PADI Project Aware: Eco Friendly or Environmental Enemy?Powered by CDNN - CYBER DIVER News Network
by FREEMAN WASHINGTONAs the final FWC vote to ban marine life feeding in Florida approached like an 8-ft bull shark smelling shark feeder chum, a bewildered, terrified and increasingly paranoid PADI corporate management failed to stop, think, listen to the public or act sensibly. PADI PANICKED and their business-as-usual response was as predictable as a Hollywood agent trying to negotiate a film deal for a failed, over-the-hill, never-was-been drag queen on qualudes. PADI ripped a page out of the script of Tim Burton's 'Mars Attacks' and issued a 'call-to-arms' urging Florida PADI members to fight back the invasion of environmentalists who dared to suggest, BY GOD IN HEAVEN DEMAND, that wildlife should remain (hold on to your Jeff Go-Nadlers) WILD! End of story in North Korea or Cuba. The party draws the line and SENOR COMRADE, YOU DAMN WELL BETTER FOLLOW IT OR HEAD DOWN THE ROAD TO NAUI-VILLE, SSI-LAND OR SOME OTHER DIVE INDUSTRY WASTELAND. As PADI boasts to its membership in CEO John Cronin's incessant 'big is better' spiel, "Consumers won't ask for what (our SMALL competitors) have. They'll ask for PADI." (Just as consumers always ask for Big Macs - MORE THAN 55 BILLION SOLD - when they dine in a fine restaurant.) Still, this is America where all good citizens, even those who, as diving neophytes, made the mistake of asking for PADI, resent being told how to think. Even entry-level divers (to the dismay of PADI spin doctors, Nadler and Cronin) prefer to make up their own minds and don't appreciate dive industry king pins pissing all over their environment and dumbing down diving with idiotic PADI-promoted big buck thrill dives masquerading as 'diver education' aimed at conservation. And they don't like dirty air. And they don't like dirty water. And they don't like wildlife being forced to jump through hoops for commercial gain. As a matter of fact, most Florida dive operators, including the vast majority of PADI dive shop owners, support the ban on marine life feeding. Why? Because they are doing quite well, thank you, teaching people to dive safely, selling them equipment and turning them on to the myriad flora and fauna contained within Florida ecosystems. Yes, business is good and they are NOT amused by the thrill diving antics of four macho feeders who have been CASHING IN (also known as EDUCATING among DEMA board members) on TV-programmed consumers who want a snapshot of their very own courageous selves going jaw to jaw with top of the food chain predators. "Look Ma, that's me poking and prodding all those man-eating sharks because, thanks to my PADI-DEMA Interactive Shark Feeding Specialty course, I learned that sharks only bite NAUI divers and other impoverished minorities!" Recent polls indicate that an astonishing 70% of Americans now consider themselves environmentalists. That's about the same percentage of the public that wants marine wildlife to remain wild and supports the ban on shark feeding in Florida. Ask any environmentalist how you get it done, how you protect the environment and the answer will revolve around regulations. "Hey Bob--big business wants to dump PCBs in your neighborhood. Who ya gonna call?" THE GOVERNMENT! The record is clear as an unpolluted stream: Government regulations have given us clean water, clean air, national parks, free-flowing rivers, healthy coral reefs, marine sanctuaries, wildlife protection, responsible stewardship of natural resources, protected whales, protected dolphins, protected sea otters and just about everything else we cherish in the natural world upon which our very survival depends. And the record also leaves no doubt whatsoever that the dive industry, including DEMA, PADI and its green-washing, photo-op, eco-front Project Aware, oppose all government regulations. WHY? Because they don't really care about the environment or anything else that gets in the way of growing the industry. BIGGER and BIGGER and BIGGER is better and better and better. For PADI, it's all about selling more PADI C-cards, signing on more PADI dive shops and PADI Gold Palm dive resorts (what the hell is a gold palm???). Recently PADI predicted that tourism in Thailand could turn the laid-back, relatively undeveloped and charming little island of Koh Samui into another Cairns, the not-so-charming small city hub of the Great Barrier Reef tourism industry. PADI calls that progress. Environmentalists call it over-development. Nothing ever changes except the diminishing quality of industry hype. So when PADI members in Florida told Jeff Nadler (who heads up PADI's industrial propaganda department) to stop, think and cool the pro-shark feeding rhetoric, old Nads threw a tantrum and waxed inane. THE DIALOGUE: NAD vs IN-DEPTH NADLER: Thank you for letting us know your opinions regarding the shark feeding issue. It is