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 IIIMr. Dimond was interviewed by CDNN Managing Editor, Freeman Washington. FREEMAN: Bob, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has now ruled twice against a ban on shark feeding. Where does that leave the Marine Safety Group and its supporters? Are you ready to throw in the towel? BOB: The Marine Safety Group (MSG) is committed to accomplishing our goal of a total ban on the feeding of marine wildlife in all Florida state waters. Sure, we have taken a few lumps; but this has led to the national press questioning the common sense of the FWC with regard to their decision. This can only help us from a public opinion perspective. FREEMAN: But the FWC defines public opinion according to how many buses each side can afford to rent on the day it holds a public meeting. Unless the general public expresses its opinion by voting en masse against Florida holidays on the beach, or you can deliver direct and conclusive evidence that shark feeding leads to shark attacks, the FWC decision against a ban on shark feeding will likely stand. BOB: You can never conclusively prove what motivated any specific shark attack anymore than you can conclusively prove that smoking cigarettes caused a specific case of lung cancer. What has been proved conclusively is that smoking cigarettes greatly increases the incidence of lung cancer in humans; and that feeding wild animals will greatly increase the incidence of attack upon humans. To insist we prove the impossible, what a shark is "thinking" before it attacks, is absurd. FREEMAN: Why then has the FWC rejected the empirical evidence and refused to ban shark feeding? BOB: That is the question now being posed by the media on a national scale. People are asking why the state of Florida would permit an activity that conditions sharks to associate humans with food and congregates them in close proximity to beach areas, when they top the list for the number of shark attacks globally. People are asking why the state of Florida would permit an activity that conditions sharks to associate humans with food and congregates them in close proximity to beach areas, when they top the list for the number of shark attacks globally. It defies common sense. A government agency or politician can overcome political mistakes and scandals; but to appear a fool lacking in common sense is to be avoided at all costs. That is why I believe if the state of Florida does not enact a ban for the right reasons, they will be embarrassed into it by public pressure. FREEMAN: Either way, now that the FWC has endorsed the business of shark feeding, do you really believe they would reverse their position without a major incident, specifically, a shark attack in or near an area where shark feeders operate? BOB: The FWC has not endorsed shark feeding yet. At the May 24, Palm Beach meeting the FWC found the GIMEC guidelines to be inadequate and directed staff to address the deficiencies. On September 7, the FWC will convene near Jacksonville and consider the revised guidelines. The FWC could, if they so choose, reject the guidelines and proceed with the rule making process (enact a ban). Should the FWC accept the dive industry guidelines we would have several options. We could request that the Florida legislature address the issue. We could sue the FWC for failing to properly protect and manage the resource. We could ask the Florida voters to resolve the issue by referendum. Or, we could accept the guidelines... Should the FWC accept the dive industry guidelines we would have several options. We could request that the Florida legislature address the issue. We could sue the FWC for failing to properly protect and manage the resource. We could ask the Florida voters to resolve the issue by referendum. Or, we could accept the guidelines... FREEMAN: If that's a multiple choice question, something tells me I can eliminate the last choice. Assuming that the FWC approves more stringent guidelines and ultimately endorses the business of shark feeding, how exactly will the Marine Safety Group respond? Are you prepared to file suit against the FWC? BOB: We have support in the legislature for a ban; we will approach them first. Our legal counsel, Miami attorney Mr. Bruce Hermelee, would review the guidelines and give us his opinion with regard to a legal action. We are well prepared to take this issue beyond the FWC. FREEMAN: Walk us through the process. How do you get a state legislature to act on an environmental issue that state appointed or elected officials have already ruled on? BOB: The FWC commissioners are not elected by the people, they are appointed by the Governor; and the duty of the FWC is to preserve and manage Florida's wildlife resources. The duty of the legislature is to enact laws that are beneficial to Florida's residents and visitors, this includes public safety issues. That is why PADI/DEMA fought so hard at Deerfield and why it was such a huge win for us, a precedent was established for other cities and the state to follow; shark feeding represents a danger to the public. The city of Deerfield Beach did not attempt to manage the resource, they decided the feeding of sharks was a threat to public safety and banned the activity in waters within it's jurisdiction. We will ask the Florida legislature to do the same on a state wide basis. That is why PADI/DEMA fought so hard at Deerfield and why it was such a huge win for us, a precedent was established for other cities and the state to follow; shark feeding represents a