You don't know. Bad news is always suppressed here. I know of lots of incidents that have never seen the light of day. That isn't a comment on Amigos but on all operations here.
Shark bites liveaboard guest
- Thread starter cappyjon431
- Start date
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
- Status
I agree with you, but some areas already have laws against shark feeds. With this recent death, more areas will most likely consider banning it too. I think a way to keep shark feeds alive is to promote safety and how safety measures will change/increase now that a death has occurred. I think the law makers would be more open to hearing that than cries of freedom. I doubt the law makers would argue against increased safety.
OceanObsessed
Guest
I don't know...
Since California wet-suited surfers look like harbor seals... and harbor seals attract great whites... perhaps we need to ban surfing... ('specially since there are MANY precedents of sharks attacking surfers)...
Since California wet-suited surfers look like harbor seals... and harbor seals attract great whites... perhaps we need to ban surfing... ('specially since there are MANY precedents of sharks attacking surfers)...
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,797
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
I find it interesting that many of the pro feeding folks use the "learn to love sharks" idea as a justification for feeding dives. Apparently, these divers have been unaware of all the nature programming out that conveys just that message. I seriously doubt that the personal experiences of the very small population of divers is going to influence the views of the population at large.
Further, proponents of feeding ignore the fact that feeding habituates sharks to people and teaches them to associate them with food. As others have pointed out, it is no different than feeding bears, coyotes, or other wildlife. As the sign says, "Garbage kills bears". The fact is that feeding does not just impact the divers that day, but people who are most certainly NOT there to have the "cream your wetsuit" experience.
When I feed eels at the aquarium I volunteer with, the rule is that tongs must be used. Why? We do not want 6 ft. green morays associating hands with food. Sharks are trained to go to the surface and take food from an aquarist in a particular spot at a certain time. See any similarities? You have all seen videos of stupid people getting hammered by wildlife when they are used to people and people get too close or too casual around them. Why would sharks be different?
Here's the thing - diving is not going to an amusement park. It is not a petting zoo. You are not guaranteed a chance to see all the sights and ride all the rides. I did go on a shark dive long ago, but my best shark encounter was on a wall in the Turks and Caicos when my wife and I rounded a corner and met a large blacktip coming the other way. Three very surprised lifeforms at that moment. Oh yes, then there was the chance encounter on Molasses Reef with a 6 ft. hammerhead - the fact it was a chance encounter makes that much more memorable. Oh - and then there was that nurse shark on Alligator Reef that came up over some coral, swam by, and went on with whatever mission nurse sharks go on...
You want a for certain thrill, any number of activities can fill the bill. You can get all the bragging rights you want. Hell, Africa is full large and dangerous predators you can go and bait in. Just imagine the thrill of being right in the middle of a pride of feeding lions.
Further, proponents of feeding ignore the fact that feeding habituates sharks to people and teaches them to associate them with food. As others have pointed out, it is no different than feeding bears, coyotes, or other wildlife. As the sign says, "Garbage kills bears". The fact is that feeding does not just impact the divers that day, but people who are most certainly NOT there to have the "cream your wetsuit" experience.
When I feed eels at the aquarium I volunteer with, the rule is that tongs must be used. Why? We do not want 6 ft. green morays associating hands with food. Sharks are trained to go to the surface and take food from an aquarist in a particular spot at a certain time. See any similarities? You have all seen videos of stupid people getting hammered by wildlife when they are used to people and people get too close or too casual around them. Why would sharks be different?
Here's the thing - diving is not going to an amusement park. It is not a petting zoo. You are not guaranteed a chance to see all the sights and ride all the rides. I did go on a shark dive long ago, but my best shark encounter was on a wall in the Turks and Caicos when my wife and I rounded a corner and met a large blacktip coming the other way. Three very surprised lifeforms at that moment. Oh yes, then there was the chance encounter on Molasses Reef with a 6 ft. hammerhead - the fact it was a chance encounter makes that much more memorable. Oh - and then there was that nurse shark on Alligator Reef that came up over some coral, swam by, and went on with whatever mission nurse sharks go on...
You want a for certain thrill, any number of activities can fill the bill. You can get all the bragging rights you want. Hell, Africa is full large and dangerous predators you can go and bait in. Just imagine the thrill of being right in the middle of a pride of feeding lions.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,797
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
It is the photographic equivalent of shooting deer at a salt lick.
