shark dives vs au natural

[cdiver2]

I just spent 2 weeks in South africa where I went just to do a large number of different shark dives [edit: in this case I mean dives with sharks as the focus be they baited or "au natural"]- so yes.

Even if they had gone to the carribean and done a dive as an add-oon then the dive op will spend the extra money it earns on the island in question eg petrol for the boat, wages for the crew who spend the extra in bars, shops etc.

these dives are invariably much more expensive than regular dives too and do provide an incentive to protect a shark population even if the 100 grand a shark valuation is off.

you are saying you would not travel and dive if there was no shark feeding?

 

[simonspear]

Would you have gone just to do just a shark dive? No I don't think so. Fact is divers will travel to get some decent diving, shark feed or not, money spent. Extra income from the shark feeds go's to the dive op then.

You misunderstand, perhaps I need to be a little more detailed for you.

The reason I am going on a vacation is not because of Sharks (well if I had my way it would have been!), it is because we wanted a break to get some sun and to do some diving and as we are meeting up with some family from North America the Carribean area was convenient. So I am not traveling to that geographical area with the sole intention of seeing a Shark feed (although some people do).

The reason I am going to the Bahamas specifically is because I was able to persuade everyone else to go there as I wanted to do the Shark dive. Other matters do come into consideration like the quality of the hotels and other out of water activities, but ultimately similar facilities are provided on 30 other islands in the area. The sole reason we are going to that hotel in that location on that island is because of the Sharks. If they had not been there I think it's high unlikely that we would have gone to the same place when there is so much other choice out there. For example if Shark (feed) dives were still in operation in Florida we would have almost certainly gone there instead. So as you see Shark dives do have a direct impact on the local economy of the area that they take place in and it is NOT just the dive operators that benefit.

Next year we are planning to go to South Africa for which a similar criteria holds for that trip. Yes we want to visit a friend who is living there and yes I have always wanted to go, but the ultimate driving force behind actually organising it is that I will get to see Great Whites in the Cape area (which I would not have otherwise visited).

I think you are massively underestimating the power of Shark diving tourism.

 

[simonspear]

these dives are invariably much more expensive than regular dives too and do provide an incentive to protect a shark population even if the 100 grand a shark valuation is off.

$100,000 per shark per annum was based on a recent study into Shark diving and its impact on local economies. As far as I'm aware it is the first time that a study of this nature has taken place. I'll try to find the reference for you and post it here so you can look it up.

 

[isurus]

you are saying you would not travel and dive if there was no shark feeding?

Not exactly - I'm saying I wouldn't have gone on this trip at all if there were no shark diving - the diving we did was entirely shark oriented. At one location this consisted of diving (without chumming) in a pretty much featureless rocky reef for 8 dives the only species I noted in my logbook were different types of shark, 1 ray, 1 nudibranch and by total fluke a pair of whales. At the second location 2 of the 3 types of dive planned would have involved chumming/feeding and I wouldn't have attended that location were those dives not offered.

 

[cdiver2]

You misunderstand, perhaps I need to be a little more detailed for you.

The reason I am going on a vacation is not because of Sharks (well if I had my way it would have been!), it is because we wanted a break to get some sun and to do some diving and as we are meeting up with some family from North America the Carribean area was convenient. So I am not traveling to that geographical area with the sole intention of seeing a Shark feed (although some people do).

The reason I am going to the Bahamas specifically is because I was able to persuade everyone else to go there as I wanted to do the Shark dive. Other matters do come into consideration like the quality of the hotels and other out of water activities, but ultimately similar facilities are provided on 30 other islands in the area. The sole reason we are going to that hotel in that location on that island is because of the Sharks. If they had not been there I think it's high unlikely that we would have gone to the same place when there is so much other choice out there. For example if Shark (feed) dives were still in operation in Florida we would have almost certainly gone there instead. So as you see Shark dives do have a direct impact on the local economy of the area that they take place in and it is NOT just the dive operators that benefit.

Next year we are planning to go to South Africa for which a similar criteria holds for that trip. Yes we want to visit a friend who is living there and yes I have always wanted to go, but the ultimate driving force behind actually organising it is that I will get to see Great Whites in the Cape area (which I would not have otherwise visited).

I think you are massively underestimating the power of Shark diving tourism.

A few points.
If there was no shark feeding anywhere, would you stop travel / diving?.
Shark feeding in comparison to general diving is very small, general diving is what brings the bulk of the money in.
This is just my opinion but if you don't spend the money on a shark feed then it would be spent elsewhere. With the same effect, money going into circulation.

Bahamas, once a great diving destination now its on its way out. One Island used to have a number of dive ops (all doing shark feeds) I think its down to two dive ops now and the largest one (that started the shark feeding) is definitely not environmentally friendly.

Again just my opinion, shark feeding not only feeds the sharks but also feeds what I call the *I WANT* syndrome. I'm going on my holidays and I WANT to see sharks so do what ever it takes to see them. I take photos and I WANT a photo of one of those blue nudie's on red coral but I can not find one on red coral. Is it ok for the dive op to move subjects around to my needs? If so I will dive there more often and *bring more money in*.

I would guess in my diving life time I have had about 30-40 shark encounters ONE of witch was a feed. The most exciting one was not a feed, two of the closest encounters were not on a feed.

