’) and 28’ Tournament Model Contender 


1. The primary collector for OCEARCH for the duration of this permit shall be Chris Fisher. This permit or a copy must be in the possession of OCEARCH’s primary collector, or his designee, while taking and/or possessing white sharks for scientific purposes.

2. The taking and possessing of white sharks shall begin no sooner than July 29, 2013 and be completed no later than August 30, 2013. 

3. No taking or possession of white sharks shall take place on Saturdays and Sundays, unless authorized in advance in writing by DMF. 

4. OCEARCH shall conduct the fishing for white sharks in a manner that results in the smallest zone of attraction possible to accomplish its goals. 

5. Unless authorized in advance in writing by DMF, the area of taking and possession of white sharks authorized by this Research Permit is restricted to those waters east and south of Monomoy Island (Chatham) and around Muskegat Island (Nantucket). 

6. OCEARCH shall indemnify and hold harmless the Commonwealth, including the Department of Fish and Game and Division of Marine Fisheries, its agents, officers and employees, against any and all claims, liabilities and outside costs for any personal injury or property damage, or other damages that the Commonwealth may sustain which arise out of or are reasonably connected with the activities authorized by this Research Permit, including but not limited to negligence, reckless or intentional conduct of OCEARCH, its agents, officers, employees or subcontractors and which are reduced to a final, non-appealable judgment or settlement with OCEARCH’s prior written consent, not to be unreasonably withheld. OCEARCH shall at no time be considered an agent or representative of the Commonwealth, the Department of Fish and Game or Division of Marine Fisheries. The Commonwealth shall not be liable for any costs incurred by OCEARCH arising under this indemnification provision. 

7. A copy of this Research Permit specifying the conditions applicable to OCEARCH’s permitted activities must be available at all times aboard each vessel identified in the permit when conducting the permitted activities. A copy of this Research Permit must also be provided to an environmental police officer upon request. 

This Research Permit will expire on August 31, 2013 unless revoked for cause by DMF prior to this termination date. 

Paul J. Diodati, Director 

I want to first thank Melissa Smith and Ross Weir for participating in the interview with me and sharing extensive knowledge.  Also contributing to the interview were Blair Ransford and Barry Bruce.  Due to length, this interview will be presented in multiple parts, so check back in next week.

WSV - I recently read about your collaboration with Blue Seals to stop longlining. On my recent trips the local dive companies told me horror stories of longlines wiping out resident and migratory sharks, as well as turtles, birds, etc.  But what about white sharks? How do longlines affect whites in Western Australia?  


WASC - Longlining is a destructive fisheries practice that we at WASC would like to see banned in Australian waters. Long lining by commercial, Commonwealth and State fisheries impacts on the Great Whites by killing them directly, as by-catch.  Even those that are released alive are affected as some later succumb to death.  It also impacts upon these sharks by killing the animals they predate upon.

We do know that white sharks are being killed on these destructive longlines, including juveniles. Barry Bruce of the CSIRO has shown what is considered to be two separate populations, one on the Eastern seaboard of Tasmania and one west of Tasmania.  The South West Tuna and Billfish fisheries use longlines and it is very likely that Great Whites are also caught in Seiners targeting endangered blue fin tuna. Many of these are, of course, also a food source for the diminishing Great White shark population.


WSV - Can you give me any specific numbers?  Is anyone studying this?


WASC - Long lining and its impact on the Great White Shark population is a complicated affair, primarily due to the migratory nature of the Great White Sharks and the lack of intensive research done on the issue.  Barry Bruce of the CSIRO is considered one of the major researchers into Great White Sharks in Australia and his studies concluded that Great White Sharks in eastern and southern Australia form two genetically separate populations which are highly mobile population (Bruce and Colleagues 2006). These sharks are inhabiting the waters of the two states which report ongoing mortalities within their State-Managed Fisheries, these are South Australia and Western Australia.

The data that reflects mortalities by commercial fisheries, by Commonwealth fisheries and by state fisheries are a combination of both longlining and gill net related deaths.

Commonwealth managed fisheries indicates that there were approximately 37 Great White Sharks caught between 2002–2008 of which 27 were reported as being released alive (DEWHA 2008aaaa). Only South Australia and Western Australia reported interactions from within their state managed fisheries - of those, Western Australia reported 10 interactions in 2007–2008 while South Australia reported five interactions in 2007–2008 (DEWHA 2008aaaa).

The studies do however acknowledge that the true mortality rate of Great Whites resulting from commercial and recreational fisheries practices is far higher than Commonwealth and State statistics. Although not specifically targeted, they are caught as by-catch on longlines and in the nets of professional fishers and in fin fish farm cages such as tuna farms. This is currently thought to be the largest cause of mortality for Great White Sharks.
The estimate of Great White Sharks caught by commercial and recreational fisheries is listed as anywhere between 100-440 per year throughout Australian waters.

