You, NO. Them, uh...Ok!

[Walter]

Scottri,

"I don't know how much good a shark feeding ban would do but if there is a need it needs to be at the state level and not the federal."

The ban IS at the state level.

sharpenu,

"I am not talking about the participants getting bit. People who race cars wreck. Divers get bent. Parachutists fall to their death. Participants in shark feeds sometimes get bit. So what? That is a risk those people are aware of and choose to take. What are you going to do? Outlaw every activity that could hurt someone?"

I certainly agree. As I said earlier, "Actually, I have no issue with a diver on a shark feed getting bit. You place yourself in that situation, you are knowingly placing yourself at risk. I hope you avoid injury, but it is your choice and you must live (or die) with the consequences. My objection is to the possible danger your actions (feeding large predators) place on future divers who visit that site."

DSSW,

WWW™

 

[sharpenu]

I understand that you do not support activities that change the behavior of wildlife. However, I don't feel this law is about that. If it were, then why would there be an exception for hunters? Also, like I said before, when fishermen clean fish, they wash the waste into the sea. That amounts to thousands of pounds of chum entering the water everyday. Compared to this, all four of the dive operators who feed must lay out what, 40 pounds a day at most? That would not have the effect of changing statewide shark behavior.

 

[Ontario Diver]

I'm goning to jump in here if you and Tom don't mind...

If I remember right, sharks eat a mix of carrion (or whatever the marine biologist term is) and fresh killed. So then chumming and bycatch are a "natural" form of food to them. (natural in the way that it is something (dead fish) that a shark would normally encounter). The problem comes in when the animal begins to associate the food with an unnatural enviroment or unnatural action.

For example, if the shark begins to associate food with the end of the appendages of those rubber smelling, bubble producing things. (and we are not part of the sharks natural environment).

I know that this is the theory that is being used in wildlife management up here in the GWN. I am assuming that it holds true for marine life as well, but I am open to correction.

 

[100days-a-year]

Seems I remember reading that my country was a representative republic,at least thats the intention specified in the constitution.Therefore this is not per se a democracy,therefore the majority doesn't always rule(thank God)WE elect representatives and empower them to appoint certain public servants within the guidelines We approved or our representative approved.They perform thier tasks in accordance with the Law and the courts can overturn these laws if they are found to infringe on a basic right guaranteed in the constitution.Or ,,these guys are trying to do the job as they understand it,to the best of thier ability and knowledge.If you don't like the way the system wioks,feel free to start a constitutional amendment drive.Instead of *****ing and carping on the "malevolent oppressors" in out government try working within the system to achieve the desired changes.Oh and I forgot ..this post is for those of us who actually live in FLA.No one else has the right to direct how our state govt is run(complain yes,direct no)sorry... I'm a states rights kind of guy.

 

[njdiver1]

Yes we are a Republic, Democratic process to elect, representatively ruled. Mostly deep pocket controlled. The FFWCC is an appointed commission, who ignored a request by your legislature to reconsider their decision.

There is a pending lawsuit in your State court system seeking an injunction to the ban. I am sure your Jurists will deliberate this issue and reach decision that is in accordance with the laws of your State. If the parties bringing the suit do not agree with that decision they have the right to appeal to a higher authority.

Under the First Amendment we all have the right to speak our minds to whoever is willing to listen. We also have the right to direct our tourist dollars where we desire. This is not a threat, just reality.

 

[sharpenu]

I am not really saying shark feeds are good or bad. The point I was trying to make, is that if shark feeding is bad, it is ALWAYS bad. It isn't right to say it is only bad for divers, but OK for fishermen. There is an exemtion clause in this law that reads (paraphrase, I don't have the exact text in front of me) "nothing in this law will restrict the legal harvesting of marine animals" the law specifically says divers. Wouldn't feeding from glass bottom boats have the same detrimental effect?


Those of you who aren't in Florida don't know some of the history here. There is a segment of the fishing population that doesn't want divers in the water at all. They claim that divers prevent them from fishing the good places (reefs) due to dive flag restrictions. The debate was made worse by an inshore net fishing ban a few years ago that was sponsored by several dive groups. I have heard of (but not been a witness to, I must admit) a couple of incidents during lobster mini season this year of fishermen dropping M-80's in the water near divers.

 

[100days-a-year]

njdiver1,I applaud your grasp of the situation,most of the press and write-ups seem to believe there is some sort of ill intent.Things will work out hopefully in a way that adressses the concerns of #1 the sharks,#2 the local populace and #3 the potential effect on tourism(our #1 industry)Since I am not a fisheries biologist nor an animal behavior specialist I will defer to thier opinion.This Floridian doesn't care for any feedings where a human actually touches the food while the animal is eating whether it's sharks,deer,bears,feral cats & dogs or anyother wild creature.As for the tourism dollars shark feeds generate,I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that it accounts for less than 1 tenth of 1% of total dive tourism and it goes to a select few( so as a threat it would kinda be moot anyway)Thanks....BTW saw 7ft sand tiger yesterday along with several smaller guys,also a six ft wide stingray....cooool :0

 

[sharpenu]

100 days, I agree. Feeds alter the shark's environment. But I don't believe the FWC gives a rats behind about the sharks. This is a do nothing move to put a positive "we fixed it" spin on the summer's shark bite media frenzy. Do we, as divers, want to be blamed every time something goes wrong in Florida waters? This is about money, and they picked the smallest portion of the smallest segment of the tourism industry to be the fall guy. Is spearfishing next? What about drift dives?

 

[njdiver1]

Thank you. The ill intent is there, after more than two years of work and negotiations the FFWCC retaliated with the ban after several of the dive operators doing shark dives refused to agree with proposed regulations for controlling the practice. At least one of the operators does not handle the food but is still affected by the ban. There are “experts” on both sides in this argument. It will be up to your Judicial system to sort out whether this ban is legal under Florida law. As a realist I see the decision based on:

#1 $$$$$$$$

#2 peoples’ perception of what might cause shark attacks (both informed and DUUH!) also resulting in $$$$$$

#3 detrimental effects on the sharks (as yet unproved) again costing $$$$$$$

I agree, as with my State’s present problem with the Feds on taking trophy lobsters. It is actually a fight with Maine. They successfully banned all taking of lobster by scuba and want to see this ban spread nationwide. I am to attend a public hearing on this matter Thursday evening. I have heard it said that Sand Tigers are the biggest wooses in the ocean. Cocos for sharks, BVI for extra large rays.

 

[100days-a-year]

njdiver1,Sorry to hear about the lobster fight.The fight would be short here.As far as big animals I wouldn't trade my house for anything .In 1 year I've seen a Great White ,Mantas to 15'+,Stingrays to 8',100's of smaller sharks,Dolphin(mammal)Right whales,Pilot whales,Oceanic sunfish(mola mola) to 300+,Jewfish and tons of tropicals supposedly not indigenous to my area(thank you Gulf Stream)While I agree most of this fight is emotional and less than factual I see that in the end they would rather have tourists comfortable in the water at Daytona rather than any real concern for the sharks.However ,diving would be much more expensive here for most if not for mom & pop America supporting the tourism infrastructure.....as you said bottom line $$$$