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?

Can't wait to interview this guy tomorrow regarding shark politics, especially after arriving at my own conclusion that the media is the biggest enemy in WA, not the sharks themselves. Please take a few minutes to watch Chris Neff's concise TED Talk below.  What do you think of his 3 fundamental points?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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