CDNN INTERVIEW - BOB DIMONDTo feed or not to feed. That is the question. It has polarized divers in Florida, aroused strong opinions throughout the global diving community and turned friends into enemies. In one corner stands Bob Dimond and friends supported by a grassroots coalition of environmental groups. In the other corner stands PADI, DEMA and a powerful coalition of dive industry heavies. The war is over shark feeding and the battle lines are being drawn across each and every Florida coastal community. PART IMr. Dimond was interviewed by CDNN Managing Editor, Freeman Washington. FREEMAN: For Cyber Diver readers around the world who are not familiar with all of the details of the shark feeding issue in Florida, can you give us some historical perspective? When did commercial shark feeding get started in Florida? When and why has it become the source of so much contention? BOB: First, let me say as co-founder of the Marine Safety Group, I would like to thank you and Cyber Diver, on behalf of the Marine Safety Group, for inviting me to be interviewed. Shark feeding began in South Florida in the early 1990's. At first, only one operator offered an occasional feeding dive in the waters off Palm Beach County. In the latter part of the 90's several more operators began commercializing the practice and more widespread problems began to surface. Divers reported being chased out of the water, and a few were actually bit by marine predators near the feeding sites. David Earp, a co-founder of the Marine Safety Group, and I, began considering a course of action. We went to the feeders and asked them to stop. Our request was ignored. In early September 1999 we went to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ( FWC ) and asked the state for a ruling on the issue. The contention arises from the fact that for years PADI/DEMA have been beyond reproach as so-called "guardians of the reef" and no one questioned their motives. Now we come along and proclaim, "the emperor wears no clothes" and make them defend a practice that is contrary to all accepted environmental, conservation and public safety principles (the feeding of wildlife). PADI and DEMA are actually fighting two battles, shark feeding, and preserving their self-projected image as an environmental icon. PADI and DEMA are actually fighting two battles, shark feeding, and preserving their self-projected image as an environmental icon. They have a lot at stake; and we are passionate in our belief that this is a question of money to the dive industry, and a question of public safety and ecology to us. FREEMAN: OK, so you have characterized the battle as one that pits big business - PADI, DEMA and others who care only about profits - against ordinary citizens who care about public safety and their environment. But your adversaries characterize it differently. They say it's their kind of environmentalism against yours. BOB: This is a list of organizations that support the ban: Watchable Wildlife, World Wildlife Fund, Caribbean Conservation Corporation, Defenders of Wildlife, Florida Sportsman Magazine, Environmental Defense, Wildlife Conservation Society, Recreational Fishing Alliance, Reef Relief and The Humane Society of the United States. So, while it is correct that ordinary citizens initiated the ban, there is overwhelming support from the environmental community. PADI is using the pretext of environmentalism to cloak their true motivation--profits. This is an often-used scheme; it's called "greenwash." It's actually PADI's kind of environmentalism against that of all the groups I have just mentioned. PADI is using the pretext of environmentalism to cloak their true motivation--profits. This is an often-used scheme; it's called "greenwash." It's the same as a land developer saying he wants to build a tourist attraction on environmentally sensitive land, not because of all the money he will make, but because it would be a great way to warn the public that the land his hotel sits on needs protection. FREEMAN: PADI argues that shark feeding is part of the solution to a bigger problem: 100 million sharks killed every year. They have stated that they support shark feeding because it helps divers become aware of the need to protect sharks. BOB: I believe divers are already aware of the need to protect sharks. I believe divers have an appreciation for, and want to preserve, the ocean and its inhabitants. I believe feeding dives can't instill a conviction that already exists in the dive community. If feeding an animal fosters an awareness of a need to protect it, we would be encouraged to feed whales, dolphins, sea turtles, manatees and any other threatened or endangered animals. But experience tells us that when an animal becomes threatened, the best course of action is to forbid human contact with that animal, not encourage it. FREEMAN: But PADI and DEMA tell us otherwise. They contend that shark feeding makes a live shark far more valuable than a dead one and that therefore, governments around the world are now taking action to protect them. Essentially, the argument is based on the success of wildlife protection programs in Africa that depend largely on eco tourism, specifically wildlife encounters, to fund the establishment and management of eco reserves. Proponents argue that without eco tourism and wildlife encounters that give locals a cash in pocket reason to keep these animals alive, the survival of many endangered species would be impossible. BOB: Florida banned the use of longlines to harvest sharks in 1990. On March 1, of this year, the federal government banned longline fishing off the southeast coast of the United States from South Carolina to Florida, as well as in parts of the Gulf of Mexico. So, Florida began protecting sharks through sound wildlife management and conservation policies years before the "educational" value of shark feeding became popular. Feeding sharks will draw tourists and fill hotel rooms, that's PADI/DEMA's argument. And when environmentalists start asking questions, they greenwash it with "this activity is educational" mumbo jumbo. When PADI/DEMA speak of the value of a shark, it is in regard to their commercial feeding operations. In fact, their whole argument is about the value of sharks, the monetary value. Their approach is very simple, push the "greed button." Feeding sharks will draw tourists and fill hotel rooms, that's PADI/DEMA's argument. And when environmentalists start asking questions, they greenwash it with "this activity is educational" mumbo jumbo. Our argument puts only an ecological value on sharks. Is feeding sharks harmful to the health and welfare of shark populations, and to the eco system as a whole? We, and our environmental allies, say yes. As for PADI/DEMA, in a Dec.4, 2000, front page story in the Tampa Tribune, a DEMA spokesman is quoted as saying, "There