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?”

Despite living in an age of knowledge, despite increased education on sharks, we can't seem to "learn our way out" of deep set fears.  In this interview segment Rodney Fox expresses something I've unfortunately been confirming on day to day conversations as I travel across Australia.  Many ocean users expressed that they more or less understood that the cull wasn't helping, that sharks are important to the ecosystem, that we're entering their homes, that killing them is wrong.  Yet, despite all that, time after time I heard the same people also say the cull made them feel better.  Doesn't make a lot of sense does it?  But then again fear isn't necessarily rational.
What's scarier than sharks? The willingness of the media and governments to feed on this irrational fear for their own purposes.

Rodney Fox Expeditions use funds from their ecotourism operations finance shark research in Australia

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.

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

JoAnne Sanders shared this photo with me today.  A small (3 foot), unidentified shark swam in circles for several hours today near a dock in Fort Mason according to witnesses, only leaving once the boats from the America's Cup began to show up.  

Even more peculiar is the interest the shark showed in its viewers.  Reportedly, whenever people on the dock stood by the edge, the shark would swim past, taking a look at its observers.  When I asked if the shark turned on its side and broke the surface while looking at the observers JoAnne said "yes".  


This behavior is only known in a few sharks, white sharks being one.  Could it be that a young white shark was lost in the San Francisco Bay today? A mako? A salmon shark?

Based on the photo above, the shark had a very distinct white marking on its side extending to its underbelly while the rest of the shark was dark.  However, the tail looks rather long for a white shark.

Full photo below

Update
KTVU declared this a white shark, but the Pelagic Research Foundation showed that the markings match that of a salmon shark. One such shark washed ashore yesterday due to infection and its like the behavior of this shark is also due to poor health.