I've been asked repeatedly to release my entire conversation with the shark cull contractor in the south of Western Australia so here it is (and it's long).  Whether you agree with the cull or not, this conversation offers a unique platform to analyze the cull.  It's pretty clear from watching the video that Graeme Pateman is a likable guy even if you don't like how he makes his money.   For the record, despite my personal opinion, I was very nice during this interview, in fact, I barely had to open my mouth...Graeme just kept talking.  So much so that I had to break this interview into multiple parts.  I have not cut out or changed any of his or my words, but I have inserted topical footage from my time.

Graeme is correct when he says makos, black tip whalers, etc. are not protected in Western Australia (the full list of protected fish can be seen here).  All species of hammerhead sharks are listed as either endangered or vulnerable on the IUCN red list, but that is not the same as being protected in state or federal waters, which they are neither in WA.

Part 1 primarily caused me to think about the press releases prior to the cull in which the Government said they were taking careful measures to make sure the mitigation was carried out in as humane and professional manner as possible.  That just doesn't seem to be the case, nor does it seem to be financially efficient as you'll see in part 2.

Part 2, among other topics, discusses the payment of the cull contractor. The press released the number $5705, based upon the estimated total amount to be spent on the contractor in the south alone over the trial period.  Graeme told me $5000 per day in the interview.  When I double checked on that he explained that it was actually $5500, however, this number subtracts Goods and Service Tax.  Calculate the total however you feel comfortable, but I usually don't get to claim that my income is less than it is because of taxes. One young deck hand, fuel for two runs a day, and bait ( which was not always changed as I witnessed with my own eyes ) seems like rather minimal expenses.  So, debate all you want whether his profit range was $4,000 a day, $5,000 a day, or somewhere in-between, whichever total you come to is an obscene amount of money.

Something else I can't shake from this interview is the fact that it was a trial run during a period of time that white sharks are known to not frequent the ares.  Simultaneously the WA Government stated they wanted the drum lines in the water as soon as possible for public safety.  So was it for public safety or was it to conduct a trial run?  

Perhaps the most common theme throughout all my interviews with pro-cullers across Australia was the phrase "something had to be done" and the government was "doing what it could to increase human beach safety".  Delivered by itself, the phrase "doing what we can to increase human safety" sounds great. The problem is the evident lack of understanding or rationale when you ask these people to explain what the cull is, how it works, how it makes the beaches safer, and why they feel safer with drum lines in the water.  While actual rationale was missing from these explanations the conversations also had something else in common; the words "feeling better".  So, animals were killed to for a placebo effect...what was actually accomplished was a calming of fear buzzing in the brains. Whether you love sharks or hate sharks, perhaps the first step is realizing this is a battle with ourselves rather than a battle with the sharks before we can even touch the topic of whether it is right to kill other animals in their own homes.

I would bet good money that 98 percent of people out there will say they are more afraid of sharks than lions.  But why?

Shark enthusiast that I am, I still find it easier to IMAGINE myself having a fun-filled, cuddly day with a lion instead of a shark.  Why?  Not because of my knowledge and experience with lions, but because of WHAT I THINK I KNOW about lions.  I’ve never encountered a lion in the wild.  In fact I’ve only seen one in a zoo, TV, or book.  But my impression of lions is one of a mammal that lives in a social, family-oriented lifestyle that is warm, furry, licks its cubs, and eats small, deer-like things such as antelope (not people).  All of that information I gained because of what I read or saw on TV.  In summary, I’ve never encountered a lion yet fear is far from the first thing on my mind when a lion is brought up in conversation.

Contrast that with a shark.  Despite a growing number of shark enthusiasts there remains an extremely small percentage of people on this planet who have encountered or seen a living shark.  Yet the majority of this same percentage of people who have never seen a shark will tell you they are afraid of sharks.  Again, not based on what they actually know of sharks from experience, but from what they have heard or seen on TV, the theater, other people, the news, etc.

Statistically this makes no sense.  By the numbers, lions blow sharks out of the water in terms of people killed and even numbers of people eaten.  Yes, that’s a bit of a loaded statistic since humans and lions are both land-based animals, but still, the bottom line is that lions can, do, and will kill continue to kill a !$#%* load more people than sharks.  Shouldn’t that scare you?  ONE lion named, Namvelieza, killed 43 people. That single lion more than doubled the number of people killed by every shark of every species on the ENTIRE PLANET on average per year!!  Aren’t actual statistics of people killed and eaten what we should base our fear on?  No.  Because that’s not how fear works.