WSV - What about drum lining?

WASC - Drum lining for Shark Control Programs on the coasts are having a huge impact on Great White Sharks and this is documented in much more detail. While WA’s Imminent Threat Policy includes the use of Drum lines on occasion, Queensland has been drum lining year round for decades and the damage this has done is massive. The Queensland program which operates from the Gold Coast to Cairns, uses 344 baited* drum lines year round (Green et al. 2009). The hook is baited every other day with fresh sea mullet, which is a naturally occurring food source for sharks (Qld DPI&F 2006). Between 1985–1986 and 2008–09, some 18,900 sharks were caught in the Queensland Shark Protection Program (Qld OESR 2009). Of these, 214 (or approximately 1%) were Great White Sharks.

*note, these are baited lines.  The lines are intended to reduce shark activity in the area, yet bait is used to attract the sharks.  Seems rather unfair.

WSV - In addition to longlines, drumlines, etc., your sharks are also facing the ‘Imminent Threat’ policy.  To summarize for the readers, this is a government sanctioned program to destroy any shark lingering in waters “too long”.  What can you tell me about this?


WASC - The Imminent Threat Policy is an another example of Political Policies that result from purely financial interests, so much so that even endangered species can be targeted such as the Great White Shark. When the spate of attacks occurred in WA, former Department of Fisheries Minister Norman Moore attempted to have the protected status removed from the Great White Shark, reasoning that they could not possibly be endangered when they had been seen during attacks or near attack spots. Luckily, the protected status was not lifted, but the Imminent Threat Policy was introduced by Premier Colin Barnett and Norman Moore, which threatens these endangered sharks.


Norman Moore stated that his primary reason for pursuing the Imminent Threat Policy was because he felt WA’s Tourism sector would suffer as a result of the attacks and this policy would lessen the impact that attacks had on holiday destinations, particularly in WA’s south west. Premier Barnett supported this policy to garner more votes in showing that he had his state’s ‘Shark Problem’ under control while the media frenzy called WA ‘Shark Attack Capital of The World.’

WSV - When dealing with a “threatened” species, I have found myself on more than one occasion wondering why policies and permits are set forth that allow for the damage and destruction of the animal before proof is shown that these policies are solidly founded.


WASC - WA Premier Colin Barnett and former Fisheries Minister Norman Moore sought studies from other parts of the country to help them make an ‘informed decision’ about what kind of shark control program would suit WA. The main study was done by Bond University and its results were based on the history of Eastern States Shark Control Programs. Critically, the study revealed:

• Shark control programs do not provide a continuous barrier that prevents access to beaches by sharks. Instead they aim to reduce the number of sharks that could cause harm to humans through shark meshing nets and drum lines, essentially killing or capturing them.
  
  
• There is a high likelihood that a shark control program in WA would have potential implications on any currently threatened marine species or where conservation concerns are emerging that would be vulnerable to control-gear.
  
  
• Shark Control Programs result in the capture of a wide range of by-catch species including marine mammals, turtles and sharks and rays not implicated in unprovoked attacks on humans.
• Due to the environmental impacts of shark control activities, it is not recommended that either shark nets or drum lines be introduced in Western Australia
  

The Bond University findings were sent to WA’s Department of Fisheries and despite its recommendations that Western Australia’s coast should not be subject to drum lines, when the Imminent Threat Policy was drafted two months later, these findings were ignored and Drum Lining was included in the policy dealing with Pre-Emptive slaughter. Once again we see that the politicians favored an environmentally unsound program (which has played out in Queensland for nearly three decades with huge numbers of sharks killed along with turtles, dolphins and rays) because that is what suited them financially.

Bond University Study:

http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop108.pdf

WSV - Who does this type of policy really benefit?

WASC - Who does the Imminent Threat Policy benefit? As previously discussed, it benefited politicians like former Fisheries Minister Norman Moore, WA Premier Colin Barnett also benefited hugely as he was re-elected in March of this year. In addition to the political benefactors of The Imminent Threat Policy, the tourism sector also benefited. The public saw an increase in Surf Lifesavers with Jet Skis and helicopters on Shark Watch all summer which was very beneficial for them, but this part of the policy was attached to another portion of the funding.

WSV - How many sharks have been killed directly by the pre-emptive killing policy?


WASC -This summer period was the first trial of The Imminent Threat Policy and only one drum line action was instigated by The Department of Fisheries. This action occurred in WA’s South West, near Dunsborough in early January 2013 where it was alleged that ‘menacing great whites’ had been present on the same beach for a period of several days. A Kill Order was issued by the Department of Fisheries and they employed the services of vessel ‘North Islander’ and its crew to deploy drum lines in attempt to catch these ‘menacing sharks’. The end result after a couple of days was the capture and release of two tiger sharks officially. Drum lines were pulled out of the water with no capture or even sighting of the great whites.


