Dive boat operators face charges of illegally feeding sharks in state waters

[djtimmy77]

It's far easier to join in the popular hysteria and go with the lynch mob than to stand as a voice of reason.

You are right...it IS easy to share the changes that I and others have seen with our own eyes.

And oh yes...I am so hysterical I just can't stand it.

---------- Post added April 7th, 2014 at 06:40 PM ----------

Another option is to enjoy the 7 or 8 wrecks available to you out of the Palm Beach Inlet, or the several great wrecks out of the Boynton Inlet.

In WPB, out of the Lake Park or Riviera Beach marina based dive boats, the 7 or 8 wrecks in 65 to 90 feet of water will provide spectacular wreck diving and plenty of variety, all far from the Shark Feeds. More than likely you have not been on several of the WPB wrecks, and if all the people that did not like what Randy was doing, opted OUT of Jupiter, and went to WPB instead...that WOULD be something of a message.

---------- Post added April 7th, 2014 at 06:23 PM ----------



Pete, you already saw me relax my view on this topic....BUT...I don't think it is fair for you to be so dismissive to the very advanced divers like Guy or DJTimmy that do not desire to have shark behavior "CHANGED" by a feeding operation. They have that right to feel that way, and the science is clear that behavior WILL change....what is not clear is whether or not any divers will ever be attacked due to feeding.
Telling them they are being "hysterical" is inappropriate.... Heck, it probably should get you "moderated" I've been moderated for much less

As to Guy and his wife, they did the first midnight spawning dive on Shearwater, in huge currents, with huge challenges, and both Guy and his wife dove at a skill level far above most Instructors we see on the boats out here. These are well traveled divers, and not novices that can be bullied into believing whatever the Shark Feeders( and their friends) want them to.

Already changed where we dive quite a bit...of course science will have to prove whether it is due to the sharks non scientific behavior changes or other vectors.

 

[The Chairman]

BUT...I don't think it is fair for you to be so dismissive to the very advanced divers like Guy or DJTimmy that do not desire to have shark behavior "CHANGED" by a feeding operation.

That's just it... our mere presence changes shark behavior. Where do we ethically draw the line? I don't think basing it on anyone's emotional hysteria is appropriate. What gives anyone the right to dictate what's right or wrong based on a hunch? Here's what needs to be done if you really want to pursue this:

• Establish a base line for shark behavior.
• Identify all vectors affecting shark behavior.
• Quantify the impact each of these vectors has.

Simply pulling this out of your butt is completely inappropriate to anyone interested in a reasoned approach. It's certainly not science.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

The issue is I keep hearing "changes" mentioned ... and then don't hear what those changes are, or on what timescale they've occurred, or at what sites, or with what species, etc. For all I know, people are just seeing more sharks (which could be due to several reasons, feeding being only one) and they are doing normal sharklike things such as checking out people who are carrying dead fish. I can say that on my most recent Emerald trip I've had a decent-size tiger give me one look and disappear, and do the same to Randy and Alan even though Randy had two fish on his stringer. I didn't get a close look, but odds are good it was one of the three in Mickey's latest video. I've been on the Bonaire for three feeding dives (not counting one where I didn't turn far enough west after the Playpen and went sailing out into nowhere) and one non-feeding dive, and the sum total of sharks I've seen there is *drumroll* one very circumspect bull shark. I have Guy saying that wreck is not a "sharky" site in his experience even though Randy has been doing feeds there for at least a year.

As far as hauling out the case of Timothy Treadwell, bringing up the blanket comparison to bears may not work. Our time in the sharks' presence is fleeting; we are not living among them and hanging around for hours in places where they can reach us at whim. The periodicity of the interactions is limited by the seasons and weather, as well as the sharks' own movements. For instance, I'm willing to bet Randy is going to move away from the Bonaire once the hammerheads, sandbars, silkies, and duskies start moving in on the deep ledge, and I'm willing to bet he won't be doing feeds during the goliath spawning. That's a big-ticket item for him just as it is for just about every dive boat in the Palm Beach County area.

Speaking of science, there are two thoughts I've had for studying the effects at a discrete feeding site such as the Bonaire or Hole in the Wall - Bonaire would be easier given it's a smaller patch to cover. The low-tech one would be to ID the sharks that turn up for feedings using video or still imagery. That has the advantage of being easy to collect, given that someone on these dives always has a camera, and would give us a baseline of which sharks are turning up where and how often. Video can also be used to document behavior and how long before sharks start showing up for a feed. The hole in that is that it doesn't tell us what they do after the divers leave. If you had the funds and the expertise you could plant acoustic pingers on the sharks (probably by using a dart tag; surgical implantation requires hooking the shark and bringing it next to a boat and hiding it in bait is of short-term utility only because it' may come out one end or the other in hours or days). As stated, you'd probably need outside funding and personnel - the tags are about $300 a pop and the automated monitoring stations (which need to be set up in an array and manually downloaded/serviced once a month) are $3000 a pop. That would let you know if the sharks are hanging around on a consistent basis or if they're leaving after the feeds.

