Have your say!
|
Every month in our newsletter - The ecoAfrican - we bring to our
readers' attention a topic that is currently a hot issue in African
conservation or tourism. It is usually a subject that is currently under
debate and we try to bring you a few sides of the story, as well as our
own stand on it. We encourage you as the reader to have your say... To
add your view, please
click here |
|
Shark Cage Diving April 2005
Following the recent shark attacks in Cape Town, South Africa, shark
cage diving is once again under the spotlight. There is much controversy
surrounding whether this practice (and the chumming that goes with it)
is the cause of the alleged increase in attacks. Shark cage diving
involves the adventurous soul climbing into a steel cage, while a team
on board a boat throws out chum and usually a baited rope, which is used
to lure the Great White Sharks even closer to the cage and diver.
 Whether or not this encourages sharks to associate
people with their normal diet of fish and seals – and thus confuse the
two, is largely guesswork at this stage. More research is needed.
Regardless of the outcome, ecoAfrica discourages any form of luring of
animals and for this reason, does not promote shark cage diving. Why do
we accept this in our oceans when we would never image a similar
scenario on land? To find out more about ecoAfrica and our environmental
ethics,
click here.
If you're interested in observing sharks and their
natural behaviour we recommend you try the
8 day Sardine Run Scuba Diving package
- available in June & July. The rest of the year, try the
3 day Advanced Shark Diving Course in kwaZulu Natal, South Africa.
|
|
Feedback
Comments from a previous ecoAfrica traveller:
"I certainly endorse ecoAfrica's environmental ethics and efforts which
is why I chose your company to arrange my recent Tanzania safari. (7
day Tanzania Wildlife Week)
I think the shark cage diving lure issue is quite a difficult one.
Arguments rage on both sides but it is difficult to prove that these
operations are leading to increased Great White shark attacks on humans.
On the one hand chumming and bait bring the sharks into direct contact
with man but whether this confuses the shark in associating people with
its diet leading to attack will probably never be proven one way or
another. I certainly deplore the sensational overseas media reporting (I
refer particularly to the British Press) regarding recent South African
attacks. One of these was a very highly publicised incident involving a
reputable shark cage company which lured in a shark to a cage holding a
tourist and bait was pulled across the cage to give the tourist a close
encounter. The shark grabbed the buoy at the top of the cage (not
uncommon or surprising and gave it a bit of a shake) but the way it was repor! ted was grossly exaggerated and sensationalist suggesting the
shark was trying to get at the tourist and even into the cage over the
top. Over the top is a good use of words for that article !! To the
general British public it was horrific headlines endorsing the Jaws
man-eating view of sharks made especially graphic by the picture of the
open jaws and teeth of the creature spread over the front page. This is
in itself harmful to the sharks. These sorts of reports and mis-conceptions
encourage a one-sided view of a magnificent creature as a bloodthirsty
man-eater and leads to macho males hunting them for trophies or at least
an unsympathetic view of them by the general public. Clearly this is the
type of negative publicity that we don't want if we are to ensure the
survival of a magnificent and rare / possibly endangered creature. We
need responsible accurate reporting.
We also do not want uncontrolled access to these animals. There may be
unlicensed and unscrupulous cage diving operations active and rules
could be broken by such people. However I do believe it is pretty
strictly controlled by the authorities (at least the South Africans) I
am informed that the sharks patrolling Dyer Island at any particular
time are not, as far as is known, regular visitors year in year out. I
understand that they are migratory and mostly leave the seal hunting
channels when the "season" is over. If so then regular association with
Man would not be such an issue. The Great White Shark is a highly
nomadic creature evolved over millions of years before Man arrived on
Earth and wouldn't be conditioned in this way.
Some of the cage diving operations are also research companies providing
invaluable data, behavioural information, records and statistics to
increase our knowledge of a greatly mis-understood and little known
animal. These guys also provide controlled access to the sharks to the
general public increasing our knowledge and appreciation of the species.
This helps positive feelings and concern for the Great White and sharks
in general.
Although I actually don't feel totally comfortable with the lure aspect
of cage diving, stringent regulations do not allow mammal flesh (horse,
seal etc) to be used as bait but you argue that land tourist based
encounters with animals do not allow lures generally . This must be
because we can view elephants, lions, antelope etc easily enough in our
own land based environment. We can easily view whales which need to come
to the surface to breathe (and often they are naturally inquisitive of
humans). But a shark? Its environment is underwater and it does not
often show itself on the surface and would mainly choose to avoid Man in
normal circumstances. Too often people's experience of a Great White are
photos of it hooked / gaffed and dead and looking ugly out of its
environment. In the water it is a thing of great beauty. How are we to
gain a close enough encounter to view and appreciate the shark ? ! The
answer is we have to lure it in. Easy enough because of its highly
developed senses, especially smell.
The question is whether the actual resulting effect on the shark, its
environment and interaction with people is justified. Subject to any
proof otherwise it appears minimal? If it is to study, educate and gain
appreciation enough to preserve the species and pass protective laws
then I say yes luring is certainly justified. The shark does not come to
any actual physical harm from the contact ie it is not hooked or held
out of the water against its will or trapped in any way. I am in favour
of the cage diving where it is strictly controlled by the authorities
and provided by good, professional, educational and
environmentally-minded companies which also provide invaluable research."
