In the interests of public safety. Is this not worth testing and reporting on ?
Francois.
----- Original Message -----
From: SealAlert-SA
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:57 AM
Subject: One Hour Swim Around the Seal Colony Challenge to the Scientists who support cage-diving
Dear Ryan Johnson and to the other co-authors of the shark pro-chumming paper,
One Hour Swim Around Seal Colony Challenge
Thank you for your reply. As you state there is
a difference of opinion. When sea users are getting attacked, eaten
alive and losing limbs. This is not the time or place, to play
games with peoples lives and safety.
I do not believe your research was sound or even
objective to say the least. In fact, your main objective, "is there
cause for concern", was completely ignored. Making no attempt to
even see the possibility of a policy that does not attract or chum
or feed sharks. You in fact continually contradict your own
findings, 4 dependent sharks off Mossel Bay and regard chumming off
a beach as an extreme contravention of a regulation. Why - because
these actions do indeed attract and alter sharks natural foraging
behaviour.
You ignore the hundreds of shark interactions
with humans, people getting attacked or that more boats are
attacked in False Bay by sharks than the rest of the world combined
or even after 4 years the significant drop in shark attacks in
Florida after they banned shark feeding - nor offer any
explanation.
You even ignore a blanket official wildlife
policy which states "the feeding of wild animals is not allowed" or
that fact that DEAT introduced a regulation as far back as 2000,
(by some of your very own co-authors) that made the feeding of even
a lesser predator, who has never been recorded as taking a human's
life, even in the context of tube-feeding a rescued 7 month old
seal pup - as a criminal offence.
To prescribe in permitting conditions that holders "must attract"
and entice sharks with 25kg of fish on a rope - that this is
neither conditioning or feeding. Is simply beyond all
logic.
As you have chosen to rebut my request to err on
the side of caution. Stating your 'science' is solid. Accept my
challenge in the interests of public safety and future protection
of white sharks.
It truly amazes me. How you as scientists
acknowledge that you know next to nothing about white sharks. Not
their population size, diet, reproduction, number of pups nor have
you ever even raised a single white shark to even glimpse its
feeding behaviour even for a month or year. To after a handful of
trips to sea. Are willing to formulate a national policy that could
condition and change hundreds if not thousands of potential
man-eating sharks (if not already done so) already swimming
just metres off public beaching areas - and state with certainty
risking peoples lives, in actions that could be detrimental to
sharks, seals and in fact the whole marine eco-system - that there
is no risk to all, including the environment and species
within.
Knowing that your research is full of 'holes' to
start with, ignoring completely prime inter-related species seals,
their behaviours and official policies therein - 17 individuals
attempt to push policies through for 11 others that will literally
affect hundreds of thousands of others and could potentially
threaten future income involving millions, if not
hundreds of millions of rands - is in my opinion
criminal.
Your scientific reviews are not only a threat to
the future conservation of seals and white sharks, but are in fact,
a very real threat to the future safety of sea users around cage
diving seal colonies. Unless properly researched and sound
environmental steps are put in place. You risk turning False Bay
and other sites into a shark attack capital of the world, not only
on seals but on members of the public.
I stand by my research and back-up such
which physical action. That was taken from thousands of hours of
first hand experience. The question is will you?
My question to all of you is - what happens to the
people, the sharks, the seals or the environment, if you are wrong ?
The issue at stake is recreational safety and white
shark conditioning. These are concerns that do not suffice in paper
form alone (no matter how much scientifically accredited), but
in fact need to be translated into physical safety.
I refer to your report paper "South Africa's
White Shark cage-diving industry - is their cause for concern?".
Written by yourself, A Kock, M Bester, L Compagno, S Dudley, C
Griffiths, T Teswick, P Kotze, K Laroche, M Meyer, H Oosthuizen, S
Swanson and L Jacobs.
This report was forwarded to a supporter of Seal
Alert-SA in response to his concern whether cage-diving does in
fact condition white sharks and therefore creates a risk to sea
users - by Sanlam who provides the funding to WWF-SA. Who in turn
is facilitating a policy to manage white sharks and the
recreational safety in the waters of the western Cape. Mr
F Louw of Sanlam stated "I also attach a paper that scientifically
proves that their is no link between shark cage diving and
attacks".(The paper co-authored by yourself)
As you further disregard and in fact, make snide
remarks of my years of invaluable research and expertise, whilst
confirming and I quote - "I cannot comment on
this opinion, I am not an authority on seal history" and "I cannot
comment on the historical occupation of seal at False Bay. But both
seals and sharks were in the waters/on the island way before
cage diving was even a glint in the eye of any budding
operator".