 

[drrich2]

While the comparison of bears to sharks is understandable, how well does it hold up in the real world?

Bears are pretty high-end mammals, related to wolves. Sharks are primitive cartilaginous fish related to...stingrays.

It is generally held that getting in the near vicinity of a bear is dangerous (this is without food concerns; bear could feel threatened in some way, or a mother with cubs).

It is generally held that minus bad viz. or other extenuating circumstances that most wild sharks, even large specimens of the so-called 'man-eater' species (e.g.: great white, tiger, bull, hammerhead) that are in the near vicinity of a human will likely swim off without attacking or even taking a 'test bite.'

Put another way. If you had the choice between a large adult grizzly standing 20 feet from you, or a 14 foot tiger shark in the water at that distance, which would you pick?

Richard.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

While the comparison of bears to sharks is understandable, how well does it hold up in the real world?

Bears are pretty high-end mammals, related to wolves. Sharks are primitive cartilaginous fish related to...stingrays.

It is generally held that getting in the near vicinity of a bear is dangerous (this is without food concerns; bear could feel threatened in some way, or a mother with cubs).

It is generally held that minus bad viz. or other extenuating circumstances that most wild sharks, even large specimens of the so-called 'man-eater' species (e.g.: great white, tiger, bull, hammerhead) that are in the near vicinity of a human will likely swim off without attacking or even taking a 'test bite.'

Put another way. If you had the choice between a large adult grizzly standing 20 feet from you, or a 14 foot tiger shark in the water at that distance, which would you pick?

Richard.

There are a couple other factors. Certainly behavioral conditioning is possible with even simple animals; I could probably do it with a sea slug given the right experimental design. Sharks have been taught to navigate mazes and bump an object of a specific shape/color pattern for a food reward. Those however were done with captive animals under 24/7 supervision that only received food from their keepers and not by hunting. Randy's laying out quite the spread (another factor I'd like to keep track of is how much the sharks are eating and compare it against their metabolic requirements, if we know them), but those sharks most likely still have to hunt prey on their own. They can't just follow Randy home, rummage through his dumpster, and break into his kitchen.

Also, we are dealing with an animal that in many ways is wired differently in terms of its basic biology. This is not an animal that is dependent on parental care and instruction early in its life. They're on their own the instant they come out the chute and while studies have shown that there is some trial-and-error learning involved in their hunting behavior, there has to be a fair bit of hardwired instinct involved. There's also the different environment - there's not much out there that's going to mess with a bear. Sharks on the other hand do have other predators to contend with, especially as juveniles.

I'm not saying it isn't possible for them to end up associating divers with food. However, the behavior of land mammals may not be something we can extrapolate from.

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

OK, OK, so no one learns anything, from anyone.

Not from Timothy Treadwell, or Marcus Groh, or the divers killed in Fiji, or the divers reported here in A&I, or the folks on spearboard, or even other predators ("wet" ones being, I guess, different from "dry" ones).

Got it.

You should really have met Treadwell. I spent a half day in his camp. He was an evangelist for the bears. They were NOT inherently dangerous. They could be approached safely if you just understood them. People's fear of them was irrational and the product of medieval stereotypes. Every trope and cliche repeated here over and over is identical to what he was preaching.

Richard, if you asked Treadwell, I am positive he would have said it was safer to be 20 feet from a Grizzly than from a tiger shark. Right up to the end.

By the way, shall we not forget that even Treadwell NEVER shot elk and hand-fed chunks to the bears?

Hey, isn't science theory verified by observation. I have documented fatalities and injuries to demonstrate increased risk. I have legions of studies from national parks and other sources about the risks of artificially stimulating top predators to associate humans with food. What have you got? "No one died, yet"? Oops on you; people have in fact died.

I love the rejoinder that I am "unscientific" because I am not willing to have Maribi and I made into at-risk human test subjects for the shark cowboys, by being forced to dive in their artificially stimulated environment to test its long-term "safety." I guess behavior that is unethical, immoral, and illegal for all real scientists is now the "gold standard" for this discussion? I beg to differ.

Nor do I believe hundreds of divers should have to incur higher risk, or forego a prime site for the adrenaline addiction of a very few. THEY can go somewhere else. Also, Halcyon, I said the Zion WAS not a sharky site. I have not been out there since Goliath season last year, before the circus came to town.

