This is why cage diving with sharks is bad!

[spoolin01]

As I heard it, the GWs did not congregate at Guadalupe in any significant numbers until about 1998, when they 'suddenly' made an appearance, reeking havoc on the diving community, both recreational and commercial.

I've heard opinions that tuna fishing may have brought them in, and the prevalence of what looks like damage from steel leaders at the corners of GW mouths tends to support they scavenge hooked fish with regularity.

Whatever brought them in (and there is an elephant seal population too - their favored prey), they've been hanging around from Sept to December (just like in the Farallons) since.

And their presence in such numbers and the resulting shut down of recreational diving and much commercial diving took place long before the first cage diving charter took place.

As further evidence that cage diving, at least at Guadalupe and conducted in the manner I witnessed, isn't the big bugaboo some make it to be, think on this experience from my trip:

On Day 3 after an overnight cruise to check in at the Mexican Naval Base, the captain anchored our boat about 50 yards further out from our original position. The bottom was well over 400 feet or more where it had been less than 200 previously. Three hours of bait and cages in the water and only one very small shark made an appearance, and just as quickly left. We up-anchored and moved back closer to shore, and within a half hour of settling in came the sharks.

This evidence suggests it's not the boat, nor even the bait, that attracted the sharks. They seem to be keeping a 'patrol' zone around the beach where the seals were hauled out, and, when a boat anchors in that zone, it gets inspected. Outside that zone it gets ignored (unless you are actively hooking and fighting live tuna!).

There's nothing in evidence at Guadalupe indicating cage diving has made any difference, for better or worse, on the shark 'problem'.

Well... can you clear up then why the operators and fishermen bother to chum if it makes no difference? The line in your post (and the other avid chum proponent) has a strong sense of leading from the conclusion backwards... maybe there's more data and analysis behind it, but that's my impression of it anyway.

 

[EagleDiver]

Well... can you clear up then why the operators and fishermen bother to chum if it makes no difference? The line in your post (and the other avid chum proponent) has a strong sense of leading from the conclusion backwards... maybe there's more data and analysis behind it, but that's my impression of it anyway.

I am NOT an avid proponent of chumming. If you read my original post I mention that chumming was kept to an absolute minimum - the main attractant to the sharks was a couple of half-tuna tied to long ropes kept at least 20 feet from the boat and cages. And the crew did their level best to avoid feeding the sharks by pulling the tuna out of the shark's grasp when they made a pass.

Again, I am not a proponent of chumming. And, at Guadalupe at least, it didn't appear necessary.

I AM a proponent of cage diving as perhaps the best and least disruptive way to give people the chance to see these animals in their natural habitat, and to admire and value them for the magnificent predators they are.

I am absolutely against shark feeding as practiced at resorts in some parts of the world. Conditioning sharks that divers=food in that direct manner is foolhardy and is just as dangerous as feeding bears.

Cage diving - again, at least as I experienced it at Guadalupe, is different in that no direct handoff of food from man to shark takes place. It was clear the sharks focused on the tuna and mostly ignored the people in the cages, except to eye us as they passed close by, using the cages as 'cover' to sneak up on the bait.

In my opinion, the only connection that cage diving might enforce in sharks is the connection between boats and getting tuna, a connection that is already far more greatly enforced by the tuna fishing that takes place.

 

[spoolin01]

I am NOT an avid proponent of chumming. If you read my original post I mention that chumming was kept to an absolute minimum - the main attractant to the sharks was a couple of half-tuna tied to long ropes kept at least 20 feet from the boat and cages. And the crew did their level best to avoid feeding the sharks by pulling the tuna out of the shark's grasp when they made a pass.

Again, I am not a proponent of chumming. And, at Guadalupe at least, it didn't appear necessary.

I AM a proponent of cage diving as perhaps the best and least disruptive way to give people the chance to see these animals in their natural habitat, and to admire and value them for the magnificent predators they are.

I am absolutely against shark feeding as practiced at resorts in some parts of the world. Conditioning sharks that divers=food in that direct manner is foolhardy and is just as dangerous as feeding bears.

Cage diving - again, at least as I experienced it at Guadalupe, is different in that no direct handoff of food from man to shark takes place. It was clear the sharks focused on the tuna and mostly ignored the people in the cages, except to eye us as they passed close by, using the cages as 'cover' to sneak up on the bait.