You state, "Your ancedotes in NO
way refute my findings. Your findings are nothing more than
interesting anecdotes that can be potentially explained via
numerous reasons (that is not saying you are incorrect in your
interperatation, just you have no way of saying one way or the
other). Without systematic collection of data, evoking scientific
techniques, and putting your findings up for peer review and
publication they are meaningless. Random introduction of anecdotes
simply do not cut it. If you take the trouble to follow the path
and get your work published, then and only then can they be useful
to anybody else".
Could you perhaps confirm the following;
◦
Are you qualified or a PhD student?
◦
Has your work been published and peer reviewed?
◦
Who funded your research and was it you that approached them or
them you?
◦
How much funding did you receive?
I submit equally that your 'pen-pushing
scientific reviews' are equally meaningless, until tested under
physical challenge.
As you and your co-authors contend the waters
are safe - prove
it?
As you now lay claim to all these correct
scientific techniques, and as you claim are now useful (to
those of us most at risk of attack), and which present a very
serious concern to us. Perhaps you and all your co-authors,
including Dr Deon Nel and Sanlam's Frank Louw, would be willing to
support your pen pushing "key findings" contained in your paper and
I quote, "It is highly improbable that the 'conditioning of sharks'
to a cage diving vessel would increase danger to human water users
such as swimmers, surfers, scuba divers and kayakers" - by simply
putting your scientific paper thoughts into physical action.
Physical action that you, your co-authors and
funders, expect thousands of sea users to accept and risk their
life and limb over 500 km of prime recreational coastline everyday,
so that 11 cage diving operators can make some money.
One Hour Swim
Around Seal Colony Challenge
Francois Hugo of Seal Alert-SA
challenges you all to put your scientific 'expertise where your
mouth is'. I will spend one hour swimming around any seal colony
not previously engaging in cage diving or chumming within 10
nautical miles of said colony - un-aided or in any protective
clothing or equipment, except a drysuit. During any time of day or
night.
I therefore challenge you to do the
same around any of the cage-diving seal colonies you purport to
claim does not condition and there is no link between cage diving
and attacks. (for those of you that can't swim you may use a
flotation life-jacket)
Should you fail to accept this challenge
within 24-hours of written confirmation. I request you withdraw
your paper and reviews, and support an end to attracting sharks
either through baiting, chumming, feeding or whatever conditions is
contained in current cage diving permits or codes of conduct.
These conditions naturally apply to Sanlam's Esme
Arendse and Frank Louw, and WWF-SA's Dr John Little and Dr Deon Nel
and Jason Bell of IFAW, and each co-author of your paper.
I await your response to this important public safety
challenge.
For the Seals
Francois Hugo Seal Alert-SA
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Johnson
To:
SealAlert-SA ;
Alison Kock ;
hoosthuizen@deat.gov.za
Cc:
hkleinschmidt@feike.co.za ;
mwillemse@deat.gov.za ;
clenders@deat.gov.za ;
stoffelf@pprotect.org ;
garyp@pprotect.org ;
LawrenceM@pprotect.pwv.gov.za ;
verne@nelsonmandela.org ;
jbell@ifaw.org ;
mmeyer@deat.gov.za;
Sent:
Wednesday,
August 30, 2006 10:44 AM
Subject:
Re:
Sanlam sponsorship of WWF - White Sharks ate fish, then Seals - now
they hunt you - who is responsible?
Dear
Mr Francois
"and
the many others whom I have not had the pleasure of meeting
yet"
Please find
response below. I have learnt from the past that email debates are
exercises in futility, so this will be my only entry into the
debate you are conducting.
1.
"definition of
'conditioning' ...astoundingly naive"
>This is
Oxfords biological dictionary definition of classical conditioning,
thus they will have to take the proverbial punch on the chin. With
respect, however, I would suggest that oxfords professors, such as
Clutton Brock, Robert May, Richard Dawkins and colleagues are quite
qualified to define classical conditioning. I would personally side
with their understanding of animal behavior and
conditioning
2.
