Shark bites liveaboard guest

[Rule62]

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, it’s 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 that’s 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. What’s the point? If in the end, you don’t 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 animal’s behavior and habitat will yield much better photos than barging in and trying all manner of things to attract the animal’s attention or to get it to move to a more convenient location.

I guess you're not familiar with sarcasm!!

 

[Thalassamania]

Me? Unfamiliar with sarcasm? Sarcastic myself? Never!

BTW: I'd like to hear about your wild hammerhead encounters (and that's not sarcastic).

 

[Zippsy]

You understand this:

Here in Montana, it is illegal to feed deer. They are obviously not dangerous creatures but the Fish and Wildlife department recognizes that feeding the deer means more interaction with humans which usually results in deer being hit by cars.

But you don't get this:

By the way, I wouldn't want to be told what kind of dives I can and cannot do. I don't believe that an individual or government should get involved in what kind of dives I choose to go on.

Why? Because you are looking at it from this angle:

As a responsible adult, I understand the risks that I am taking by climbing into the water.

And I don't mean that more sharks will get hit by cars either. Think about it.

 

[Rule62]

Me? Unfamiliar with sarcasm? Sarcastic myself? Never!

BTW: I'd like to hear about your wild hammerhead encounters (and that's not sarcastic).

Off Jackson Reef in the Straits of Tiran, Red Sea Oct 07. In the blue at about a 120ft. 100s were schooling at about 300ft and 50 or so came up and checked us out for about 10 mins. Circling and circling out of curiosity. Some would come up for a closer look then just swim away. They are only there that time of year due to the currents and the food supply that runs in a trough at lower depths.

 

[Rule62]

Me? Unfamiliar with sarcasm? Sarcastic myself? Never!

BTW: I'd like to hear about your wild hammerhead encounters (and that's not sarcastic).

Off Jackson Reef in the Straits of Tiran, Red Sea Oct 07. In the blue at about a 120ft. 100s were schooling at about 300ft and 50 or so came up and checked us out for about 10 mins. Circling and circling out of curiosity. Some would come up for a closer look then just swim away. They are only there that time of year due to the currents and the food supply that runs in a trough at lower depths.

 

[peterbj7]

Off Jackson Reef in the Straits of Tiran, Red Sea Oct 07. In the blue at about a 120ft. 100s were schooling at about 300ft and 50 or so came up and checked us out for about 10 mins. Circling and circling out of curiosity. Some would come up for a closer look then just swim away. They are only there that time of year due to the currents and the food supply that runs in a trough at lower depths.

Been there, seen it, done it. Did you go down to see the rift that runs down the reef?

 

[Rule62]

Been there, seen it, done it. Did you go down to see the rift that runs down the reef?

No.. air was short!!!

 

[crispos]

I got on to find out something instructive about this accident. Instead there are 29 pages of speculation and garbage. When will this site actually produce something useful?

 

[LIVES4SHARKS]

I got on to find out something instructive about this accident. Instead there are 29 pages of speculation and garbage. When will this site actually produce something useful?

This is no different from the press. You have to filter through the hype and specualtion to get to the truth. From everything that I have gathered, especially the interview with Rob Stewart (sharkwater), the diver swam beside the bait can and stirred up the bottom. This reduced visibility and the shark grabbed onto his leg. It's an unfortunate accident. It also seems there might have been an issue with the ascent after his bite and when all things factored together led to his death. Unfotunately the witch hunt has begun, and I hope we all do not pay the price for it.

Happy diving and protecting my sharks!
Carolyn:sharks:

 

[Thalassamania]

I got on to find out something instructive about this accident. Instead there are 29 pages of speculation and garbage. When will this site actually produce something useful?

Hmm ... and I was always told the Canadians were the polite ones.