GUADALUPE MAY BE CLOSED PERMANENTLY

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

For example, Discovery ran a program a while back that had one of their Shark Week regulars floating on the surface at Guadalupe inside a plexiglas box. Of course, the outcome of this stunt was predictable; a large white shark decided the diver looked like a sea lion and munched the plexiglas box.
Is this the video segment?

There was an educational point of interest in this. A common claim where shark attacks are concerned is one of mistaken identity, that the shark mistook the human for a prey item, such as due to limited visibility. This exercise put a human in clear water surrounded by a number of great whites for awhile, offering the opportunity to see what would happen.

It's a 2-pronged lesson. On the one hand, contrary to depictions of great whites as enthusiast man-eaters, this drug on surprisingly long without aggression. On the other, in contrast to that 'free-diving with a big great white' video I saw before, here we see that eventually one did get aggressive. Even though the visibility was good.
 
Is this the video segment?

There was an educational point of interest in this. A common claim where shark attacks are concerned is one of mistaken identity, that the shark mistook the human for a prey item, such as due to limited visibility. This exercise put a human in clear water surrounded by a number of great whites for awhile, offering the opportunity to see what would happen.

It's a 2-pronged lesson. On the one hand, contrary to depictions of great whites as enthusiast man-eaters, this drug on surprisingly long without aggression. On the other, in contrast to that 'free-diving with a big great white' video I saw before, here we see that eventually one did get aggressive. Even though the visibility was good.
I was taking about this one - such drama and sensationalism for an expected/likely outcome!

 
The government began putting observers on the operators' boats in an effort to curtail the bad practices.
Those are very useful for fishing boats, if you can keep them alive, not as much here. If they want to know what goes on they can tune into Shark Week (“It’s a bad time to be a seal!”) or lurk this very forum for reviews. It’s kinda hard to keep industrial secrets on a boat full of camera-toting tourists.
 
There was an educational point of interest in this. A common claim where shark attacks are concerned is one of mistaken identity, that the shark mistook the human for a prey item, such as due to limited visibility. This exercise put a human in clear water surrounded by a number of great whites for awhile, offering the opportunity to see what would happen.

It's a 2-pronged lesson. On the one hand, contrary to depictions of great whites as enthusiast man-eaters, this drug on surprisingly long without aggression. On the other, in contrast to that 'free-diving with a big great white' video I saw before, here we see that eventually one did get aggressive. Even though the visibility was good.
People can spin this any which way they want, but it really boils down to a 'stunt' to wow and attract viewers.

Does an experiment to see if white sharks will attack something perceived as prey in clear water really need to involve putting a diver inside a floating plexiglas box? If the answer to this question really needs to be investigated, why not put a floating dummy (not a dumb diver) in a dark wet suit and and float it on the surface rather than creating a situation where a shark munches on a plexiglas box?

I have friends in Mexico who were disgusted by this 'experiment' and after seeing it, began advocating to have cage diving at Guadalupe stopped. Their perspective was much like mine; It was a ill-conceived stunt with little scientific value. There's plenty of data to suggest that white sharks will pursue items they perceive as prey floating on or near the surface.

During one of my conversations with Jimi, the diver inside the box, he told me that they were continually trying to come up with new ideas for Shark Week episodes to pitch with Discovery Channel. Extreme ideas stood a better chance of being accepted. Discovery had little interest in producing programs like Blue Planet for Shark Week.

-AZTinman
 
People can spin this any which way they want, but it really boils down to a 'stunt' to wow and attract viewers.
Oh, yeah. It seemed ridiculously dangerous to me, the way this was done. I'm just saying it did address a question that comes up occasionally. You have a point that a manikin might've served a similar purpose, but of course that doesn't galvanize viewer interest.

That said, monetizing something can build support for preserving it. In the U.S., it's my understanding there's been substantial support for wetlands preservation from an organization called Ducks Unlimited. It turns out many people with a passion for duck hunting care about duck conservation.

I'm not endorsing everything associated with 'Shark Week.' Using sharks for audience-baiting with drama can involve fear-mongering. On the other hand, getting people interested in sharks, valuing sharks, and potentially willing to support sharks, has value.

There's plenty of data to suggest that white sharks will pursue items they perceive as prey floating on or near the surface.
Thankfully this doesn't happen as often as I'd have guessed. I've seen drone footage on YouTube of white sharks at the surface moseying along near people (e.g.: paddleboards), and the sharks weren't bothering them. In that footage, there's a guy swimming across the surface, and one laying on a board splashing along with his hands, and the great whites didn't attack.

Richard.
 
My point here is simply that it's really easy to throw rocks at the Mexican government for the Guadalupe closure. And yes, there is no shortage of corruption in Mexico. CONANP often seems less interested in protecting ocean resources than promoting extraction of resources from ocean waters. But, there is a bigger picture.

Just take a moment to ask yourself, would the closure be in place if operators had been rigorously following the biosphere rules and regulations over the years? Of course, I don't have the answer, but I can't help but wonder.

-AZTinman
 
Resurrecting this thread after watching a documentary on "vaquitas"

1679595098153.png


The vaquita is a shy member of the porpoise family. Vaquitas are the most endangered of the world’s marine mammals. Less than 20 vaquitas remain in the wild, and entanglement in illegal gillnets is driving the species toward extinction.

Vaquitas have the smallest range of any whale, dolphin, or porpoise. They only live in the northern part of the Gulf of California, an area that is rich in fish and shrimp. Fishing is thus a major source of income for the people there, who almost exclusively use gillnets, but vaquitas can also become accidentally wrapped in the nets and drown.

The decrease in the vaquita population is also related to the totoaba, a large fish that also only lives in the Gulf of California. The totoaba is listed as endangered in Mexico and the United States and is protected by the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species. Because totoaba and vaquita are similar in size, gillnets illegally set for totoaba are the deadliest for vaquitas. Fishermen illegally catch totoaba for its swim bladder (an air-filled sac in the totoaba’s body that helps it float), which they sell to China at high prices. In China, the swim bladders are used in soup with purported medicinal value. Thousands of swim bladders are dried and smuggled out of Mexico—sometimes through the United States.
 

Back
Top Bottom