What kind of shark is this?

[drrich2]

The end purpose, primarily, is the same as the end purpose of recreational diving generally; enjoyment by divers. It also provides jobs for some people. Other benefits may come about, such as helping more people see sharks in a less vilified light, but the end purpose is recreation. That's legitimate enough for many people.

I don't think the usual mainstream coral reef dive boat packing a dozen divers out for a 2-tanker has a lofty 'higher purpose,' so it doesn't seem shark feed diving requires one, either.

As for 'unrelated analogies,' there's considerable relation in terms of individuals making personal choices that entail some risk, often perceived as not worth it by onlookers. Analogies help people relate to a matter better, at times in ways they might not've considered previously.

Nobody's going to buy a plane ticket, fly down to Fort Lauderdale, rent a vehicle, book a hotel in Jupiter for a week and buy a dive package just so they can enjoy a well-crafted and delivered conservationist pre-dive briefing.

Yes, shark dives can be conducted without hand feeding (though I question how much difference is involved if they chum, so for sake of discussion I'm assuming we're talking about feeding vs. unbaited). I've been to Jupiter twice; once with 10 non-feeding dives, once with 7 fed dives. 1st Trip: Some reef and just a few nurse sharks; one quick distant sighting of what may've been a black-tip (someone thought sand bar). 2nd Trip: 3 Tiger sharks, 2 silky sharks, nurse sharks, plenty of bull sharks and more lemons than I can guess at. In terms of personal experience and photo op.s, getting close-ups? No comparison.

If you want close-up larger shark encounters without feeding you could head to North Carolina for the off-shore wreck diving and see the sand tiger sharks (which I did). Saw one species.

Richard.

 

[RockiesFan]

In other words, conducting an ecologically unsound practice for your own selfish recreation and edification is legitimate. I get it now.

 

[tomfcrist]

Are you sure that’s not Pete teaching an OW course?

 

[drrich2]

You presume it to be ecologically unsound, which many consider not established.

Many recreational actives have deleterious ecological effects, including recreational diving. How many posts on Scuba Board mention divers with pour buoyancy control hitting the reef, or people harassing wildlife? Even skilled divers who exhibit 'proper' conduct frighten some wildlife simply by cruising the reef as a large, dark, bubble-blowing (apologies to rebreather users) mass.

Many of us live in homes where forest or grassland used to be, eat produce facilitated by insecticides & herbicides, and otherwise byproducts and processes of our everyday lives do considerable ecological harm. But suddenly shark feed diving is a great evil?

Richard.

 

[RockiesFan]

That "presumption" is largely accepted by the vast majority of marine biologists and ecologists. So you are saying they are all wrong? I am still struggling to follow your logic. Is there any instance where hand feeding land based predators in the wild is considered acceptable practice? If not, then why is it acceptable in the ocean?

 

[drrich2]

The vast majority? Has someone polled these people, or is that an assumption? How many of these people have personally done, or familiarized themselves with what research there is, on the specifics? There is more than one issue. The answers may not be the same for different species of sharks. You may equate hand-feeding land-based predators with hand-feeding sharks; I don't.

As to why, experiences of many people who've been on these dives. I can dive an off-shore wreck out of North Carolina with a number of sand-tiger sharks around me, or you can dive out of Jupiter in winter and have lemon sharks around you. This is not considered unduly dangerous. I doubt either of us, at least outside of a vehicle, would try that with a lion pride or a group of grizzlies. I've dove around bull sharks; I'd be more leery of walking in the jungle unarmed with a leopard close by (or armed, for that matter).

Land-Based predator feeding is mainly attacked on the grounds it may lead the predator in question to accost other people, and maybe kill somebody uninvolved in the activity. That doesn't appear to an established problem out of Jupiter or the Tiger Beach region, that I've heard of, and these activities have been going on for years.

Richard.

 

[RockiesFan]

At this point you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. Any further discussion is like talking to a brick wall.

 

[drrich2]

I get the same impression.

 

[RockiesFan]

Except that I am on the right side of ecological and environmental consensus. You have still yet to come up with a legitimate purpose for handfeeding sharks that cannot be accomplished through other means.

 

[drrich2]

Well, you think you're right, anyway. Consensus has often been wrong over time. And I've made an effective argument that the purpose of shark feed diving is about as legitimate as the purpose for recreational diving in general. And the relatively high chance of close-up experiences with otherwise more seldom seen species enhances that enjoyment a good deal, which isn't readily accomplished through other means.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. That's what eventually happens in thread after 'Xerox copy' thread debating shark feed diving.

Richard.