When we selectively eliminate critical species from ecosystems, there is a price to be paid not only by the animal itself and the ecology. Man too must pony up - but our price may not be so obvious. It may be a price that is paid years down the road or is one we choose to ignore in the face of immediate personal or commercial gain.
This is what was once faced by cattlemen with regard to the hunting of wolves in the northern United States. Whatever was gained by cattle ranchers in eliminating a key predator, it ultimately came back to haunt them when the deer and varmint population exploded and competition between nature and the cattlemen for suitable grazing land necessitated bringing back the wolf population. But now the pendulum seems to be swinging back and the hunt for wolves is once again beginning in earnest - with no lessons apparently learned.
Many commercial fisheries stand on the brink of collapse, but sometimes the reason is not the obvious one: overfishing of a particular species. In some cases, it is rather the domino-like effect of our actions - as in the case of the hake fishery in Chile which has been severely impacted by the expansion of the Humboldt squid population, a voracious predator whose numbers have grown because of the commercial elimination of the squid's primary natural predators: sharks, tuna, and billfish.
This secondary effect is now being seen in other regions along the eastern Pacific coast: in the Sea of Cortez, where catches of grouper are in decline; and Northern California, where local fishermen are switching from catching rockfish to hauling up huge quantities of squid.
Here's a short video from my recent assignment in the Sea of Cortez.
The filming was for an important future program about which I have to be tight lipped for the time being. But the issue regarding Humboldt squid, which represents one of the multiple effects of disrupting once-balanced marine ecosystems, is an ongoing and growing one.
You fish. The fish are all gone. You move on. It's not that simple anymore.
From time to time in this blog, I have cited the role that ocean predators such as sharks play in maintaining a balanced ecosystem - whether we personally care for the animal or not. In fact when I would speak to groups about sharks, I would acknowledge the fears and distaste that some people in the audience might have but would then focus on the critical importance of the shark. You may not love them, but they are indispensable.
And from time to time, I have mentioned the ongoing situation regarding endangered wolves in the U.S. The designation of wolves as endangered in the Yellowstone and Rocky Mountain areas has been a flip-flopping issue with certain populations faced with extinction at the hands of hunters, backed by the support of concerned ranchers who have lost cattle to predation.
There are strong parallels between sharks and wolves both socially, with their interaction with mankind, and ecologically. First, ecologically, they serve the same functions as apex predators, maintaining a proper balance of fauna and even flora within their respective ecosystems. Without sharks, the numbers of their primary prey would increase, feeding on smaller prey that are often herbivores. And so there is a potential shift in a marine community and a potential increase in vegetation and algae that can threaten other life forms like coral - all part of the non-linear cascade effect.
Wolves serve a similar function, maintaining balance between prey ranging from small "varmints" to deer, elk, and moose. In the past when the wolves were not provided protection as endangered species, there was both an explosion in the small animal or rodent population and a decline in grazing land as more and more large animals like deer and elk would de-nude the grasslands.
Secondly, sharks have been exposed to senseless hunting through "shark tournaments" wherein large numbers of both juvenile and mature breeding sharks were hauled in, often times the catch being sharks of no tournament or commercial value. With organizations like the Shark-Free Marinas Initiative, there are efforts being made to at least alter the decisively fatal outcome generated by shark tournaments through the implementation of catch-and-release techniques. With the current state of regulations and protections for wolves being in somewhat disarray (see prior post), there are now similar tournaments, "wolf-killing derbies," that leave dwindling populations of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Rocky areas, including Idaho and Montana, at great risk.
The Defenders of Wildlife, through their www.savewolves.org campaign, are working to protect these threatened land predators by educating people to their importance and by focusing public awareness towards the businesses and corporations that sponsor or support the wolf-killing derbies.
According to Defenders of Wildlife president, Rodger Schlickeisen, "Since wolves were reintroduced to Greater Yellowstone and central Idaho fifteen years ago, we’ve seen local ecosystems rebound as these top predators helped prevent overgrazing of foliage by elk and deer. According to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, there are 150,000 elk in Montana, compared to 90,000 in the mid 1980s when wolves started to make their way back to the state. Wyoming's elk population is up 35% since then to 95,000, while Idaho's is up 5% to 115,000."
Sharks and wolves - critically important predators that bring balance to nature's ecosystems but whose image, from Jaws to Little Miss Riding Hood, have placed them on a collision course with man - are at risk of extinction. And, because of the complexity of nature's web, man's attempts to artificially achieve balance (eliminate the predator, then control the increasing prey populations) have not been particularly productive. The challenge is to find methods not to control nature's balance but to work with it, allowing it to flourish in it's infinitely more successful ways.