NetDoc, I really like your science proposal. By the way, can you identify any animal, even an amoeba, where all of the three things you list have been established? It's just absurd. Just exactly how are these things to be learned about apex predators? In hostile environments? Where we can only observe very briefly? Without human experimentation? Humans are the most studied animal on earth, and we don't even have an inkling about any of those three factors. We don’t and never will know them about ANY complex animal. On top of that, every scientist knows that, even with extensive general knowledge, it is never possible to reliably predict a particular individual's (animal or human) behavior. That list is just an excuse to use “lack of omniscience" to paint opponents as superstitious in some fashion when they rely on human experience, observation, common sense and the information at hand. In other words, “if you don’t know everything, you can’t say anything.” That is an old logical fallacy.

However, the best, and by far most persuasive, endorsement of my position comes from the deafening silence regarding my proposal that Randy be invited to set up shop in the Spiegel Grove and Molasses Reef. This is where the rubber meets the road. C'mon, that would free the Bonaire up during Goliath season and be welcomed by us Jupiter goliath divers. Indeed, I would think the Keys would love to share the great You Tube publicity from those videos. I am sure that vacation divers and families with diving kids would just flock to the Keys after seeing those. I can see the ad campaign now. You could even have it coincide with mini season. THAT would be something!

In fact, Capt Slate has set up his moray/fish feed out on the reefs. We are talking morays, minnows and the occasional cuda. Real wimp stuff. You should see the howls of outrage from the Keys folks over that in another thread. Can you imagine the reaction to Emerald showing up . . . ?

Oh, I forgot, they are just wallowing in their own irrational fears. Jeez, if I am pulling it out of my bu!!, do you think the same of your neighbors?

Hi Dan. Thanks for the moral support and kind words!

I am not offended by these posts, in fact I find it pretty easy to hold my own and spirited debate is always worthwhile. The ad hominem posts, in particular, show that I must be doing well in the field of logic and common sense.

 

[The Chairman]

NetDoc, I really like your science proposal. By the way, can you identify any animal, even an amoeba, where all of the three things you list have been established? It's just absurd.

I get that most don't understand the scientific process and erroneously conclude that "It's just absurd". There is an amazing amount of work done on animals and stimulus. You might have heard of Ivan Pavlov and his infamous study on changing the behavior of dogs. Can you compare a dog to a bear? Well, they are both mammals, but dogs have been domesticated over the years. How about dogs and a fish? After all, it's pretty easy to train a fish to anticipate a feeding. I wonder how many aquarists have been mugged by their guppies? I have done just this and was amazed at how specific they were. Anyone else coming to the aquarium and there was little apparent effect. If I walked by, there was not even that much effect. Pull out the food and WHAMO! They changed into piranha.

You assume that a shark has the intelligence of a dog and has the ability to understand and react to a complex causal relationship. Shenanigans. That's just your fear and paranoia. The smarter the animal, the higher their ability to make these relationships. Sharks just aren't that smart. Show me an act where the shark has been trained to balance a ball on it's head for a herring and I'll accept a few more of your arguments.

Now let's look at what bears eat: all sorts of mammals. Most sharks never get to see a mammal, much less see them. Go swimming in an area where sharks routinely snack on mammals, and the inherent risk goes up. We're just not on their grocery list and unless we have something on their grocery list, they don't anything to do with us.

 

[boulderjohn]

You assume that a shark has the intelligence of a dog and has the ability to understand and react to a complex causal relationship. Shenanigans. That's just your fear and paranoia. The smarter the animal, the higher their ability to make these relationships. Sharks just aren't that smart.

I went on a shark feeding dive years ago in Ste. Maarten. We went to a specific spot where the divers were supposed to lie down, holding onto cement blocks formed in a semicircle. A DM in the center offered what he said was about one pound total of fish pieces. There were 4-5 Caribbean reef sharks there, although only the dominant one ate. The rest of the time they just circled around. As soon as the DM left the center and the divers vacated the cement blocks, all the sharks disappeared.

On the boat, the DM said that they do those dives on specific days of the week at specific times, and they always do it on those days at those times. There are always sharks ready to go. He said that if you go there on any other day or at any other time, there will be no sharks.

Maybe they can't balance a ball on the end of their noses, but they apparently can read a calendar and a watch.

 

[The Chairman]

Let's just point out two logical fallacies in this post:

A DM in the center offered what he said was about one pound total of fish pieces. //snip// As soon as the DM left the center and the divers vacated the cement blocks, all the sharks disappeared.