Here’s a little psychological exercise about fear I performed on myself that leveled the playing field between lions and sharks a bit.  I imagined myself magically alone in the Serengeti with an adult lion not too far away from me.  Next I imagined myself on SCUBA, alone in the ocean, with an adult white shark not too far away from me.  Guess what?  I am less concerned about the white shark than the lion.  Why?  I am more familiar with the shark than the lion.  I’ve encountered white sharks enough times over the last decade that I feel confident that my chances of survival are quite high.  Note that I’m not declaring myself a shark whisperer or that I am even correct in feeling safer, in fact that’s the point; the feeling I have is a product of my perception of a situation I am familiar with.  The lion on the other hand I don’t really know much about.  I can try to apply what I think I know about encountering a lion in the wild, but that pales in comparison to the confidence of real life experiences with the white shark.

Conclusion:

When we cull sharks, we aren’t saving people from sharks, we’re saving them from fear.  We fear what we don’t know; what we are unfamiliar with.  Naturally, we are less familiar with the world under the ocean (sadly, we’re rather unfamiliar with the world above the surface as well).  This allows us to fall victim to false information and even our own imaginations.  When it comes to sharks, fear is the real problem, not the shark.  Sooooo many things on this planet kill soooo many more people than sharks do. In fact the numbers are so low it’s debatable whether shark incidences should even qualify as “a problem”.  

The issue is unfounded fear.  The cull helps solve unfounded fear with unfounded mitigation.  It makes people feel better.  Therefore the cull actually does solve a problem so to speak as long as one admits that the problem is fear and the cull is a security blanket that won’t protect people from sharks any better than a nightlight will protect us from monsters under the bed.  But once you admit that you have to ask the question, “is it to OK to kill things just because we’re afraid of them?”

This is really part one, where Graeme talks briefly about himself then touches upon how little assistance was provided by the government.  I feel I must repeat that whether you think he made the wrong decision to accept the contract or if you would have accepted it for half the pay, being upset with Graeme accomplishes little.  In our discussion he repeatedly made it clear that he felt he was helping and making the public safer.  Some of us believe that, some don't.  But those who believe it, why?  Because of what the government said?  If the cull was wrong, those who justified and spent tax payer dollars on the cull are to blame, much more than this contractor.  This employment opportunity did not exist without the government.  And it can only exist next year if the people accept it (silence is a form of acceptance, btw.)  It is clear Barnett, Baston, Buswell, Hunt, and co. can't be trusted to tell the truth under oath, in press conferences, or to do the right thing.  It appears to be in their best interest and their intention to mislead the public, so if you don't want this to happen next year, what exactly are you going to do about it?  Something more than vent on Facebook I hope....

Meet Graeme Pateman, the contractor who was paid $5,000 a day killing sharks in the southern region of Western Australia.  He's a nice guy, really he is...nice enough to invite me on his boat and explain his standpoint on things.  The full 1.5 hour interview is a lot to take in so I'm releasing it in doses.

The point is not to like or dislike Graeme, in fact if you are going to praise or hate anyone then focus on his employer, the government of WA, not the employee.  The point rather is to examine our mindset as a species when it comes to our place vs. other animals' places on this planet (for those of you that are unaware, yes, humans are in fact part of the animal kingdom.)

What did we learn from this interview?  Well, first, and perhaps most importantly, this cull was not about killing the animal responsible for the handful of fatalities over the last several years, rather, it was about making the public FEEL as though something was being done.  In fact, it was just practice!! Practice that cost the lives of many animals that had nothing to do with public safety.  That's straight from the mouth of the man hired by Colin Barnett to carry out the task of killing the wrong animal at the wrong time of year at a price that would make Jane Goodall consider culling chimpanzees. continue below video

So, for all the recreational ocean users who told me the cull was good because it made you safer, you can stop with that nonsense now.  Not only did this cull NOT make you safer, it was always intended ONLY TO MAKE YOU FEEL safer without actually accomplishing the task.  If you still insist that baited hooks near your beach are a good thing, please go surfing with a piece of fresh bait hanging off your board from now on.

