RODALE'S SCUBA DIVING MAGAZINE
This dive magazine which claims it's "The Magazine Divers Trust" publishes an informative guide including the perils of fish feeding and then pulls a publicity stunt called "Feed a fish, go to jail"

Rodale's SCUBA Diving is guilty of stroking both sides and clearly bowing to their advertisers.
Supporters all over have cancelled their subscriptions and are boycotting this publication.

"Avoid feeding fish, an act which alters their eating behavior, harms their health, makes them dependent upon divers and attracts predators, some of which could endanger them."

From: http://www.scubadiving.com/travel/micronesia3/#animal
Email your opinion to: edit@scubadiving.com
"Feeding doesn't alter long-term behavior. Most marine species are opportunistic feeders, and the amount of food introduced into the marine environment by feeding is very small. Fish do not become dependent on divers for food."
From: http://www.scubadiving.com/feature/fishfeeding/
Read others opinions at the Rodale Forum

 

BACK TO TOP

Undercurrent Newsletter Article

[Reprinted from an article in the July 1998 issue of "Undercurrent"]

We divers love to get overconfident about sharks, but let us remind you of the still present and real danger. Between 1996 and 1997, the number of unprovoked shark attacks worldwide soared from 36 to 56, still considerably less than the all-time high of 72 set in 1995, says George Burgess, director of the International Shark Attack File housed at the University of Florida.

Nearly half (45 percent) of all 1997 attacks involved surfers, wind surfers, and rafters, and the second-largest group of victims was swimmers and waders (27 percent). Snorkelers, free divers, and scuba users represented 26 percent of the attacks. Burgess said that more than half of all attacks (34) took place in North American waters (Florida is the global leader in human-shark skirmishes; in 1997 there were 25 attacks). Australia was a distant second with five attacks, followed by Brazil (4), the Bahamas (3), South Africa (3), Japan (2), and New Guinea (2). Single attacks were reported from Mexico, Fiji, Djibouti in northeast Africa, Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean, and Vanuatu in the South Pacific.

"We need to remember that we are invaders of a natural system that has large animals living in it that occasionally can cause us harm," Burgess said. "Sharks share the waters with humans, or more rightfully put, humans share the water with sharks. It’s a wilderness experience every time we enter the sea."

Which leads us to point out a letter we got from readers Franklin and Kathy Viola: "Excellent observation and editorial by Dr. George Burgess [in your May issue commenting about the risk of orchestrated shark feeds]. It is quite difficult to report the ‘truth’ about this ‘circus’ when the shark feeding operators are filling their pockets and so-called ‘environmental’ dive magazines fill the images with divers feeding sharks to appease advertisers. Thanks for allowing Dr. Burgess to express his concern, as well as that of many others.

 

BACK TO TOP

Ecotourist Diving With Elasmobranchs: A Call For Restraint

George H. Burgess
Florida Museum of Natural History
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611

As curator of the International Shark Attack File, I have a special interest in shark-human interactions and have followed closely the development of ecotourism dive operations involving elasmobranchs. Most prevalent among these are attractions involving the baiting or feeding of sharks. Non-feeding observation dives involving whale shark (Rhincodon typus) and manta ray (Mobulidae) and stingray (Dasyatidae) feeding operations also have developed in some areas.

Whale shark and manta ray ecotourism dives have appeared recently, primarily in the Indo-Pacific. The advent of organized groups focusing on these large planktivores raises some of the same concerns historically directed at ecotourism operations targeting whales. The primary misgiving is that the natural behaviors of these species will be altered by invasion of personal space by divers and boats. "Riding" whale sharks and mantas evidently is viewed as a desirable activity in some quarters as evidenced in magazine photographs and television videos. In the United States there are strict regulations addressing observation and harassment of marine mammals, including specific distance of separation requirements. I am not sufficiently familiar with the whale shark and manta situations to suggest detailed restrictions, but development of a protocol that would provide a reasonable distance between divers/boats and whale sharks/mantas, and perhaps limitation of the number of divers in the water, may be prudent. An attempt at such a protocol is in effect in Western Australia, where Ningaloo Reef whale sharks have drawn considerable diver interest nationally and internationally. A 5 February 1998 Los Angeles Times newspaper story notes that a large U.S. dive supply retailer is sponsoring a repeat trip to the site with a group of American diving ecotourists, offering "a nearly certain chance of diving with several whale sharks." The story further notes that an "airplane flies overhead and helps the dive vessel locate" the whale sharks, suggesting that the effects of noise and shadows from low-flying airplane on the sharks may also warrant investigation.