 

[isurus]

A few points.
If there was no shark feeding anywhere, would you stop travel / diving?.

Again just my opinion, shark feeding not only feeds the sharks but also feeds what I call the *I WANT* syndrome. I'm going on my holidays and I WANT to see sharks so do what ever it takes to see them. I take photos and I WANT a photo of one of those blue nudie's on red coral but I can not find one on red coral. Is it ok for the dive op to move subjects around to my needs? If so I will dive there more often and *bring more money in*.

I would guess in my diving life time I have had about 30-40 shark encounters ONE of witch was a feed. The most exciting one was not a feed, two of the closest encounters were not on a feed.

Definitely not and I agree with what you say about the unplanned sightings being the most exciting. I definitely know what you mean about the I want syndrome. I don't have a lot of time for holidays but like to plan them pretty meticulously to try and see what I want be it sharks, muck critters or whatever. Once its planned though you roll the dice and takes your chance. As it happens none of the chum/feed based dives I planned were successful (I got blown out 4 days in a row on the whites and we scratched on the blues/makos) so instead I went shorediving and pelagic birdwatching. both of which were nice. There are no guarantees in diving and the moment there are is when it will start to get boring and we may as well go to the zoo/aquarium.

I think one of the differences between our positions is that you may be talking about a chumsicle in the carribean and I'm talking about slightly different shark dives/feeds as I've not seen how things work out there.

"This is just my opinion but if you don't spend the money on a shark feed then it would be spent elsewhere. With the same effect, money going into circulation." I can see your point but if the locals associate their sharks with money coming in then I think they must surely be less likely to fin them?

 

[simonspear]

A few points.
If there was no shark feeding anywhere, would you stop travel / diving?.
Shark feeding in comparison to general diving is very small, general diving is what brings the bulk of the money in.
This is just my opinion but if you don't spend the money on a shark feed then it would be spent elsewhere. With the same effect, money going into circulation.

Bahamas, once a great diving destination now its on its way out. One Island used to have a number of dive ops (all doing shark feeds) I think its down to two dive ops now and the largest one (that started the shark feeding) is definitely not environmentally friendly.

Again just my opinion, shark feeding not only feeds the sharks but also feeds what I call the *I WANT* syndrome. I'm going on my holidays and I WANT to see sharks so do what ever it takes to see them. I take photos and I WANT a photo of one of those blue nudie's on red coral but I can not find one on red coral. Is it ok for the dive op to move subjects around to my needs? If so I will dive there more often and *bring more money in*.

I would guess in my diving life time I have had about 30-40 shark encounters ONE of witch was a feed. The most exciting one was not a feed, two of the closest encounters were not on a feed.

The biggest draw for me diving is the chance to see and watch sharks. If they were not there (and there is a very real possibility that they wont be within a generation) then I'd definately continue to dive, but would probably focus my attention more on wrecks which I've also got a passion about. Would you be so agast if I said I had travelled 3000 miles to dive on a particularly famous wreck? Wrekkies can be a LOT more fanatic about their particular interest. I even know of some who wouldn't even dream of getting wet if there wasn't a wreck down there for them to poke around in. Sink an artifical reef and they will flock there to see it. Is this staged? Is this a sign of an 'I WANT' society? Does this not directly benefit the location where the wreck is sunk?

I've not been to an organised feed as of yet but so far I've had some magical encounters with sharks. They are however diminishing rapidly from our oceans which is bound to happen when we are killing in the region of 100 million of them a year. Worldwide stocks have been destroyed (down by up to 90% over the last 10 years alone) and any effort whatsoever to find a way to protect them and at the same time introduce benefits and incentives to local people to do so is ok by me. If it means that a staged event is what is required then fine. Bottom line is that I, like many many others, will travel to a lot of places just to get the chance to see sharks staged or otherwise.

Lets look forward 10 or 20 years. Shark (feed) dives are banned worldwide. Recent efforts and progress directly attributed to these operations to educate the greater public to the plight of these animals falls on deaf ears. Overexploitation of shark fishery resources continues until they are as good as extinct. How does that benefit communities that could use the sharks today and in the future as an economic asset? Tales of how we used to swim with 'wild' sharks will be heard by open eyed children in awe, wonder and disbelief. It would just be a monumental trajedy that they would never be able to experience it for themselves.

This is not a domesday scenario. It's real and it is happening now.

 

[Fish_Whisperer]

As a new diver, I would like to do one shark dive, just for the experience. Aside from that, I would much rather see them in their natural state, and those chance encounters would be so much more meaningful.

If protecting the world's sharks means that shark dives come to an end altogether, so be it. I'd rather that the shark population was protected, above and beyond my desire to go on a shark dive.

 

[cdiver2]

Shark fining serves a very small market on a (world scale) however it doe's seem to be growing with the quest for exotic foods (fad) despite the shark feeding circus's. A much simpler way is to ban shark products for sale. Ivory comes to mind. Not only is it illegal to hunt elephant but here in the states its illegal to sell (new) ivory. The penalties are so harsh that you would be hard pressed to find a jeweler that would touch ivory, new or old. If there is a market there always will be people ready to supply that market.

 

[isurus]

A much simpler way is to ban shark products for sale. Ivory comes to mind.

Well I think most of us would like to see that happen but it won't.