US Scuba Diver - Shark Attack

[Ayisha]

This will be considered anecdotal also, but I found it interesting. A few years ago in Roatan, a DM told me that they had switched locations fairly recently for the shark dive. He said that while the sharks were indifferent and scarce at the beginning of the previous location, they had become more curious and were getting closer. He said that after they left the old area, sharks were still seen coming into the area for several months after, then dropped off. In the newer location, more and more sharks were coming in to investigate. I could see that the grouper and other fish around seemed to be of no interest to the sharks and all they were focussed on was what was in the bucket.

Clearly, the natural behaviour of the sharks is being altered. They are learning new behaviours and acquiring familiarity with humans on these shark feeding dives. They may even continue these behaviours for months after the feedings have stopped. That itself is enough for me to not want to do another shark feeding dive.

 

[Splitlip]

LOL. Anecdotal to you and us, but not the DM.

I love that disclaimer.

I wonder about the Sting Ray City dives in GC. What would those critters do if the feeding stopped.

At my office, we had a lady who fed squirrels and ducks for years. She retired a couple months ago. The ducks and squirrels which have not left or died, now harass the staff.

 

[Deefstes]

You are confusing "feeding" with "chumming". Two totally different things.

Either way, I'm done with this debate. It became obvious a dozen or so posts ago that this is going nowhere. I'm not even sure why I participated this long. If you don't like baited shark diving then don't do it, that simple.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Sharks are hunters as is all sea life, When in la paz, me and wife went on hammerhead dive, we went deep, I killed all fish I could with knife while descending down slope to wall. No other divers seen them but we did.

You killed a bunch of fish just so you could look at sharks ???

... should've just stabbed yourself in the leg ... I'm sure you'd have gotten a much closer look ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Splitlip]

You are confusing "feeding" with "chumming". Two totally different things.

Either way, I'm done with this debate. It became obvious a dozen or so posts ago that this is going nowhere. I'm not even sure why I participated this long. If you don't like baited shark diving then don't do it, that simple.

No hay problema mi amigo.

I'll admit, I see baiting, chumming or feeding for purposes of entertaining clients as having similar impacts on all we've discussed.

I'll agree to disagree and move on.

Peace.

 

[Bazzabug]

You are confusing "feeding" with "chumming". Two totally different things.

Either way, I'm done with this debate. It became obvious a dozen or so posts ago that this is going nowhere. I'm not even sure why I participated this long. If you don't like baited shark diving then don't do it, that simple.

Could you please explain the difference between feeding and chumming? I would like to here your "thoughts." You do seem to know an aweful lot about baited dives, without actually having been on one...?

I totally agree that there is probably no single study that could prove without a doubt that sharks see humans as food on any sort of baited dive. However, "studies" by "experts" mentioned before and like the one that can be found at

http://www.rodneyfox.com.au/sendfile.php/id/0ea740b2fad4a543dd339a2d5b650444/name/Conditioning.pdf

suggest that in the right circumstances, sharks may infact be conditioned in a similar way to Pavlov's dog, I trust you know that study? With all the foreign noises ( such as divers exhaling loud bubbles, or boat motors) I dont see how it could be IMPOSSIBLE for this behaviour to be repeated in sharks, and that with the right triggers, sharks may associate divers, or boats with food = arrousal, or agressiveness etc - the problem with proving this, or at least studying it is really due to the vastness of a study area and the movement of the animals through these areas.

Anyways, I dont think Ill be doing anymore baited dives soon, there is something so much more exciting about stumbling across a shark in its natural environment. And it was pretty funny checking you and gordongreaves having a lekker exchange there. Like the Vaalies are always the experts anyway haha

 

[fjpatrum]

And which interest should be burdened with providing the evidence?

"Where is the "evidence" that feeding dives do not cause environmental harm? By long-established precedent in environmental law, the burden of proof properly lies with the entity proposing to modify the environment, rather than with the public who must live with the results of such impact. That's exactly what environmental impact statements are all about. Unfortunately, the pro-feeding coalition has been unwilling to admit or accept that responsibility."

In Florida 10 years ago, Rodals, PADI, NAUI, DEMA and the ops with the big guns and cash were uanable to convince the State. The grass roots movement started by a couple divers and environmentalists had the practice banned.

Evidence? In a moral argument? Seriously? Some people believe it's okay, others do not. Evidence of damage to an environment isn't what I said was debatable. Proving there is an effect is easy, as I stated. Proving that effect is a bad thing is entirely subjective to the listener/speaker in such an argument. I can argue both sides all day with anyone on either side and still not make any progress.

Personally I don't have a big beef with feeding but I wouldn't do it because I think it presents a much higher likelihood of an accidental "attack". Other than that, I couldn't really care less about the practice.

 

[Deefstes]

Could you please explain the difference between feeding and chumming? I would like to here your "thoughts." You do seem to know an aweful lot about baited dives, without actually having been on one...?

...And it was pretty funny checking you and gordongreaves having a lekker exchange there. Like the Vaalies are always the experts anyway haha

Whoah. Who is this obnoxious poephol who just joined the discussion? I never thought of it that way but it seems the Vaalies are the experts after all. Besides, here's a diver from Durban who doesn't know the difference between feeding and chumming and then has the nerve to attack another person's character on a forum where he's made a grand total of 3 posts.

I was actually done with this discussion but just because you ask so very nicely and because you are so very ignorant, here's the difference between feeding and chumming:
Feeding - To give food to sharks.
Chumming - To scent the water with fish oil so as to attract sharks to the area.

Sharks don't eat chum, they approach to investigate the scent of it.

OK, now I'm really done.

 

[Bazzabug]

Feeding - To give food to sharks.
Chumming - To scent the water with fish oil so as to attract sharks to the area.
Sharks don't eat chum, they approach to investigate the scent of it.

Haha, come on Dewald, the offensive response must be from diving in wemmer pan a few too many times, hey? Maybe read what I wrote again and identify that I was agreeing on a few of your points.

BUT PLEASE

read the sarcasm i wrote into asking the difference between chumming and feeding. In both methods, the animals will have a heightened sense of excitement as a result of either scent (chumming) or physical food (feeding). I dont think you can argue that. So what you produce on a baited dive is an area of many sharks (higher concentration than usually encountered), with heightened excitement/interest as a result of fish feeding or chumming. That itself is not the issue...

But there are 2 FURTHER considerations:
1)Are sharks in some sort "heightened state" be more or less likely to attack a diver? because sharks are certainly not naturally trying to attack or eat divers in a typical natural environment.
2)Would this continued heightened sense of alertness/excitement/interest become a behavior factor associated with the presence of divers/dive boats etc, much like the pavlov's dogs experiment - in terms of conditioning.

 

[Splitlip]

Evidence? In a moral argument? Seriously? Some people believe it's okay, others do not. Evidence of damage to an environment isn't what I said was debatable. Proving there is an effect is easy, as I stated. Proving that effect is a bad thing is entirely subjective to the listener/speaker in such an argument. I can argue both sides all day with anyone on either side and still not make any progress.

Personally I don't have a big beef with feeding but I wouldn't do it because I think it presents a much higher likelihood of an accidental "attack". Other than that, I couldn't really care less about the practice.

Moral argument? LOL

The debate has been about environmental impacts. It's been aknowledged that these dives change the habits of the animals ~ nature and the environment. Question was, is it ok or not? Please..demonstrate to me that it is positive or has no impact.