There's been some activity from Australia on the great cage diving debate.
A scientific paper was released (Bruce and Bradford, 2011) noting behavioural changes in Great Whites of cage diving sites in South Australia. Despite not actually bothering to read it, this now very dog-eared paper has been waved about by the anti-chumming lobby as vindication of their argument and have carried on howling about the ignorance of our scientists and the surely corrupted industry bribing our authorities. If they had bothered to read it, they would have found nothing in it to either support or refute their claims.
The study did make some recommendations about limiting the amount of diving/chumming going on, but this was aimed at the sharks well-being as it relates to cage-diving distracting from their feeding opportunities. It makes no mention of how these findings may change sharks behaviour towards humans, and does not mention human water user safety once. The closest it gets is mentioning increased aggression in fed animals in other sudies - towards the end of the paper, as part of a list of affects, with a string of references citing where they get it from. I've commented before on it being strange that the archetypical nanny state (apologies to you ozzies reading this, but it's true) would have no recommendation regarding safety if it were an issue.
This week, Western Australia has decided to make it an issue and ban cage diving. Pre-emptively, because no one does it that continent sized state. Again, there's an air of mis-informed vindication. If you took the time to read the article, you would see that it's a political decision. From the Telegraph, Norman Moore, Western Australia's fisheries minister who made the call said he would not allow anything that “may raise even greater public fears than already exist”. So, the call was made because of public perception, not actual risk. Politics...
He does go to say that there are differences between the South Australian study site - where sharks are known to congregate - and Western Australia, where no such sites are known of. He infers that if cage diving were to be allowed, it may result in congregating, which could then lead to attacks. This could well be true - I'm not sure if anyone is qualified to agree or disagree - but Norm just isn't prepared to take the risk. That's fine. He's a politician doing his job.
However, in South Africa, where the debate rages like a pimple on your mate's forehead that you don't tell him about so he embarasses himself more (true story), this holds little weight. Our cage-diving sites are around known aggregation sites, and so would have more in common with the South Australian sites. As such, there is still nothing to suggest that cage-diving and its associated chumming is leading to increased aggression. That it's changing shark movements that then lead to increased interactions also has nothing to support it.
Relax. Go surfing.
Read the Independant's article here, before they go bust.
Read Justin Othersurfa arguing against himself here, if you're still procrastinating from real work.
A scientific paper was released (Bruce and Bradford, 2011) noting behavioural changes in Great Whites of cage diving sites in South Australia. Despite not actually bothering to read it, this now very dog-eared paper has been waved about by the anti-chumming lobby as vindication of their argument and have carried on howling about the ignorance of our scientists and the surely corrupted industry bribing our authorities. If they had bothered to read it, they would have found nothing in it to either support or refute their claims.
The study did make some recommendations about limiting the amount of diving/chumming going on, but this was aimed at the sharks well-being as it relates to cage-diving distracting from their feeding opportunities. It makes no mention of how these findings may change sharks behaviour towards humans, and does not mention human water user safety once. The closest it gets is mentioning increased aggression in fed animals in other sudies - towards the end of the paper, as part of a list of affects, with a string of references citing where they get it from. I've commented before on it being strange that the archetypical nanny state (apologies to you ozzies reading this, but it's true) would have no recommendation regarding safety if it were an issue.
This week, Western Australia has decided to make it an issue and ban cage diving. Pre-emptively, because no one does it that continent sized state. Again, there's an air of mis-informed vindication. If you took the time to read the article, you would see that it's a political decision. From the Telegraph, Norman Moore, Western Australia's fisheries minister who made the call said he would not allow anything that “may raise even greater public fears than already exist”. So, the call was made because of public perception, not actual risk. Politics...
He does go to say that there are differences between the South Australian study site - where sharks are known to congregate - and Western Australia, where no such sites are known of. He infers that if cage diving were to be allowed, it may result in congregating, which could then lead to attacks. This could well be true - I'm not sure if anyone is qualified to agree or disagree - but Norm just isn't prepared to take the risk. That's fine. He's a politician doing his job.
However, in South Africa, where the debate rages like a pimple on your mate's forehead that you don't tell him about so he embarasses himself more (true story), this holds little weight. Our cage-diving sites are around known aggregation sites, and so would have more in common with the South Australian sites. As such, there is still nothing to suggest that cage-diving and its associated chumming is leading to increased aggression. That it's changing shark movements that then lead to increased interactions also has nothing to support it.
Relax. Go surfing.
Read the Independant's article here, before they go bust.
Read Justin Othersurfa arguing against himself here, if you're still procrastinating from real work.
No comments:
Post a Comment