The reaction to this first drum lining attempt in the Dunsborough community was quite strong. Surfers complained that the burleying of the waters by ‘The North Islander’ was likely to attract sharks long after the lines had been pulled up and the community demanded to know how much this fruitless effort cost. The Department of Fisheries refused to release details on the expense of the exercise and another drum lining was not attempted for the rest of the summer period of 2012-2013.


WSV - A large sum of money was put toward the shark cull.  How much money does the government give to shark research organizations?


WASC - The Imminent Threat Policy was actually broken down into several funding initiatives that spread the $6 million across several different shark control matters. Funding was allocated as following:

• $2 million allocated to the Pre-Emptive killing of sharks deemed ‘an imminent threat’ over the space of 4 years.
  
  
• $2 million for research and tagging. While $300,000 worth of funding was given to the Shark Hazard and Research Committee (SHARC) at the University of WA to research different forms of shark repellents etc, it is worth noting that, since the introduction of The Imminent Threat Policy, no sharks have been tagged in WA waters.
  
  
• $2 million dollars allocated to a Shark Watch tower for Cottesloe Beach (not completed) and funding for water-skis for Surf Lifesavers as well as the daily patrol of 2 helicopters.
  
  

WSV - What’s the likelihood that we, mankind, are in fact responsible for the increase in sightings near shore?

WASC - The obvious answer to this question is yes, there are many things that mankind does which could be considered to be increasing the amount of sightings near shore. These include fisheries operations and other vessels jettisoning waste, overfishing areas of the ocean that sharks frequent, impacting on the population of seals, sea lions, sea birds and other species that are prey items. Activity around river mouths is also included, particularly since we tend to use river mouths as Ports and marinas for fishing vessels. Also overfishing of sharks must be considered since it has badly damaged the breeding stock, forcing them to move to areas they have not been found to visit with regularity historically. All these things can pressure sharks closer to shores in search of food or breeding.


This is however a double sided question. We are creating more ways of monitoring sharks through tagging practices, through shark watch programs, and having more people, in more vehicles on the ground, in the water and in the sky looking specifically for sharks whether it be for “beach safety”, for research and protection or through targeted fishing.


Therefore it can also be said that while more sharks are being reported in the surf zone, it can also be easily argued that seeing more sharks in shallow water doesn’t mean their presence there is new or unusual: only that there are more eyes on the water now than ever before. Basically, more research is needed to truly answer this question


WSV - Obviously, the more eyes on the water, the more sharks will be spotted.  Directly associated to more eyes on the water is the concept of increased numbers of beaches accessible to humans.  How many beaches in the last two decades have been developed on that were previously uninhabited?


WASC - Western Australia has received a lot of growth in the last twenty years due to both the tourism sector and in general population. The South West of WA has been at the forefront of this growth with towns such as Albany and Dunsborough which were historically Whaling Stations growing into tourist locations for their beautiful white sandy beaches. The Margaret River area, which is also part of the South West has grown immensely also, not just for beach areas but due to its vineyards making it a major tourist draw. With business growth comes steady residential population growth and far more people are now living in these towns and enjoying the extended beaches of the coast.


The population increase in the outer CBD is also reflected in the building of another Train Line which extends out to the Mandurah coastal area which, until about ten years ago was primarily a tourism area, but now the residential population in the Mandurah, Falcon area has exploded. The North West of WA has several major tourism areas, all centralised around coastal hotspots, but much of the actual land is divided amongst the mining industry.


There are many more boats out on the coast than there were twenty years ago and more Marinas have been built and existing ones extended to deal with this increase of recreational boating traffic. The Fremantle Port which traditionally has been the main port for all of Perth’s imports and exports has grown and changed. Fremantle has spread into a large residential beach side town with many tourist draws.


The live export industry, particularly to the Middle East is based in Fremantle with hundreds of thousands of sheep and cattle being trucked to this port for loading onto Live Export Vessels. These vessels spew a lot of waste into the river mouth as they stay loading for days at a time and the Fremantle Mayor has been supporting the Stop Live Export Movement of Perth in a bid to rid Fremantle of these vessels. Another Port is being reclaimed in an area called Kwinana which is commercial.


The population of WA has certainly grown and the use of our coastline has increased, now more than ever the beaches are filled with swimmers, surfers, divers and kayakers. Studies have shown that the spread of the population around Southern WA and the greater Perth region show a pattern consistent with the distribution of water based activities along the coast when matched up to shark attacks.  