Jerry Edey, UK
Comments from Andy Cobb, internationally recognised
shark behaviour expert:
(Andy is the dive instructor for the above mentioned shark trips)
"A bit about my shark background...
I have been doing field work for the NSB (Natal Sharks Board) since 1983
to date, collecting shark data on the spotted ragged toothed shark.
I have over 900-hours logged underwater with shark only, 24-years of
recorded shark behaviour and introduced over 7000-divers to sharks and
changed them to value the sharks. I am Internationally recognised as a
shark behavioural expert. Their words not mine.
I am on the working committee of the IFAW Africa Shark Conservation
Working Committee. An honorary member of the Sharkproject
www.sharkproject.com and the SA Ambassador of the Sharkproject.
I run Sharkschool for the Sharkproject and also two certificated shark
diving courses. My Advanced Shark Course was filmed for Shark Summer
under Shark Encounters."
Andy pointed out that most shark cage diving operators
are operating illegally under the Tourism Amendment Act as they do not
have accredited shark guides. He also points out that many of the common
practices that one hears of on these trips, such as touching the shark
on the nose or chumming with something that is not marine orientated or
seal blood - is not allowed. Andy says: "Shark cage diving is like going
to the zoo. The adventure means the Jaws myth is being used to mislead
the public about the whites and shark in general."
|
‘Make
safety for people and sharks the net result’
Statement issued by WWF and The Endangered
Wildlife Trust (EWT) - July 2005
 By
all means find ways to prevent shark attacks, as long as those ways don’t
involve killing thousands of sharks, dolphins,
turtles and other marine life forms.
That’s the stance of the Endangered Wildlife Trust and WWF,
reacting in a joint statement to the proposed use of electronic shark
deterrent barriers at beaches in the Peninsula, following recent shark
attacks on surfers and swimmers.
Dr Deon Nel, manager of WWF’s Marine Programme in South
Africa, says the conservation organisation welcomes ways to curtail
shark attacks, “with one major proviso: that they don’t involve dealing
a disproportionate blow to our rich and diverse marine ecosystems.” Dr
Nel says the proposed electronic shark deterrent barriers emit an
electronic field that the sharks find discomforting, “seem, in
principle, like a promising alternative to shark nets, which
indiscriminately kill thousands of sharks, as well as turtles, dolphins
and other marine species each year.”
Dr Nel adds, “There have been concerns that sharks may
be harmed by the electronic fields, but our view at this stage is that
some temporary discomfort is still preferable to being killed in shark
nets, as thousands are each year. Clearly there needs to be increased
research into the effects of the electronic barriers, especially on a
large scale, and ways found to mitigate these effects.
“Sharks face enough of a threat from humans as it is.
Indiscriminate fishing techniques mean that thousands of sharks,
dolphins and turtles are needlessly killed each year as so-called
'by-catch', where they’re caught during fishing for other species.
Illegal finning of sharks - where fishermen cut off sharks’ fins and
then throw the sharks back into the sea to die – is a further major
problem."
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) estimates that more
than 100 million sharks are killed worldwide each year. This figure is
even more alarming due to the fact that sharks breed very slowly.
On average, 100 bathers drown off South Africa’s beaches
each year, while on average one person dies after being bitten by a
shark every second year. Annually, about six people die globally after
being bitten by sharks.
Dr Nel says, “Ideally we’d like to see a reduction in
the use of shark nets and would strongly oppose an expansion of their
use to False Bay as has been suggested. Nets don’t deter sharks, they
just kill them. Shark nets are set to catch and kill sharks. Their
purpose is to reduce the number of sharks in an area and thus reduce the
chance of shark attack".
Describing shark nets as, "Indiscriminate killers of
many forms of marine life including threatened species of turtles and
dolphins," Dr Nel adds: “Of particular concern to us are the smaller
inshore dolphins such as the Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin and
Heaviside’s Dolphin - both small dolphins with small population sizes.”
Shark nets were installed at bathing beaches off the
then Natal coast in the late 1950s following a series of fatal shark
attacks and, have since been operated by the then Natal Anti-Shark
Measures Board, now known as the Natal Sharks Board. On average, 1000
sharks, 70 dolphins, 40 turtles and a multitude of other animals die in
these shark nets every year, according to one estimate.
Dr Nel concludes: “We’re privileged to live in a country
that has oceans filled with a diversity of beautiful life forms. A
healthy marine environment is one that includes top predators that play
a pivotal role in the functioning of the ecosystem. This privilege comes
with responsibilities, in terms of management, and certain risks for
users. This is part of the package deal. The alternative is a bland,
sterile, lifeless swimming pool.
"Sharks really have gotten short shrift: if cuddly
animals like seal pups were being slaughtered at the rate sharks are
killed, there would be an outcry. But while some people find sharks
frightening, they’re fascinating, diverse and generally shy – their rate
of decline and their role in the oceans’ ecosystems warrant increased
conservation efforts.”
This article was a joint publication by
The Endangered
Wildlife Trust and WWF-SA.
|
ecoFocus
|
|