There are at least three types of shark feeding operations worldwide. Metal or PVC shark cages are employed primarily in white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) dives at numerous locations worldwide; these also are used by blue shark (Prionace glauca) and reef shark (Carcharhinus spp.) feeding attractions in California and Australia, respectively. Chain mail suits (but no cages) are utilized by other operations that largely target blue sharks (eg. in California) but also are employed in at least one Bahamas carcharhinid dive. Finally, there are feeding operations that do not provide diving tourists with any protective gear (Bahamas, Florida, Maldives, and probably other localities). The common denominator in all operational types is chumming or baiting. Some go so far as to promote hand-feeding of sharks or even to "train" their clients in hand-feeding techniques.

I have reservations about feeding-type dives, based on four interrelated factors: the safety of the divers; the likelihood for negative publicity directed at sharks if a shark bites a diver during one of these dives; the possibility for ecological disruption; and potential negative impact on multi-user recreational use of the feeding area.

Shark cage diving generally appears to be a safe pastime. I am unaware of any serious injuries to divers, although biting wounds have occurred to hands placed outside or onto the exterior of the cage. Chain mail and no-protective-gear dives have resulted in injury to participants. Chain mail suits offer protection only from small to medium-sized sharks. However, the tooth tips of even small sharks can penetrate the mesh resulting in injury - well documented in the much-replayed video segment involving Valerie Taylor. The powerful jaws of larger sharks may produce crushing injuries even if teeth do not penetrate the mail. A large shark with serrated, shearing teeth, eg. a white, tiger (Galeocerdo cuvier), bull (Carcharhinus leucas), or dusky (Carcharhinus obscurus), likely would be able to cut through such meshing. The metal mail may even be electromagnetically attractive to some species of sharks; whites, in particular, are well documented biters of metal objects such as ship hulls and propellers.

In the Bahamas, where unprotected dive-with-sharks operations developed quickly as a tourist draw, there have been more than a dozen injuries in the last several years, including at least two quite serious in nature. Most of these have not been publicized in the media because of efficient damage control by local operators. Perhaps fortunately for the event promoters, most of the victims were host dive masters who presumably knew well what they were getting into, but a serious injury to a diving tourist is inevitable.

This past summer I took part in one of the unprotected Bahamas feeding dives to see for myself the design and safety of these type of operations. The experience was exhilarating, with an aggregation of approximately 50 blacktip (Carcharhinus limbatus), Caribbean reef (C. perezi), and nurse (Ginglymostoma cirratum) sharks attracted to a frozen fish "chum ball" anchored at a site utilized on a long-term (several years) and continuous (3-4 times a week) basis. Also present were hundreds (thousands?) of bony fishes of numerous species similarly attracted to the free food. I did not feel threatened by the sharks swimming above, in front, and behind me as we knelt on the sand bottom of a natural "amphitheater." I did note one blacktip, apparently low in a dominance order, that was confined to the perimeter of the circling mass of sharks and fishes and was reluctant to approach the chum ball in the center. It exhibited apparent displacement or frustration behavior involving periodic mouth gaping, increasing over time, and occasional erratic swimming movements, including hunching of the back and dropping of the pectoral fins. This type of behavior has been observed immediately prior to attacks on divers during shark feeding dives at other sites in the Bahamas and is similar to gray reef shark behavior observed by Nelson et al (1986) in the Pacific.

An unanswered question is whether individual bait-entrained sharks are more or less likely to attack humans than their wild peers. Based solely on observations of baited carcharhinids in the Bahamas, which seem to largely ignore divers, one may be tempted to suggest "no more" or even "less" of a threat." However, shark attack rate is profoundly influenced by the concentrations of sharks and humans occupying the water at the same time. Increases in either generally results in an increased probability of a negative interaction. Obviously high concentrations of both sharks and humans are found together in a small area in baited-shark dives. It is also clear that sharks attracted to bait are in a heightened state of excitement, some approaching or achieving frenzy. Under these conditions one might expect an increased opportunity for an attack. In addition, the unnaturally high concentrations of sharks pursuing a limited resource (the "chum ball" or baits) may lead to increases in density-dependent agonistic behavioral displays and attacks, as described above. Furthermore, we do not know how the food-conditioned sharks behave when the free food stops. Recently a documented attack occurred on a diver swimming at a Bahamas feeding site on a non-feeding day.