Along with the food? No food = No shark! Whodathunkit? Weren't you in phreakin' danger from all those amped up sharks who didn't eat?

On the boat, the DM said that they do those dives on specific days of the week at specific times, and they always do it on those days at those times. There are always sharks ready to go. He said that if you go there on any other day or at any other time, there will be no sharks.

There's two of them right here: How would they know if the sharks aren't there if they only dive on certain days and at certain times? Secondly, I bet if they simply showed up with food at any time, the sharks would magically appear!

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence. People draw the conclusions first and then they make everything fit their preconceived notions.

Maybe they can't balance a ball on the end of their noses, but they apparently can read a calendar and a watch.

And there's a bridge in Nevada that I'd like to sell you. Or was that Arizona? It's only there on certain days and at certain times. You can believe me, I'm a Dive Master and that's an equivalent to having a PHd in animal behavior.

Again, I'm no critter feeding advocate, but I'm not a detractor either. You want to show us that shark feeds are bad? Show us the science. The real science. Leave the BS for people who can appreciate it.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

I get that most don't understand the scientific process and erroneously conclude that "It's just absurd". There is an amazing amount of work done on animals and stimulus. You might have heard of Ivan Pavlov and his infamous study on changing the behavior of dogs. Can you compare a dog to a bear? Well, they are both mammals, but dogs have been domesticated over the years. How about dogs and a fish? After all, it's pretty easy to train a fish to anticipate a feeding. I wonder how many aquarists have been mugged by their guppies? I have done just this and was amazed at how specific they were. Anyone else coming to the aquarium and there was little apparent effect. If I walked by, there was not even that much effect. Pull out the food and WHAMO! They changed into piranha.

You assume that a shark has the intelligence of a dog and has the ability to understand and react to a complex causal relationship. Shenanigans. That's just your fear and paranoia. The smarter the animal, the higher their ability to make these relationships. Sharks just aren't that smart. Show me an act where the shark has been trained to balance a ball on it's head for a herring and I'll accept a few more of your arguments.

Now let's look at what bears eat: all sorts of mammals. Most sharks never get to see a mammal, much less see them. Go swimming in an area where sharks routinely snack on mammals, and the inherent risk goes up. We're just not on their grocery list and unless we have something on their grocery list, they don't anything to do with us.

I'd be careful about making any assumptions there. I assume the sharks are pretty smart in their own fashion. As stated, they've done a fair bit of work with shark training. Shedd Aquarium has some of theirs trained to approach the feeding station on cue, with the cue being a PVC shape lowered into the water. Each shark has its own cue; they do this to monitor what each animal is being fed and avoid squabbling at the table. There's even at least one study I know of with lemon shark pups that shows they can learn from watching each other. I'm not going to expect them to give Flipper a run for his money, but I've seen a few opinions from credible scientists that some shark species aren't that far off from domestic dogs and cats.

Personally, I find that thought makes me feel a little safer. A very simple-minded animal is operating on a basic stimulus -> response mechanism. The more complex the animal, the more likely some form of evaluation and reasoning is involved in that process. To me, that means the more links in the chain where the animal will notice something doesn't fit the pattern and back off to evaluate it. To me the best deterrent we have to shark attack as divers isn't our mammalian nature or weird appearance; it's that often we're almost as big as they are, and in the ocean you don't pick on something big enough to hurt you unless it's near-dead or you can catch it unawares and take it out fast. I was doing some background research today on tiger sharks and was somewhat surprised at their juvenile mortality and growth rates; they basically come out very vulnerable and get picked off in droves while growing very quickly (~4 years) to reach a respectable size of 6-8 feet where they can't get gobbled down (mostly by other sharks). Lemon sharks are somewhat better off, but about 80% of them don't make it to maturity. That probably has a lot to do with how cautious they normally are around divers, and why I don't see them assuming any bubble-blower is a friendly snack machine.

There are some pieces here by the late R. Aidan Martin which give a fair layman's overview of what we know of shark cognition:

Inside the Mind of a Killer
Biology of the Porbeagle

Also, I would highly recommend the nonfiction book Shark Trouble, written by Peter Benchley back in 2002. In addition to having a rather matter-of-fact take on the infamous 2001 "Summer of the Shark" (which was actually a slightly less active year for attacks worldwide than the prior year; basically the media had nothing to report on and then a kid got his arm ripped off by a bull shark), there's a number of anecdotes regarding writing books and diving. One that combines the two is how he got the inspiration for The Girl of the Sea of Cortez (my absolute all-time favorite book); if the story he tells about one manta they encountered on a Howard Hall expedition is even half true there's no way I'd classify those critters as simple or stupid.