Rule62
Guest
So what's your point?
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,797
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
My point is that photographic sharks at a bait station is akin to shooting deer at a salt lick. If you can shoot deer at a salt lick and still feel that you have bragging rights then you can photograph sharks at a bait station and feel good about showing off your photos. It runs counter to the ethics of natural history photography as I subscribe to them, but then I am a bit of a purist.
Photography Ethics
People love to take pictures of animals! And people love to look at pictures of animals. Both these are reasons why this website exists.
But for those who take photographs of animals, its not just a matter of clicking the shutter and happily showing everyone the picture. Whenever someone takes a photograph of an animal it affects the animal in some way. The ethical photographer always considers this impact while he or she is taking the picture.
Most photographers are conscientious and respect the animal that they are photographing. In these cases, the interaction is passive; the photographer takes the picture, quietly withdraws and thats that.
Bad practices
The pressure to get a good picture can cause the photographer to forget or, worse, to deliberately choose to ignore ethical photography guidelines. The most egregious example is when the photographer kills the animal, such as a butterfly or beetle, then poses it in a position to try and pass it off as a photo of a live creature.
A less serious practice is when the photographer physically traps the animal to hold it in a certain pose or to place it in fake surroundings. Is this practice ethical? In rare circumstances, the procedure may be justified if there is a strong case for the educational value of the photograph and if an expert animal handler is supervising the photographer (unless the photographer is an expert).
For example, insects are quite difficult to photograph as they are small and move quickly. Some photographers will capture the specimen and place it in a refrigerator or cold box and then pose the animal which is rendered sluggish by the low temperature. Alternatively, the photographer may use a carbon dioxide source to knock out the bug which will rest on any surface as it is recovering. The insect is unlikely to suffer permanent harm if these procedures are carried out carefully but in most instances, ethics dictate the preferable alternative: to photograph the animal behaving normally in its natural surroundings.
People have been known to throw food to attract animals closer or to cut away vegetation that was in the way of their subject. Whats the point? If in the end, you dont get the perfect picture, surely it is more rewarding to treasure sharing that moment with a truly wild animal and the experience of intimacy with nature.
Best practices
It is best to be quiet and gentle when taking photographs of wild animals. Careful observation and patience, plus a good understanding of the animals behavior and habitat will yield much better photos than barging in and trying all manner of things to attract the animals attention or to get it to move to a more convenient location.
Photography Ethics
People love to take pictures of animals! And people love to look at pictures of animals. Both these are reasons why this website exists.
But for those who take photographs of animals, its not just a matter of clicking the shutter and happily showing everyone the picture. Whenever someone takes a photograph of an animal it affects the animal in some way. The ethical photographer always considers this impact while he or she is taking the picture.
Most photographers are conscientious and respect the animal that they are photographing. In these cases, the interaction is passive; the photographer takes the picture, quietly withdraws and thats that.
Bad practices
The pressure to get a good picture can cause the photographer to forget or, worse, to deliberately choose to ignore ethical photography guidelines. The most egregious example is when the photographer kills the animal, such as a butterfly or beetle, then poses it in a position to try and pass it off as a photo of a live creature.
A less serious practice is when the photographer physically traps the animal to hold it in a certain pose or to place it in fake surroundings. Is this practice ethical? In rare circumstances, the procedure may be justified if there is a strong case for the educational value of the photograph and if an expert animal handler is supervising the photographer (unless the photographer is an expert).
For example, insects are quite difficult to photograph as they are small and move quickly. Some photographers will capture the specimen and place it in a refrigerator or cold box and then pose the animal which is rendered sluggish by the low temperature. Alternatively, the photographer may use a carbon dioxide source to knock out the bug which will rest on any surface as it is recovering. The insect is unlikely to suffer permanent harm if these procedures are carried out carefully but in most instances, ethics dictate the preferable alternative: to photograph the animal behaving normally in its natural surroundings.
People have been known to throw food to attract animals closer or to cut away vegetation that was in the way of their subject. Whats the point? If in the end, you dont get the perfect picture, surely it is more rewarding to treasure sharing that moment with a truly wild animal and the experience of intimacy with nature.
Best practices
It is best to be quiet and gentle when taking photographs of wild animals. Careful observation and patience, plus a good understanding of the animals behavior and habitat will yield much better photos than barging in and trying all manner of things to attract the animals attention or to get it to move to a more convenient location.
- Status
Similar threads