To learn more about the campaign to save the wolves, click here. To learn more about the campaign to eliminate wolf-killing derbies, click here.
Lately I have been fortunate to have the opportunity to screen my white shark documentary, Island of the Great White Shark to large crowds, to discuss shark issues with the audience, and be interviewed by newscasters. Their questions and comments would be wide-ranging, expressing a variety of opinions. While I tend to avoid op-ed positions (I find I get long-winded as you can see) and prefer to enlighten people with the facts, sometimes I feel compelled to express just where I stand.
Eco-tourism: Eco-tourism has taken an interesting journey, evolving from the hunting safaris of the past into photo safaris to its current position as a conservation-minded endeavor. In the process, it has moved from a high adventure, risk-your-life type of activity to that of ecological enlightenment. This is not to say that it is without risk - from inclement weather, to a charging animal, to tenuous or hostile political environments in some developing countries. But those involved in eco-tourism who choose to promote it as a thrill-seeking, dangerous activity are behind the curve regarding its future and in the end can do more damage than good.
This is particularly true of shark diving. Many leading NGOs have turned towards shark eco-tourism as a possible new strategy to pursue. While past strategies of regulation and prohibition have produced legislative results, eco-tourism offers an additional supportive approach by providing countries or businesses with economic alternatives to curtailed anti-conservation activities while also providing a means to educate the general public with first hand experiences.
However, the NGOs commitment to eco-tourism becomes shaky when safety protocols are not strictly enforced, resulting in aberrations like some of the incidents or activities that have received broadcast media or YouTube attention - like riding, grabbing or playing "kung fu" with passing sharks or cage breaches due to unsafe bait handling. The days of high testosterone, "face the malevolent monster" are at an end and undermine the efforts of those who are working hard to build a general public consensus regarding the importance of shark conservation.
I have personally seen how shark eco-tourism can be beneficial, as I brought out in Island of the Great White Shark at Isla Guadalupe. Those shark diving operators who have been a model of effective eco-tourism have supported the island's "biosphere" status financially, supported Mexican shark researchers both financially and logistically, and have acted as unofficial watchguards in the absence of Mexican enforcement due to the country's limited resources.
Criticisms of Eco-tourism: Eco-tourism is not without its critics and many of their concerns are not based on the welfare of the participants but on the animals themselves. Here are the two most common complaints often levied against shark eco-tourism and my take on the issues: 1. The animal's normal feeding behavior is being disrupted.
Well, to be honest, I have my concerns when feeding takes place pretty much year-round. I am concerned with sites like Stingray City in the Caymans and other similar spots where the potential for negative feeding behavior is possible because of an endless stream of tourists with bait in hand. These sites need specific scientific study to determine if there are detrimental effects taking place.
At a site that I am familiar with, Isla Guadalupe, this same complaint has been used by certain political forces in Mexico who are determined to rid the island of all boat activity. In this case, I believe it is a weak argument. When hang bait is used to attract the sharks, a certain number of them succeed in occasionally catching the bait being wrangled by the crew, but we are talking about bonito or tuna carcasses (the sharks often spit out bony tuna heads) - not a major source of nutritional quantity or quality. For the 3-4 months that the sharks are at the island, this activity does not supplant their normal feeding behavior (primarily pinnipeds and whole tuna) or leave them starving the remaining 8-9 months when they migrate.
I recently had the opportunity to discuss this issue with shark researchers at the ScrippsInstitution of Oceanography. The consensus was that a specific study would be needed for a definitive answer (researchers don't like to guess) but the feeling was there is probably some behavior modification regarding the sharks "recognizing" the presence of shark diving boats but a negative impact on their feeding habits from hang baits alone was a bit of a stretch. 2. Animals will associate humans with their food/bait.
With regards to sharks, the fear is that providing bait to sharks will make them associate humans with their food and become more aggressive to divers, surfers or swimmers - in essence that we're teaching the sharks to eat people. While a specific scientific study would be needed on a site-by-site and/or species-by-species basis to determine it once and for all, I can at least add my anecdotal observations.
In all my years of shark diving, I have yet to see any shark become specifically aggressive towards the divers in cages or myself (where I am often more exposed to the sharks) when conservative baiting is present. This is not to say that I am willing to put my arm in front of a floating bonito while a white shark bears down on it and expect the shark to swim around me. Nor will I place myself in the midst of a group of frenzied reef sharks tearing apart a large piece of bait and act surprised if I get nipped accidentally. But with all the various prey and various scents that sharks detect and recognize, to assume that a shark will equate fish blood to human prey is an A equals B logic that my experiences just don't support.