danger to the public. Many environmental issues are also related to public safety. FREEMAN: Florida representative, Charles Justice, recently announced that he intends to file legislation to ban shark feeding. I gather the announcement did not come as a surprise... BOB: Representative Justice contacted the MSG and is awaiting the FWC September decision. If necessary, he will introduce a bill to ban the feeding of marine wildlife at the beginning of the next legislative session (Jan. 2002). FREEMAN: And you're betting that elected representatives will be more cautious about a public safety issue than FWC appointees. Have you started lobbying individual representatives or are you also waiting for the FWC ruling? BOB: Our current stratagem is utilization of the media. All our efforts are focused on the promulgation of our message. We have to make sure the legislature knows that the constituency is aware of the shark feeding issue. An informed public is our most powerful weapon. I can't imagine any elected official is prepared to stand up and say "the one thing we don't have enough of in Florida is shark feeding operations, yes sir, if only we had more shark feeders, Florida would be a real paradise". An informed public is our most powerful weapon. I can't imagine any elected official is prepared to stand up and say "the one thing we don't have enough of in Florida is shark feeding operations, yes sir, if only we had more shark feeders, Florida would be a real paradise". So, while PADI/DEMA may have unlimited resources including influential lobbyists and attorneys; they are hindered by having to work covertly through the bureaucracy. FREEMAN: You mention utilizing the media but the ad-driven US scuba magazines have all fallen into line behind PADI and DEMA. Skin Diver did a pro shark feeding article featuring Jean Michel Cousteau, the dive industry's poster boy for environmental correctness. Rodale launched an email campaign against the ban. And of course, Sport Diver has been handcuffed to PADI's whipping post. Recently, every issue of these magazines has included at least one article promoting shark feeding. How effective has their opposition been to your campaign to win public support for a ban on shark feeding? BOB: We haven't heard much from Mr. Cousteau lately. At previous FWC meetings PADI/DEMA mentioned his name frequently and showed a video tape of Mr.Cousteau gushing the beneficial attributes of feeding sharks; but his name was not mentioned at the last FWC meeting and for the first time he was a no-show at Ocean Fest, which I am sure was a disappointment to his shark feeding buddies. So, in the best tradition of "environmental expediency" I think Mr. Cousteau will be ready to turn on his friends and condemn shark feeding should it become advantageous for him personally. The Marine Safety Group position on shark feeding would never have been published in any of the dive industry censored rags. So, they can huff and puff all they want, the global dive community rejects marine wildlife feeding and in my opinion always will. As for the US dive magazines, their influence has attenuated tremendously. Five or ten years ago they controlled the dive related information flow. Their ad-driven dive industry propaganda was spoon fed to a captive audience; but with the electronic age came publications like Cyber Diver offering an unbiased, objective format. Now divers around the world have access to all the available information and can form sensible opinions regarding important issues. The Marine Safety Group position on shark feeding would never have been published in any of the dive industry censored rags. So, they can huff and puff all they want, the global dive community rejects marine wildlife feeding and in my opinion always will. FREEMAN: By an overwhelming margin according to our Cyber Diver and Japan Diver surveys as well as polls of UK divers. The disparity between the dive industry spin and the consensus opinion of the global diving community over shark feeding resembles what's happening in Japan with the whaling issue. Despite Japanese government chest thumping about the cultural significance of whaling to the Japanese people, the vast majority want their government, (and the fishing industry they are pandering to), to get out of the business of whaling. Only 10% of Japanese people eat whale meat; Japanese divers voted against whaling by a huge 7 to 1 margin in our Japan Diver poll. BOB: Governments are caught between attempting to protect commerce and mitigating the damage that may be caused by certain industries. That is why it is so important for people to make their elected representatives aware of what they expect from them; and too hold them accountable for their actions. Public apathy and pressure tactics are what make a special interest group successful. In my opinion the luster is off DAN's star. They have transformed themselves from "watch dog" to "lap dog." Their cozy new arrangement with Skin Diver has made them an embarrassment to themselves, their members and Duke University. Last year, DAN's Alert Diver Magazine published an invited article by Dr. Bill Alevizon (scientific advisor to MSG) critical of fish feeding ("Feeding Wild Fishes: Exploration or Exploitation?", January/February 2000). "Allowing" this dissenting view to be aired through Alert Diver enraged pro-feeding elements within the dive industry and elicited angry attacks on the editorial staff of the magazine and DAN itself. The result? Alert Diver has refrained from any further mention of the issue