In my opinion, the only connection that cage diving might enforce in sharks is the connection between boats and getting tuna, a connection that is already far more greatly enforced by the tuna fishing that takes place.

Well, maybe if, when the shark looks your way, you point at your chest in mock surprise, then shake your head while pushing one palm forward and waving it, he'll understand you're un-conditioning him to associate you with eating.

I don't so much have reservations about diving with sharks or even chumming for them, assuming it doesn't get to the point where it makes them unfit (if that's possible). Seeing the pictures and hearing the stories makes me envious!!! I'm a critter chaser, it's true.

But I really don't buy the thought that you're not upping the odds of an attack, then or later, no matter what your protocol. They're likely creatures of habit when it comes to food choice, but give them long enough, enough encounters, some food arousal, and the right opportunity to work up their nerve, or whatever evaluation process it is they follow, and they'll bite. Just my hunch. What else do you think is going on in that pea brain?

I'd just as soon dive where the sharks are strangers.

 

[widget]

Its an interesting topic, as I said in my previous post I tend to agree with the study done here that sharks and most marine animals are opportunistic feeders and will take food if its offered or move off in search of other food sources if not.

Locally here we had a "lets say tame" honeycomb moray eel (we all used to call him Monty) and he would come out of his hole at the first sign of divers, swim around and wait for a handout, he was never aggressive and in fact would take the food offered almost gently, he became almost a celebrity and divers came from all over just for the experience of feeding a 5ft "tame" moray eel.

But one day he just moved off never to be seen again. He was literally there one afternoon and gone the next morning.

Why,if he had learnt to associate food and divers did he just leave.?

There was lots of speculation as to his disappearance, this was a marine park so there was no hunting or spearing allowed, boats could not fish in the area, and he was well known so if something sinister had happened someone would have known and said something - eventually it was decided he had just "naturally moved off " as wild animals are inclined to do.

So it sort of re-enforces the point that marine animals are opportunistic, even if at some stage they "learn" to associate food and humans, they can just as easily "unlearn" the same response if a better proposition so takes their fancy.

 

[spoolin01]

Yeah, but it's that long chummy 'buddy phase' that makes me pucker! I liked the name, Monty. I propose 'the Chunkster' for your favorite man-eater! (hope he didn't get Monty...)

 

[spoolin01]

Its an interesting topic, as I said in my previous post I tend to agree with the study done here that sharks and most marine animals are opportunistic feeders and will take food if its offered or move off in search of other food sources if not.

That's a plan I can relate to... Can you dig up a link to the story about the study? They didn't show, or recognize, an issue using their particular methods - not the same as disproving any impact - but what do you think about the prospect that the feeding/conditioning increases the likelihood of an attack?

 

[LIVES4SHARKS]

"but what do you think about the prospect that the feeding/conditioning increases the likelihood of an attack?"

If that were true, then the feeding frenzy at Tiger Beach would be of divers, not the mackeral we put in the water!

Carolyn:shark2:

 

[TheMadDane]

I agree.

 

[spoolin01]

"but what do you think about the prospect that the feeding/conditioning increases the likelihood of an attack?"

If that were true, then the feeding frenzy at Tiger Beach would be of divers, not the mackeral we put in the water!

Carolyn:shark2:

I hope you're not serious, or am I the proof that drinking after 6 beers doesn't increase the likelihood of an auto accident?...

 

[widget]

That's a plan I can relate to... Can you dig up a link to the story about the study? They didn't show, or recognize, an issue using their particular methods - not the same as disproving any impact - but what do you think about the prospect that the feeding/conditioning increases the likelihood of an attack?[/QUOTE]

I dont think there is an internet link (although I will look) it was on one of the local documentary shows here similar to the Discovery channel, but obviously only local.

Personally, No, I dont think responsible feeding increases the chance of an attack, unless its one of mistaken identity.

I think there is enough food in the natural enviroment for these animals, so that they dont need to survive off handouts, they see these feedings as a "bit of sugar on the cake" as it were, but they still hunt as normal and eventually move off following their natural migratory habits.

The general opinion was that the feeding was not "tameing them" as it were, or changing their feeding pattern so that they relied entirely on the handouts for their survival.
Were that to happen then Yes, I think they may see divers as competition to these handouts and this may lead to an increase in attacks, but whilst they have enough food and theres no competition, it dosnt appear to be conditioning them in any meaningfull way.