In many dive operations, ecotourists are actually encouraged to reach out and touch the sharks and at least one sells itself by offering "shark feeding instruction." Such ill-considered activity promotes irrational human behavior like that prominently displayed in a recently published U.S. dive magazine devoted to diving with sharks. The cover depicts a diver holding a 2-2.5 m Carcharhinus, hands on snout and dorsal fin. A photograph accompanying one story ("Friendly Encounters") captures a diver grabbing a ride on the tail of a "16 ft" white shark. Another article ("Cool & Cuddly Sharks") is accompanied by photos of divers hugging sharks. I am not a shark attack alarmist - at the ISAF we have consistently tried to put attack in perspective and turn media attention to more important conservation-based shark issues - but we cannot ignore the fact that sharks are wonderfully designed predators that can and occasionally do cause bodily harm to humans. While some entrained sharks can be approached and even handled readily, do we want to send the message that divers routinely can approach, touch, and even hug sharks in other situations? I can’t think of any situation where grabbing the tail of a 16 ft white shark is advisable.

The recent rise in the number of inshore baited white shark dives has raised a serious concern: Will these operations attract a larger number of white sharks into a localized area, resulting in an increased probability of white shark attack on other user groups operating in that region? As a threat to humans, whites cannot be equated with most carcharhinids - they are larger, normally consume larger prey, and are obviously of much greater concern as potential perpetrators of serious trauma and fatality. I believe a short-term localized increase in the number of whites is a real possibility, and with that increase comes a greater chance of whites and humans interacting.

Ecotourism dives aside, shark attacks on humans are a rare phenomenon. Nevertheless, shark attack still is of great interest and concern to the public. The ISAF routinely provides advice on how to reduce this already tiny chance of attack. It is ironic that shark-feeding dives freely violate several of the axioms of conventional wisdom advocated by virtually all attack researchers: (1) avoid diving in an area known to be frequented by sharks, (2) avoid diving in waters known to contain animal carcasses and blood, (3) avoid wearing shiny objects and contrasting colors while diving, and (4) do not touch sharks. That more than two dozen reported attacks have occurred worldwide during these events certainly comes as no surprise to those who study shark attack.

If safety of participants was the only concern, I would not object to this type of recreational activity, assuming, of course, that divers are duly forewarned by their hosts that injuries have occurred and that there is an inherent risk involved in the sport. (Not all operations currently do so; many maintain bites have not occurred anywhere). Any injury or fatality that were to occur to an informed diver then could be rationalized as an unfortunate accident associated with the sport. However, when such a serious attack does occur - and I can predict unequivocally that it will - the media coverage will be tremendous. The tabloid press predictably will hype a story involving a diving tourist who loses a hand or arm while participating in one of these operations. Imagine what reaction a fatality will bring. There is a very good chance that actual video of the incident will be available to tabloid television since these dives are routinely taped by host dive operators and participants alike. Needless to say, the shark will not be portrayed favorably - the "Jaws" image will be reinforced ad nauseam. The recently reshaped, biologically accurate public image of sharks that many have worked so hard to foster will be undercut quickly and decidedly.

Of equal concern is ecological disruption in the shallow-water shark-feeding areas. Based on personal dive experience and those of others, it is clear that concentrations of sharks (and bony fishes) I witnessed at the Bahamas feeding site are unnatural. It is normally difficult to see blacktip or reef sharks in non-feeding situations in the Bahamas. Except for the nurse, which is frequently seen, one rarely encounters other sharks while diving (but more commonly when spearfishing). The lure of the feeding operations, of course, is the guarantee of success in giving divers a chance to see and photograph sharks. The sharks and some bony fishes at these sites are now trained show animals that reside in the area and have become at least partially dependent on free food. Similar entrainment has been reported from feeding sites in Australia. We do not know if local populations are increasing such that they can concentrate at these sites while still maintaining their natural levels of density and distribution over adjacent areas. Alternatively, the feeding sites may simply relocate sharks from nearby areas and overall populations may be stable or even in decline. In either case the feeding operation is altering the natural system. I have observed that at Grand Cayman, where diver feeding of "cheese whiz" out of propellant cans to reef fishes was fashionable for years, the populations of sergeant-major (Pomacentridae: Abudefduf saxatilis) and yellowtail snapper (Lutjanidae: Lutjanus chrysurus) mushroomed. Both of these species became pests at feeding sites, hovering around divers like gnats while looking for handouts (and in the case of the sergeant-major, frequently biting the fingers of divers!). The highly migratory nature and differing reproductive strategies of Carcharhinus spp. prevents direct analogy to these situations, but it seems possible that their population size is increasing locally at feeding sites.

That the Bahamas sharks are indeed entrained is demonstrated by their response to the sound of a boat’s motor. Dive operators routinely rev their engines as they approach the feeding site in order to attract the sharks ("calling in our babies" is the expression used by operators at one site). Sharks rapidly come to the site, surrounding the boat long before the first free food or diver hits the water (sound Pavlovian?). Similar behavior has been noted in Australia. The feeding-site sharks also are largely oblivious to the divers, whereas in natural situations they tend to avoid divers and are quite skittish. Groupers (Serranidae: Epinephelus and Mycteroperca spp.) at some Caribbean and Bahamas feeding sites are similarly well-trained, rising from the reefs in search of free handouts from divers entering the water.