of marine life feeding, and the offending article appears to have been completely "purged" from Alert Diver archives on-line; neither the article, nor any reference to it can be found on the DAN website, although one can readily pull up 26 references to an article on diarrhea published in the same issue as the fish feeding piece. This kind of caving in to pressure from the dive marketing industry on such an issue hardly seems consistent with DAN's stated "Mission Statement", to wit: "Divers Alert Network (DAN), a nonprofit organization, exists to provide expert information and advice for the benefit of the diving public...DAN strives to provide the most accurate, up-to-date and unbiased information on issues of common concern to the diving public, primarily, but not exclusively, for diving safety." In my opinion the luster is off DAN's star. They have transformed themselves from "watch dog" to "lap dog." Their cozy new arrangement with Skin Diver has made them an embarrassment to themselves, their members and Duke University. FREEMAN: DAN has been a terrible disappointment to those of us in the global diving community who are genuinely concerned about dive safety issues. The Skin Diver deal is just another regrettable manifestation of old Pete Bennett's ill-considered decision to sell DAN's soul to PADI's shameless, anything-for-a-buck marketing department. Wherever PADI goes, DAN is sure to follow, but while PADI's crude five-star-gold-palm marketing gimmicks may give some cosmetic benefit to PADI dive shop owners, a public service dive safety advocate should avoid such nonsense. Are you aware of any other non-profit, public service organization that labels its contributors according to jewelry store concepts? BOB: No I don't; maybe there is some kind of connection with the Rolex "Man of the Year" award. FREEMAN: Or the Darwin "Nonprofit of the Year" award. Bob, many divers around the world, especially those of us who are proactively involved in difficult marine conservation and diver safety issues, would like to know more about the impact your work to ban shark feeding has had on your personal life. Is it true that since 1999, you have spent most of your personal savings and free time on this issue? BOB: Well Freeman, I can honestly say that two years ago when we petitioned the FWC to ban marine wildlife feeding we thought it would be over quickly. Instead it has turned into a protracted struggle and the resulting expense is something we had not anticipated. We receive no external support and the financial burden has become a real hardship. Today, because the MSG has now achieved national recognition, new and promising opportunities are increasingly becoming available to more broadly and effectively disseminate our message. More and more often, we are asked to make presentations and/or participate in discussions, media events etc., sometimes far from home. Without external financial support, we will be unable to avail ourselves of many such opportunities that could very well prove crucial in furthering our cause. A little help from each person who supports our mission and our efforts can go a long way in overcoming this obstacle. If Cyber Diver readers would like to make a donation to support our efforts; I would request they please visit our web site at www.marinesafetygroup.org and any help would be greatly appreciated. As for time spent, I cannot remember what my life was like prior to September of 1999. FREEMAN: Can I ask you to elaborate a bit on the great divide? Let me put it this way: If Florida were to ban shark feeding tomorrow, would the Marine Safety Group cease to exist? Would Bob Dimond get out of the trenches and go back to the quiet life in Smallville? Or now that you have, excuse the expression, tasted blood, would you prefer to remain proactively involved in environmental and public safety issues? BOB: When marine wildlife feeding is banned in the state of Florida, the MSG will remain very active with regard to environmental and public safety issues that affect our coastal waters. We will have the experience and the tenaciousness required to remedy some long ignored problems. Flagrant violations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (feeding and harassment); and coastal pollution, are two issues we would be likely to confront, as they constitute threats to both public safety and the environment. ...we have to be prepared to play hardball when necessary; and we have to maintain our credibility. One thing our opponents are painfully aware of is that we never, ever bluff. As for returning to Smallville; we actually never left. The MSG is a grassroots organization based in Smallville. We sometimes have to travel to Bigville; but only to make our point. We do not lobby or rub elbows with politicians, we are friendly but do not make friends and we are not impressed by celebrities. We do not try to be subtle or use finesse, we make an appointment, walk in, state our case to Mr./Ms. Big, if the response is not satisfactory we return to Smallville and get to work. We do not work within the "system", we try to make the "system" respond to us. Gaining support from enough Smallvilles will capture press attention and Bigville will start to squirm. This approach takes dedication and perseverance, we have to be prepared to play hardball when necessary; and we have to maintain our credibility. One thing our opponents are painfully aware of is that we never, ever bluff. Bob Dimond on Shark Feeding - Part I 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™.
| 