Pretty bold title isn't it?  Don't worry, I back it up.  Unfortunately, most people, including the news, don't know the difference between fact and fiction when it comes to sharks. OCEARCH is no exception.   These guys are good at saying the right things in order to get support...unfortunately, what they are saying is not true.  

Back that up with examples you say?  Gladly.

These are direct quotes from Chris Fischer, on camera, from an interview with CBS First Watch.  

• LIE 1 "We don't know where they (white sharks) feed."  - CF
  
  
• Hmmm, let me unravel the mystery for you, Fischer.  The places they feed are each of the aggregation sites that OCEARCH has traveled directly to in order to tag the sharks.  Let me put that another way.  The sharks are at exactly the place you went to because you knew they would be there.  It was not a mysterious voyage out to sea.  You went from Isla Guadalupe to the Farallones to False Bay, Gansbaai, Cape Cod, etc. because these areas are well documented.  These are the same places the shark’s food source can be found, the same places islands of pinnipeds are found, the sames places documentaries are filmed and the same places white shark cage-diving exists because the people running cage diving KNOW THAT'S WHERE THE SHARKS ARE.
  
  
• LIE 2 "We don't know where they go." - CF
  
  
• Wow.  Scientists around the world tracked the movements of white sharks way before OCEARCH ever came around and did so without harming the sharks.  For example, in South Africa, one specific study of white sharks conducted between 2002-2003 led to the discovery of intercontinental travel between Australia and South Africa, most notably by the shark Nicole.  In California, TOPP provided extensive migratory data showing white sharks moving along the California coast, movements between California and the Farallon Islands, movements between California and Hawaii, movements between Baha and Hawaii as well as to a mysterious spot in the Pacific Ocean known as the White Shark Cafe.  Not only do we know where they go, but we know when they go and for how long and where they go next.  All this data was published before OCEARCH and was provided using PAT tags, which are attached harmlessly to the shark as it swims by.  While we don't know everything about these sharks, lack of data isn't the problem. Lack of action is.   This leads to the next lie.
  
  

"Now we at least have a system where we let them all go alive." - Chris Fischer, in an interview with CBS claims that his method of study is the only one that doesn't kill the sharks.  Ironically, his method has actually killed at least one white shark (n camera) and some suspect more.


In the image on the left, 5 flotation devices have been attached to the shark's jaw via a large hook in order to keep the shark at surface and drag it for hours to the point of mortal exhaustion before being hauled out of water for further mishandling. Also pictured, Captain Brett McBride jumps into the water whenever the near dead shark is brought onto the platform for no apparent reason other than TV drama.

• LIE / MISLEADING STATEMENT 4 “Back in the day when these scientists wanted to study sharks they would go out and kill them all and sample them.  Now at least we have a way to study them and let them all go alive.” - CF
  
  
• This is directly misleading.  Fischer insinuates that his method is the only method that is used to study sharks without killing them (when in fact his method is the only one that has killed them).  
  
  
• Fischer basically says that until he came along all scientists killed sharks in order to study them and his method is the only one that releases them alive.  I think some scientists might like to argue that one.
  
  
• MISLEADING STATEMENT “We don’t know where they mate or give birth”.
  
  
• No, it's not on film, but scientists have a pretty good idea of where birthing happens based on the size and number of small white sharks found in specific areas.  These are the waters that already need protection.  More data from OCEARCH won’t change that.  In the meantime OCEARCH is hooking, dragging, and hauling out of water adult female white sharks that are essential for the next generation of white sharks.  This action can cause pregnancy issues or disrupt mating habits.
• Honestly, I'd hate to see what organizations like OCEARCH will do if they find out where birthing and mating take place.

Reflection:

Let’s put this in a best case scenario...

• Let’s say Fischer and crew are allowed to do this do white sharks for another decade.  Let’s say every shark in the ocean is tagged.  Let’s say we know their blood types and can call them by name.  How will that change the future of the sharks?  How will that stop sharks from being caught in long lines or drowning in nets?  Tagged sharks are already dying in nets just offshore of areas we already know they migrate to.  More data is not what we need.  Action is what we need!
  
  
• Put the shoe on the other foot and now provide data against my argument.  Please give me an example of how and why data from OCEARCH’s tag collection will change the status quo for sharks.  
  

Today we're going to talk about two sharks, tagged by the early pairing of Domeier and Fischer (Ocearch) in 2009.  Four years later these animals are still suffering residual damage while most of us have forgotten about them and Domeier is being considered to be allowed back into the Gulf of the Farallones Marine Sanctuary.  In the meantime, the Ocearch crew has gone from Ocean to Ocean continuing its mutilation of a "protected" species.  The only real change is that the crew is richer than ever and some sharks have died.  To break things down to consumable bites I've provided my own infographic which can be found here.