Next, listen to Mr. Pateman try to rationalize first, that only sharks at a certain distance (1,000 meters) from the beach would fall victim, as though sharks would magically know that if they crossed that line they were asking to be killed.  Consider the following: The shark (presumably illiterate) needs to simultaneously understand that the baited hooks are intended for animals over three meters (next season Fisheries will have signs in 4 of the most popular WA languages posted next to the hooks explaining the three meter rule) while also understanding that if it wants to approach the beach it should swim between the drum lines and try not to alarm any recreating humans with its presence.  When I challenged that perspective Graeme switched to stating that "people come before sharks", continuing to explain that there was plenty of beach for the sharks to use without encountering areas that are popular recreational areas for humans. (Gee, I think I heard something similar from another ecological scholar).  Again, the shark is required to know where it is allowed to go and not go based upon the convenience of our recreation.

Sadly, the mindset of this fisherman is not unique nor is it limited to the uneducated or even the mentally challenged.  Instead it seems to be shared by the premier of a state (who happens to look like a bad guy from the Lord of the Rings).  Well, Western Australia, congratulations, you now know what it's like to have a George Bush representing you.  

Look, it doesn't even matter if you love sharks or hate sharks.  Hate'em all you want.  As a taxpayer, shouldn't you be upset that your government just spent $2 million (and counting) on a sham in order to secure votes from people who don't have a clue what's actually happening in the ocean?

I may have stumbled upon Colin Barnett's environmental advisor at the beach yesterday.  Take a minute to watch the below video which is simultaneously funny and disturbing. 

While filming part 1 of The Price of Existence I've become aware of a trend in people, myself included, to stubbornly hold onto ideals we have already adopted as truth.  Two of the most extreme examples are OCEARCH supporters followed by shark cull supporters such as the man in this video.  One of the reasons miseducation is so dangerous is the difficulty of reeducating those who have been led astray.  The lyrics "Hearing only what you want to hear...knowing only what you've heard" come to mind each time I encounter someone on the street who tells me that the shark cull "had to be done", quickly followed by admitting that they don't know what it is, but they heard on the radio or the TV that the prime minister said it was going to make them safer and preserve the economy.  Those are both lies by the way, and I, unlike the WA government, have the evidence to support my claims (revealed in the film).
The fact remains that most people will continue to believe what they choose to believe despite the fact that we live in the "age of information".  Global warming is a myth, SPOT tags don't damage fins, the war in Iraq wasn't about oil, the world is flat, and baited hooks at beaches will make us safe from sharks.  I'm accepting donations for my shark school, by the way, so we can teach them which beaches they are allowed to swim past.

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

Just want to share a few thoughts from a quick excerpt of an interview with Phil Waller, Director of Extinction Soup, while we were at the San Francisco International Ocean Film Festival.  

For those that don’t know, Phil and executive producer Stefanie Brendl made a movie documenting the battle to pass a shark fin ban in Hawaii.  The film provides gorgeous footage and takes the viewer on an emotional ride as we see the beauty of sharks juxtaposed against the same animals being slaughtered in inhumane fashion.  But I found the political battle particularly unnerving as it brought back memories of California’s own struggle to pass a shark fin ban only a few years ago.  Just like in San Francisco, the fishing industry resorted to hiring lobbyists to declare the ban as racist attack on Chinese culture (If you still want to send him hate mail, the senator in San Francisco was Leland Yee).

Politics led our discussion to Western Australia where sharks are being slaughtered in the very waters they are supposed to be protected in.  Public Safety, not culture, is the scapegoat for this political agenda, and it was while discussing the concept of trying to make people safe from sharks that Phil stated the glaringly obvious; not only do sharks kill a very small number of people, but they KILL LESS PEOPLE than almost ANYTHING ELSE on this planet.  Repeat that in your head a few times.  We’ve all heard the stats about coconuts and vending machines, etc., but I think the concept really sinks in when you try to list things that DON’T kill more people than sharks rather than what DO.  How can public safety be a reason to kill sharks when it’s not enough of a reason to dispose of the rest of the offenders on the list?

Phil did a great job of being positive, but I’m obviously a bit of a pessimist when it comes to conservation and politics living happily together.  But as he said, all we can do is keep trying and spreading the word because ignorance still outweighs knowledge and that can only change by sharing information.  So, keep spreading the word and fighting the fight!

And yes, I know I look homeless in this interview.  I’ll clean up when the film is over.

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.

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?

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