"Any
kind of interaction, with or without food has the potential to
change marine predators behavior - and therefore create a potential
risk".
>
Yes any human interaction 'may' or 'may not' change the behavior of
an animal. But the wide connotations of 'behavioral change' is very
different to the restricted behavioral paradigm of 'associative
learning'. Chasing an animal causes behavior changes, shooting an
animal causes behavioral changes, picking up a wild animal and
transporting it 100km causes behavioral changes... my paper is on
'associative learning'.
>
Potential risk for what? humans interacting with the animal, the
animal safety, the mindset of humans who disagree with
human/wildlife interaction? This presumed link is between
"behavioral change" and "potential risk" is unjustified in this
statement as you fail to define both in your
argument.
3. "A wild seal stranded, carefully approached and simply
massaged - becomes dependent temporarily to that area. A clear
behavior change is visibly noticeable that involves an immediate
loss of fear. No feeding is involved".
>The Seal appears to be getting a positive resource from you
that is not food, possibly social bonding, perceived
protection, perceived maintainence, I can not be sure. The
gain of this resource can promote conditioning. White sharks only
potential resource gained from cage diving is food, thus only
food rewards are relevant in the assessment.
4. A seal rescued and rehabilitated in the wild. Returned to
the wild, but returns annually every year for two weeks. Relocating
me in several different locations, with associated boats ranging
from 60-tons to no boats at all. Seal never accepts food from
anyone else and after feeding immediately leaves the
area.
> A possible indication of the 'rearrangement gradient' in play.
The seal fails to have the conditioned response evoked by neutral
stimulus different from you/your boat (e.g. a 60 ton boat). Same
was a shark conditioned to a 30-40ft cage diving vessel wouldnot
have the response evoked by a swimmer or surfer.
5. Pups hand raised in the wild and constantly raised
on tube-feeding, reject the tube after 11 plus months, and self
forages. Never accepting solid feed. Upon their return months
later, ignore all offering of hand feeding.
>
This is termed weaning. It has nothing to do with the development
or loss of a conditioned response.
6. A seal rescued and fed in Simonstown dockyard and then
brought to Hout Bay and released. Stayed for two weeks, until it
started rejecting the feed. After some days of not eating
it swam directly back to the first initial site where rescued
and waited there, 100 km away.
>If you
kidnap a seal and transport it 100km from its original location, I
am not surprised that your attempts to conditioning failed. I
suggest next time keeping it on a chain if you do not want it to
leave you and return to the wild (that is tongue in cheek). Animals
have patterns of habitat use for a reason, maybe the seal did
not want to be rescued.
7. A seal fed 20km out at sea, will return the next day at the
exact same time, after only one initial
feed.
>A seal
located in the same place on successive days, and accepting food is
not evidence that conditioning has been established after one day!
It could be a feeding ground thus the seal typically returns to
daily (because there is fish?), the seal may not have left, or
some human may have been feeding it for weeks before you turned up.
This is the problems with trying to turn anecdotes into
evidence.
8. There is literally hundreds of observations that would
completely refute your findings, albeit with seals and not with
sharks. The question is, is shark behavior fundamentally different
to that of seals, to with certainty state there is no risk
presented by cage diving activity. I doubt it, if so why use
definitions related to 'dog behavior.
>
Dog behavior was used, because the process of 'conditioning' across
taxa is similar - ergo the definition. The ability of animals to
learn (i.e. speed) differs. Mammals are typically far quicker at
been conditioned than either fish or
sharks.
>
Your ancedotes in NO way refute my findings. Your findings are
nothing more than interesting anecdotes that can be potentially
explained via numerous reasons (that is not saying you are
incorrect in your interperatation, just you have no way of saying
one way or the other). Without systematic collection of data,
evoking scientific techniques, and putting your findings up for
peer review and publication they are meaningless. Random
introduction of anecdotes simply do not cut it. If you take the
trouble to follow the path and get your work published, then and
only then can they be useful to anybody
else.
9. The bottom-line in my opinion should rather err on the side
of caution. If there is but the slightest chance that cage-diving
changes condition and therefore poses a risk. It should be stopped.