The Shark's Role as Predator: In building public awareness in shark conservation it is critical that we build consensus based on truth. And the truth is that to maintain a healthy eco-system nature needs its predators - even the big, fearsome ones from sharks to grizzly bears to lions, tigers and so on. Many of these animals benefit from the "warm and fuzzy" factor. We look at the mother polar bear and her cubs strolling across the Arctic ice and we get all soft inside, forgetting the fact that the polar bear is a ferocious predator - a role defined for it by many, many years of evolution.
Sharks do not have the warm and fuzzy factor working for them. They live beneath the waves in their own realm and for centuries all man has been able to do is scratch the surface of that realm and form attitudes steeped in ignorance and fear.
So at one end of the attitude spectrum there is "sharks are killers" and "the only good shark is a dead shark." What we must do is to educate people as to the important role that has been defined for these animals through millions of years of evolution. For some of our larger sharks, their role as predator and scavenger may not be a pretty one, but it is absolutely vital in preserving the intricate weave that we call the marine eco-system.
Unfortunately, I have sometimes seen the spectrum move too far in the other direction. For some people, their enthusiasm as shark advocates pushes them to ascribe social or human-like traits to sharks that don't really exist. To promote sharks as cuddly puppy dogs who smile at our approach is not a responsible position based in fact and can ultimately be dangerous not only to the cause of shark conservation but literally to any person who interacts with a shark, forgetting at a crucial moment the animal's refined sense of self-preservation, of flight or fight. Timothy Treadwell tragically lost sight of this while studying Grizzly Bears.
This circles back to my earlier comments about shark diving. As a professional filmmaker, I am paid to take a calculated risk in filming and sometimes exposing myself to an animal that might choose to defend itself aggressively. Eco-tourists who pay to see these same animals should do so in a safe environment. If we promote some of our most maligned sharks as gentle, loving and smart (in human terms), we are setting up the cause of shark conservation for the inevitable backlash when someone is injured in an unprovoked (or provoked) shark/human interaction.
Let's be true to the facts, true to the sharks, and true to the belief that people can rally behind a cause like shark conservation without being misled, no matter how sincere the intentions. The truth shall, in this case, set the sharks free!
In making a case for conservation and protection of important predators, we must always stick to the facts, understanding the true role and behavior of the animal in question. In generating sympathy for the animal's plight, we must not succumb to the temptation to paint an alternative distorted image that decieves the public and does not do justice to the complexity and balance of Nature's eco-systems.
Tonight, Animal Planet is airing "The Grizzly Man Diaries" about Timothy Treadwell, the young man who spent many years closely observing Grizzly Bears in the wild and promoting these apex predators of the forest as benevolent creatures, communing with them on a quasi-spiritual level. In posturing these important animals outside of their role as predators, he and his girlfriend paid the ultimate price as they were attacked and killed by a bear who was probably on the hunt and whose natural predatory instincts kicked in.
I have seen this same sort of misrepresentation by some well-meaning but misguided shark advocates. We must not swing the pendulum from one extreme - as malevolent man-eaters - to another extreme - as innocent puppy dogs. This does a disservice to these predators and assumes that the public is unable to appreciate these animals for the critical role they play.
And it can put people in harm's way, people who have chosen to enter the natural domain of these animals with a misguided understanding of the role and behavior of an apex predator. In interacting with sharks, eco-tourism/shark diving operations have a responsibility to do so in a controlled environment. And the print and broadcast media have a responsibility to present these animals in their proper context. It is abundantly clear that the populations of many of our larger species of reef and pelagic sharks are being decimated in staggering proportions. But to combat that commercial slaughter, we must not resort to "humanizing" these animals. In a Los Angeles Times review of the Treadwell program, staff writer Mary McNamara wrote: "..it is impossible to walk away from "The Grizzly Man Diaries" without thinking about the place of humans in the natural world, of how we impose our definitions of love and friendship on creatures who may not be able to reciprocate and why we need to do so at all." The truth is, one, animals like large sharks and grizzly bears are magnificent, beautiful creatures worthy of our awe and respect. And two, they play a critical role in maintaining the health and balance of the natural ecosystems in which they exist. And three, they are apex predators - and because of that, if we interact with them, either deliberately or accidentally, we must understand their natural behavior and not unfairly "humanize" them. If we do not, we misrepresent them and ultimately betray their cause for survival.
Check your local TV listings for air dates of "The Grizzly Man Diaries."
This is what was once faced by cattlemen with regard to the hunting of wolves in the northern United States. Whatever was gained by cattle ranchers in eliminating a key predator, it ultimately came back to haunt them when the deer and varmint population exploded and competition between nature and the cattlemen for suitable grazing land necessitated bringing back the wolf population. But now the pendulum seems to be swinging back and the hunt for wolves is once again beginning in earnest - with no lessons apparently learned.