a very complex one without easy, black-and-white answers. IN-DEPTH: Oh really? Complex? Keep wildlife wild? Don't feed or touch wildlife? What's complex about that? It is the standard among wildlife management agencies and wildlife protection advocates throughout the planet. Maybe you are referring to the cost of lobbying politicians to lean on conservation officials to allow the business of shark feeding to continue? Or is it the perception among many in the public that there might be a connection between dead 10-year-old swimmers and shark feeding? NADLER: As you know, PADI and Project AWARE Foundation are strong advocates of shark conservation and have committed significant resources to the global Protect the Sharks campaign. IN-DEPTH: CORRECTION: Change 'shark conservation' to shark exploitation and 'Protect the Sharks' to Feed/Ride/Pet/Poke/Smack the Sharks for Bucks. And while you are at it, Put Another Dollar In for PADI, by way of diving with a PADI affiliate and purchasing your PADI "Shark Diver" merit badge. Let's be accurate Jeff. NADLER: Experience has shown that participants in responsibly organized shark feeding encounters become fervent shark conservationists. A good (and equally complex), comparison is to killer whales and marine parks. While there are those who strongly disagree with placing orcas in captivity and having them perform, it is these contrived, ''unnatural'' encounters that removed public fear and fueled killer whale protection. Interactive dives are of key importance for gaining the same change in public opinion regarding sharks. IN-DEPTH: You already understand the similarities between shark feeding and captive orcas performing in aquariums. That's a good start. Eventually PADI will also learn there is no causal relationship between shark feeding (or performing orcas) and conservation. We are not so stupid. You don't need to force sharks or orcas or whales or lions or sea otters or bears or alligators or manatees or albatross or any other animal to perform in order for us to realize these animals are worth protecting. We don't need to pretend that sharks or lions or orcas are friendly or cute. We can fear them, respect them and want to protect them for the awe-inspiring, natural-born killers they really are, rather than the force-fed circus performers PADI, Project Aware and Jean-Michel Cousteau want to turn them into. Is that so difficult to understand or is the profit motive dumbing you down Jeff? NADLER: Many noted shark experts and scientists do not agree that these organized feeding activities increase public risk of attacks. They also do not support comparisons of sharks to bears and alligators. For more specific information please read ''What Experts Say'' at www.blahblahblah.com IN-DEPTH: You know better than that Jeff and so do we. Every one of the "shark scientists" quoted at blahblahblah.com (and the only ones who have come forward with the position you espouse) are, not coincidentally, also professionally dependent to some extent on shark feeding dives. In other words, they have a vested interest in seeing that feeding dives continue--not exactly a standard for objective scientific opinion. In contrast, members of the American Elasmobranch Society (the most prestigious body of shark experts in North America) were asked, "In regard to shark diving operations which involve regular baiting, is there a cause for concern (re: shark attacks) if such...operations are conducted relatively close to bathing or surfing beaches?" OVER 90% OF THE RESPONDENTS believed that the danger was real, OR COULD BE under the "right" circumstances. The comparison between sharks, bears, alligators, lions and other animals is valid in this sense, at least: We want to protect nature's creations as they are, not as performers for thrill-seeking tourists. Feeding performances, PADI Specialty thrill dives and intellectually bankrupt web sites distort the meaning of conservation and interfere with its true objective. Referring PADI members to a web site launched by a strident, profane and dishonest feeding proponent who has been run off every message board on the net is an ill-advised and self-defeating act of desperation. NADLER: If the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission were truly committed to preventing potential harm to marine life through behavioral changes, this ban would not single out divers. The ban would also prevent the thousands of recreational and commercial fisherman from chumming to attract fish and sharks. If a ban is needed, divers should not be the only user group impacted by it. IN-DEPTH: We understand you are annoyed Jeff and we want to help. Yes, a shark feeding ban is needed, and yes, you have to start somewhere. Now that you understand that, we urge PADI, Project Aware and DEMA to utilize member contributions to ban all chumming by recreational and commercial fisherman rather than