Finally, the presence of sharks entrained to the sound of a motor may lead to localized loss of multi-party recreational activities such as fishing, spearfishing, and traditional skin or SCUBA diving where divers are not interested in encountering sharks en masse. If sharks appear whenever a motorboat visits a region, anglers are likely to lose their hooked catches to opportunistic sharks or have the sharks frighten away potential catches. Skin/SCUBA divers seeking sharkless diving will encounter unwelcomed escorts. As noted above, a tourist diving at a feeding site on a non-feeding day was bitten on the head by a carcharhinid shark. We have heard of a diver who had a shark follow his outboard motor-driven boat from dive stop to dive stop, eventually ending in a bite.

I am of the opinion that inshore feeding of sharks is not in the best long-term interest of an area's economy. While the activity will draw in ecotourists, inevitably a serious shark bite will occur, producing significant trauma or death. The ensuing negative publicity likely will result in the loss of that segment of tourists as well as at least some other diving tourists who do not wish to meet sharks on a regular basis during their dives. There is no hard data available, but it seems apparent that repetitive feeding attracts sharks from wide distances, based on the large numbers that congregate around feeding sites. Feeding may promote higher than normal local shark population levels since food is readily obtainable at virtually no energetic cost. At some attractions the source of that food is otherwise discarded remains of recreationally caught fishes (filleted carcasses), but in other operations the chum or bait fishes are obtained by spearfishing in the area. Localized depletion of reef-fishes, such as parrotfishes, which are easy to spear and often are considered less desirable as food fishes, may occur in these areas. Some South African white shark dive operators reportedly catch juvenile bronze whaler (Carcharhinus brachyurus) and smooth hammerhead (Sphyrna zygaena) sharks to use as bait. As with reef-fishes, repetitive fishing for these species in a small area may lead to reductions in their local populations. Additionally, localized clustering of sharks and associated bony fishes entrained to feeding also may present an easy mark for poachers, as it did in the Bahamas when rogue fishers wiped out a local aggregation of sharks associated with a shark-feeding attraction.

Pelagic shark-feeding operations utilizing shark cages may be of less consequence than inshore unprotected dives since the chosen feeding sites generally are located far away from centers of human activity, entrainment of the sharks is less likely, and the ecotourists are adequately protected. Feeding of stingrays, which occurs at several localities in the Caribbean and perhaps elsewhere, does not appear to be of particular concern, although there is some potential for injury. Video footage I have seen of a shallow water feeding operation in the Virgin Islands showed numerous large Dasyatis americana swimming amongst tourists, including several elderly individuals, standing in waist deep water. The rays frequently swam through the legs of the tourists, knocking some off their feet. It is likely that a tourist will encounter a large spine sometime during one of these falls. The "media image" problem, however, is not likely to arise, nor are there concerns over multi-user recreation. Ecological disruption probably is minimal.

In an alternative view, dive-with-sharks operations have been lauded as a positive environmental experience for those divers who can afford to engage in this activity and vicariously for thousands of television viewers who see these shark performances in documentaries and dive programs. Certainly allowing many people to see sharks in situ is good publicity for these animals and helps to dispel the "man-eater" stereotype. But if we watch entrained sharks perform on cue, are we really observing any more natural behavior than we see in trained circus animals? Does swimming in circles and gnawing on a frozen "chum ball" or taking bait fishes off a spear or out of the hand or mouth of a human constitute "sharks in the wild?" Public aquaria offer basically the same view (sans wetsuit) of sharks without fostering the "eating machine" image enhanced by frenzied feeding on provided food.

It appears that the pendulum has completely swung as a newly restructured shark image emerged in the shark-feeding dive community. Sharks have been transformed from being blood-thirsty man-eaters to playful puppies by some of those most closely tied to shark-feeding operations. As often is the case, the truth lies somewhere in between these two extremes. Based on the safety, ecological, social and conservation considerations noted above, I believe that scientific/conservation endorsement of most shark-feeding attractions is unwise. On balance, it appears that sharks have more to lose than to gain by these operations.


Acknowledgments. I thank Matthew Callahan, Kevin Johns, Robert Robins and Franklin Snelson for providing constructive comments on this contribution.

References Cited

Nelson, D.R., Johnson, R.R., McKibben, J.N., and G.G. Pittenger. 1986. Agonistic attacks on divers and submersibles by gray reef sharks, Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos: antipredatory or competitive? Bull. Mar. Sci. 38(1): 68-88.

For more information on Mr. Burgess' work visit his website at:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/statistics.htm

BACK TO TOP