is no data. It's very hard to say this (shark feeding) is, or isn't, a good idea from a scientific point of view." So, they admit that they are promoting an activity, which according to them, has unknown, and potentially harmful ecological consequences. How environmentally aware is that? FREEMAN: But isn't it true that eco tourism encourages governments to protect the environment? BOB: It is true that governments around the world are encouraged to preserve endangered animals and habitat because of the money eco tourism generates. And eco tourism can put cash in the pockets of its citizens. But feeding animals is not inherent to eco tourism. This is where the true value of sharks, with regard to eco tourism, can be found. Divers observing and interacting with sharks in a natural way, without food as the impetus. I define eco tourism as the observation of an ecosystem and it's inhabitants interacting in a natural way. This is where the true value of sharks, with regard to eco tourism, can be found. Divers observing and interacting with sharks in a natural way, without food as the impetus. There are many places around the world where this is possible, Florida being one of them. In fact, feeding wildlife is prohibited in virtually every national park (terrestrial and aquatic) throughout the United States, and much of the world, yet it is getting increasingly difficult to visit these parks without a reservation. The dream destination of divers around the world, the Red Sea, prohibits wildlife feeding. During African eco tours, you can't leave the vehicle to feed a carrot to a zebra. The point is that eco tours are more popular than ever without feeding. FREEMAN: You have stated that you belief shark feeding causes harm to shark populations and marine eco systems. Why? Is there any hard, scientific evidence to support your position? BOB: The harm to both the ecosystem and the animals being fed is well documented. Although fish feeding advocates argue that sharks and other marine fishes are too distantly removed from terrestrial vertebrates and marine mammals to make valid comparisons, the results of actual research in this area confirm quite the contrary. In Brain and Intelligence in Vertebrates, a comprehensive review of relevant research that included analysis of the work by Gruber on Caribbean lemon sharks, Dr. Macphail concluded that "The rates of acquisition of conditioned responses in fish appear comparable to those obtained in mammals... The overall conclusion to this survey is, then, that fish, or at least elasmobrachs (sharks) and teleosts, are capable of detecting contingencies between stimuli and reinforcers and that in general their performance appears no less efficient than in other vertebrates." So, in short, the problems manifested in the feeding of terrestrial wildlife such as bears and alligators, should also apply to sharks. Under Hawaii state law, it is illegal to feed fish in Hanauma Bay and at Molokini shoal because fish feeding by humans was found to both change the composition of the natural fish population by attracting fish that did not normally inhabit the area, and also to change the behavior of the fish by making them more aggressive as they learned to anticipate being fed. In "A Case for Regulation of the Feeding of Fishes and Other Marine Wildlife by Divers and Snorkelers" marine biologist, Dr. Bill Alevizon, writes: "The continued feeding of wildlife in an area has environmental ramifications that extend well beyond direct threats to individual fed animals; fundamental attributes and processes of the ecosystem that support them are also being affected.... By changing feeding behavior and the types of food taken and time and place of feeding in a variety of fish species, sustained fish feeding at a particular site alters natural food pathways and energy flow within the community, fundamental ecosystem processes, with unpredictable long-term consequences for the local marine ecosystem as a whole. In particular, shark feeding operations, which concentrate highly unnatural numbers of these large, fish-eating predators in a relatively small area, must ultimately unnaturally alter nearby fish populations, which must supply the abnormally large shark aggregations with the bulk of their food supply." In a 1997 research report published by the University of Hawaii, Hultquist states, "Fish feeding has a negative effect on fish populations over a short period of time... The aggressive species of fish within the community tend to dominate over other fish species, which may result in the decline of non-aggressive species... it is strongly recommended that people discontinue fish feeding activities." This is just a small sample of the scientific evidence that supports our position. FREEMAN: I want to go back to your previous comment about PADI "greenwash" and "educational mumbo-jumbo." Essentially, PADI is in the business of selling education, including shark feeding specialty courses. Do you believe that PADI shark feeding courses are educationally invalid, or without sufficient educational merit to justify shark feeding as an educational activity? BOB: Virtually every human experience could be considered "educational." It could be argued that receiving a ticket for speeding, or accidentally smashing your thumb with a hammer has "educational" value. But, is promoting and engaging in an activity that has negative environmental consequences of any beneficial educational value? We think not. FREEMAN: Say I just opened a dive center in the Bahamas, my competitors all seem to be getting rich with shark feeding dives and I want to cash in on the shark feeding market. Talk me out of it. BOB: Well, An environmental "lecture" would most likely fall on deaf ears. So, I would try to make the point that shark feeding is not good business. Divers around the world overwhelmingly oppose the activity and may soon start showing their displeasure by voting with their pocketbooks. If reef and wreck divers refused to book trips with operators who offer feeding dives, it would have a profound effect on feeding operations. I think this is already beginning to occur. Divers around the world overwhelmingly oppose the activity and may soon start showing their displeasure by voting with their pocketbooks. I would also ask "How far are you prepared to go?" What will you do to capture your share of the limited shark feeding tourist trade? The competition is fierce with feeders having the sharks perform stunts (headstands etc.) to capture market share. What's next? Women in thong bikinis feeding sharks with bait held in their cleavage? How far will you go to make a buck? Bob Dimond on Shark Feeding - Part II To express your opinion on Mr. Dimond's comments or the shark feeding issue in general, go to SCUBA FORUM. To vote "for" or "against" shark feeding, go to Scuba Poll™.
| 