squandering it on lawsuits against responsible Florida state government officials who correctly voted to ban shark feeding. Maybe this analogy will help: If government authorities were truly committed to public health and clean air, they would not have singled out smokers. They should also ban SUVs and other gas-guzzling automobiles. If clean air is needed, smokers should not be the only user group impacted by it. NADLER: A ban of these activities in Florida will have minimal financial impact on the overall dive industry, as there are only four operations involved. However, the precedent set by a ban could have far-reaching adverse global effects on shark conservation. It is a direct result of shark feeding encounters that the Bahamas, Maldives, Australia and South Africa have enacted legislation protecting sharks. These countries now place a higher commercial value on sharks as a living resource than a harvested one. IN-DEPTH: CORRECTION: Change "adverse global effects on shark conservation" to "adverse global effects on the lucrative business of shark feeding and PADI shark feeding specialty courses." As we stated in the September, 2000 CDNN editorial "Don't Bite the Hand that Feeds You - Why PADI Supports Shark-Feeding (and why environmentalists don't)", the value to the tourism industry of sharks is NOT dependent on feeding. Governments have enacted legislation to establish marine sanctuaries and protect marine species including sharks, dolphins, turtles and whales where these species are not fed by commercial dive operators. Sharks have value to divers whether they or fed or not. In fact, according to ScubaPoll.com, the world's largest and most respected survey of the global scuba diving community, unfed sharks have more tourism value than fed ones. And since you cite the Maldives Jeff, let's see what their official tourism web site actually says about shark/fish feeding (from "Visit Maldives - the Official Site: Maldives Tourism Promotion Board,Ministry of Tourism/ www.vista-maldives.com/fishfeeding.asp): "The final objective of feeding the fish may simply be for fun or to get close to them so that one can observe them closely. However this tends to be a one sided bargain, and therefore a bad idea causing great harm to the animals and altering their behavior. In areas where people have been feeding fish for years, behavioral deformations have been observed. Groupers and moray eels that were once inoffensive have become aggressive predators. In these areas, it has become not uncommon for fish to attack divers, causing serious wounds… Shark feeding used to be a great attraction in the Maldives some time ago. Fortunately there is a greater understanding of the marine environment and its creatures and therefore this is almost non-existent at present." NADLER: As a membership organization, PADI supports the training activities of all our members, including distinctive specialties for responsible interactive marine encounter experiences, such as those the FWCC wishes to ban. IN-DEPTH: Good boy Jeff! You have complied with PADI rule #1 that requires all PADI clones to conclude with promotion of PADI courses. Unfortunately, your organization does not require you to canvas your membership and reflect the majority opinion of your members as to what PADI courses they consider educationally responsible and what courses they consider educationally bankrupt and/or environmentally incorrect. NADLER: We hope we have been able to provide you with a better understanding of the reasons for our position. While we certainly respect your right to not participate in these types of interaction marine encounter dives, we ask that you respect and support the rights of those divers who wish to participate in these activities and encourage you to visit www.blahblahblah.com for more detailed information.'' IN-DEPTH: AGAIN??? More blahblahblah.com and the inane rant of a Florida disc jockey who lines his pockets selling radio ads to shark feeding operators??? C'mon Jeff--you can do better than that. There must be a recognized scientific or educational institution there somewhere among your list of 'experts' with a web site that supports shark feeding. Now let's rephrase your last sentence to make your argument absolutely clear: "While we certainly respect your right not to smoke, we ask that you respect and support the rights of those smokers who wish to smoke and encourage you to visit www.blahblahblah.com for more detailed information about why you should tolerate smokers polluting your air." And finally, a word or two on the issue of environmental regulations from DEMA, PADI's partner in crimes against the environment: "Whether the issue is diver access or dive activity regulation, DEMA will continue to represent the diving industry in its efforts to combat unneeded regulation." In other words, screw the environment... COPYRIGHT © CDNN - CYBER DIVER NEWS NETWORK | 
