Follow up on Emerald Shark Attack

[KathyV]

Does anyone receive Undercurrent? They may have more information about the recent attack; see the teaser below.

www.undercurrent.org

The Florida Shark Diving Saga Continues

a bite and an attack raise more issues

from the July, 2017 issue of Undercurrent

In March, our item entitled "Kill 'em but Don't' Feed 'em" covered John L. Russell's campaign to make it illegal in the U.S. to feed sharks for diver observation. It is illegal in Florida waters, but Russell claimed that some Florida dive operators are breaking this law, alleging that Randy Jordan of Emerald Charters in Jupiter, among others, conducts shark dives. Jordan was listed as the owner of Emerald Charters until December 2016, when ownership was transferred to 257 Charters, but he remains listed as the captain of the dive boat....

 

[tilikum]

It's a subscriber only article

 

[scubadada]

Does anyone receive Undercurrent? They may have more information about the recent attack; see the teaser below.

www.undercurrent.org

The Florida Shark Diving Saga Continues

a bite and an attack raise more issues

from the July, 2017 issue of Undercurrent

In March, our item entitled "Kill 'em but Don't' Feed 'em" covered John L. Russell's campaign to make it illegal in the U.S. to feed sharks for diver observation. It is illegal in Florida waters, but Russell claimed that some Florida dive operators are breaking this law, alleging that Randy Jordan of Emerald Charters in Jupiter, among others, conducts shark dives. Jordan was listed as the owner of Emerald Charters until December 2016, when ownership was transferred to 257 Charters, but he remains listed as the captain of the dive boat....

There is no additional useful information in the full Undercurrent article. I am a subscriber.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

Not surprising, given the teaser opens with discussing John Russell's "campaign" to make shark feeding illegal. As far as I'm aware that "campaign" is a one-man nutjob show; to my knowledge he had nothing to do with the federal ban that was proposed last year and expired without a vote. FWC was the entity pushing that legislation forward.

Not sure if that ban will come back around; it was brought up on FWC's legislative agenda in their February meeting but I have not heard if it was reintroduced to Congress. The statement from the Palm Beach Post that "the ban was part of a larger proposal that resolved itself" may refer to how the ban was tacked onto a Senate bill aimed at preventing the National Park Service from establishing a no-take marine reserve in Biscayne National Park. Politically speaking, overriding BNP on the no-take reserve was the bigger crowd-pleaser and also was being taken up by no less than three House bills. I imagine either the Senate bill was deemed unnecessary or BNP backed down on the reserve plan.

 

[100days-a-year]

Also being addressed at the SAMFC level.They could stop it any number of ways.Thier actual shark scientists don't seem impressed with baited shark dives from what I've seen in council meetings.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

Also being addressed at the SAMFC level.They could stop it any number of ways.Thier actual shark scientists don't seem impressed with baited shark dives from what I've seen in council meetings.

I'd be curious to know how that's being "addressed" - whether it means "looking at restrictions" or "getting complaints in meetings." The impression I got last year was that NMFS was completely blindsided by the feeding ban legislation, so if SAFMC is looking at it I would guess that's also FWC making the push.

I can believe the scientists at the SAFMC meetings aren't enthusiastic about the shark feeding dives; I know John Carlson at NMFS took a lot of fire from that community when NMFS moved up the shark fishing opener from July to January (right in the middle of the lemon shark aggregation). That said, the shark researchers I've spoken to, while dismissive of the antics on shark feeding dives (they also think the folks shooting cobia off bulls are certifiably nuts), were not in favor of a federal waters feeding ban. This was one of the more pithy responses to last year's Senate bill (the wording of which was very broad; general idea was the only way attracting or feeding sharks would be legal was if it was for harvesting purposes unless you got some sort of special permit, the process and nature of which was undefined):

"Yes, not sure how I feel about this shark feeding ban. Does that mean that anyone who gets seasick and barfs can be cited for feeding sharks? Could be a good revenue stream for US gov."

 

[scubadada]

Not surprising, given the teaser opens with discussing John Russell's "campaign" to make shark feeding illegal. As far as I'm aware that "campaign" is a one-man nutjob show; to my knowledge he had nothing to do with the federal ban that was proposed last year and expired without a vote. FWC was the entity pushing that legislation forward.

Not sure if that ban will come back around; it was brought up on FWC's legislative agenda in their February meeting but I have not heard if it was reintroduced to Congress. The statement from the Palm Beach Post that "the ban was part of a larger proposal that resolved itself" may refer to how the ban was tacked onto a Senate bill aimed at preventing the National Park Service from establishing a no-take marine reserve in Biscayne National Park. Politically speaking, overriding BNP on the no-take reserve was the bigger crowd-pleaser and also was being taken up by no less than three House bills. I imagine either the Senate bill was deemed unnecessary or BNP backed down on the reserve plan.

No, what I said is that there is no additional valuable information in the article. The facts of this injury have been effectively quashed by Randy and Emerald, right? As @drrich2 said, bad publicity.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

No, what I said is that there is no additional valuable information in the article. The facts of this injury have been effectively quashed by Randy and Emerald, right? As @drrich2 said, bad publicity.

That was what I was implying; evidently like the Palm Beach Post they were unable to get anyone who actually knew what happened to talk about it and resorted to the usual shark attack/shark feeding media contacts.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the facts were "effectively quashed." The Coconut Telegraph was pretty lively that week.

 

[scubadada]

That was what I was implying; evidently like the Palm Beach Post they were unable to get anyone who actually knew what happened to talk about it and resorted to the usual shark attack/shark feeding media contacts.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the facts were "effectively quashed." The Coconut Telegraph was pretty lively that week.

Only if you are on the telegraph, apparently, sworn to secrecy.

 

[100days-a-year]

Heard multiple complaints,then a council member mentioned they were looking into ways they would be able to address it.No mention of how.They could ban it,limit it,require a license for it or any number of modifications to the current rules or leave it as is.Most recreational fishermen and charters seemed solidly against it and make up a far bigger,noisier and better funded lobby.