The line should be drawn if people have been seriously attacked and
hurt - without prior provocation.
>
I agree with caution, that is why I where a seat belt when I drive
and do not drink and drive. I do not stop driving altogether. With
the cage diving industry, every effort should be made to stop any
feeding and thereby remove any possibility of
conditioning.
>Without
prior provocation?.. Are you suggesting that unprovoked attacks by
white sharks on humans did not occur before cage diving? I refer
you to burgess 1996, in Klimley and Ainley - Biology of carcharodon
carcharias. Simply incorrect.
10. Consider this. What proof would convince you that
cage-diving does condition and pose risk. If a shark tagged at the
Seal colony by cage-diving operators was killed whilst attacking a
bather in Fish Hoek - would this constitute
proof?
I
would pose a second question, what do you require to accept that
cage diving is not augmenting the risk to humans? To be blunt, it
is very apparent that you have entered this debate with an
established point of view that will not be changed by any science
that I may produce. Thus it is pointless for me to try, and to
expect anything other than rejection of my findings from you.
Propaganda is the selective acceptance and rejection of information
and evidence in accordance with pre-established beliefs. What you
want produced is propaganda not science.
Indices that
would prove conditioning... (1) quicker arrival of sharks to CD
boats, (2) increased contact time at boats, (3) increased
residency and failure to move away from area in typical
fashion, based on base line data, (4) harassment of similar boats
that are not chumming, (5) Change in daily habitat use towards
concentrating activity in near vicinity of where cage diving boats
operate. I can go on
there are many ways to test conditioning.
11. The accepted 'naturalness' of these seal colonies and their
relationship to shark predation and therefore the cage-diving
industry.
>
I cannot comment on the historical occupation of seal at False Bay.
But both seals and sharks were in the waters/on the island way
before cage diving was even a glint in the eye of any budding
operator.
12. The attracting and chumming
aspect alone, and whether or not this impacts or
conditions.
> The attracting process without feeding will not condition the
animal for reasons that no reward is gained. We have proved that
failure to feed results in negative conditioning in which sharks
begin to ignore chum slicks and cage diving vessels.
13.The risk to bathers, surfers or sea-users of such
activity.
>huh?
the whole paper is on this? I do not
understand
14. I prefer to divide the seal colonies in the Cape as east
and west coast. With the dividing line at Cape Point. The reason
for this is simple. Geographically those east colonies during
pupping time in December experience the prevailing SE winds as
on-shore and on the west coast as off-shore.
See below and attached with regard to the unnaturalness of
these seal colonies. How in effect this serves to attract sharks to
this area and hence the cage-diving operations. (your comments on
this point of view what be welcomed).
>
I cannot comment on this opinion, I am not an authority on seal
history.
15. You are aware of the following;
The two attacks off Kommetjie and Noordhoek.
> Yes
16. The west coast seal colonies display none of the behavior
associated with white sharks at the east coast
colonies.
>Yes, from
limited observation on W coast
17. The relevant abundance and regular sightings of white
sharks in tunny and snoek fishing grounds 10-40 km off
kommetjie.
>No,
18. In the 1940s a caretaker being hired to shoot sharks at
Clifton to keep bathers safe - as a full time
occupation.
>No, but I
will accept your word for it. The question remains was it a full
time job in respect of getting a 'full time salary? or was the guy
actually busy shooting sharks left right and center.. Simply having
someone there is not an indicator of high shark
abundance.
19. If the act of attracting, enticing or chumming off an
adjacent to swimming beach is consider an extreme contravention of
the regulations (key findings of your review). The how can you at
the same time state that this 'conditioning of sharks' is not a
very real risk to sea-users.
>
The contravention was chumming out side of his area, the extreme
part of my statement was that he was a long way out of his area.
Thus very conspicuous. Where you chum makes no difference to
whether a shark will be conditioned or not. Thus his actions are
not relevant to the conditioning debate. I am not a spokesperson of
DEAT, but I suspect the concern is around concentrating sharks off
swimming beaches by chumming. Increased sharks, increased
human/shark encounter possibility, increased attack
possibility. Not the issue of conditioning, thus not a
contradiction.
Hope
this helps
Ryan
Johnson