The Florida Fish-Feeding Frenzy: Background, Issues, and a Wake-Up Call (the article NAUI does NOT want you to read) Powered by CDNN - CYBER DIVER News Network
by DR. WILLIAM ALEVIZON
The two-year public process in Florida leading to the recently approved State ban on marine wildlife feeding by divers has captured the attention of sport diving professionals and marine resource managers around the globe. Unless Florida courts intercede, the November 1 decision by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) will terminate commercial fish-feeding dive tours (widely marketed as "interactive diving") in Florida's marine waters effective January 1, 2002, and mark the first time a State has enacted such a broad measure to protect its marine wildlife from diver impacts. Events leading to the Florida decision - and processes set in motion by that decision - will ultimately have profound and widespread effects on the sport, and in all likelihood signal some major changes in the way sport diving is henceforth marketed, regulated, and perceived by both the diving and non-diving public. Of particular interest in this context are the broader underlying issues of the ability, and/or willingness of the sport diving industry to voluntarily and sincerely accommodate the efforts of government regulatory agencies working to minimize diver impacts on both the marine environment and other ocean users, while continuing to provide a marketable and sustainable industry. This article is written with a view to providing NAUI dive professionals a factual history of the Florida fish-feeding debate, and to put on the table some of the likely the ramifications of these events for the sport diving industry as a whole. BACKGROUND: A TIMELINE OF THE FLORIDA CONFLICTHow did the Florida controversy come to pass, and how has it unfolded? Given the sheer volume of misinformation promulgated regarding this issue, it would seem appropriate to provide a timeline of key events. Late Summer 1999 - Three Florida divers petition the FFWCC to do something about shark feeding dives in Florida because of an unprecedented increase in the frequency and aggressiveness of marine predator encounters at favored sites off Broward Co. One is a commercial lobster trapper/diver, the other two are local businessmen who occasionally dive on weekends. Contrary to pro-feeders' continued characterization of the "opposition", none of the three are (or ever have been) "commercial spearfishermen". September 1999: The FFWCC begins to hear testimony regarding this issue. Fall 1999: The three concerned divers launch a public outreach campaign to warn Florida beachgoers and divers about the perceived dangers of shark feeding dives. February 2000: The shark-feeding issue is on the agenda at the Jacksonville meeting of the FFWCC. Inexplicably, the meeting is unattended by anyone representing shark-feeding tour interests. The FFWCC votes unanimously to initiate the formal rule-making process leading to a total statewide ban on such activities. March 2000: The February FFWCC decision galvanizes a "pro-feeding lobby" (led by representatives of PADI and DEMA) into concerted action. May 2000: The three divers originally petitioning the FFWCC to ban shark feeding dives form their own Florida non-profit, the "Marine Safety Group, Inc." (MSG). Summer 2000: Both "sides" escalate campaigns to win support for their positions. September 2000: The DEMA-led counter-offensive succeeds in convincing the FFWCC to temporarily table its earlier initiative (proposed ban) in favor of exploring the option of development of industry-generated "self-regulation" guidelines for tour operators. The FFWCC makes it clear that they expect industry to include groups opposed to marine life feeding as collaborative "partners" in that process. November 2000: The DEMA-led pro-feeding coalition forms an umbrella organization - the "Global Interactive Marine Experiences Council" (GIMEC) to serve as a quasi-autonomous DEMA "front" for guideline development. Despite a different name, it's the same face; GIMEC is dominated by the same small group of DEMA/PADI players who led the industry side of the battle from day one. October-November 2000: Anti-feeding forces - MSG and Reef Relief - contact DEMA representatives in attempt to engage in GIMEC guideline drafting process as per FFWCC request, but are rebuffed. November 2000: FFWCC representative writes DEMA/GIMEC to "remind" industry to include opponents in guideline drafting process. Memo also lists nine "specifics for development of recommendations" that the Commission expects to see addressed in any proposed industry-generated guidelines. December 2000: DEMA/GIMEC responds to FFWCC November memo, stating that industry-generated guidelines, "may or may not be consistent" with the list provided by the Commission, and informing FFWCC that, "We do not consider them (anti-feeding representatives) 'partners' in this process". January 2001: GIMEC holds workshops at DEMA 2001 to discuss guidelines for interactive diving. No "opponents" are invited, or are present. Early May 2001: GIMEC presents the Commission (and the world) drafts of industry-recommended interactive dive tour guidelines. Anti-feeding groups submit reviews and comments to FFWCC. May 26, 2001: The FFWCC finds that the GIMEC effort failed to adequately address (or address at all) a number of key issues upon which action had been specifically requested. On this basis, the FFWCC summarily rejects the GIMEC guidelines and directs its own staff biologists to draft more comprehensive guidelines that might more adequately address public safety and environmental concerns raised by Commissioners. August 2001: Several Florida legislators announce that they are working towards introducing bills in January 2002 that would prohibit the feeding of marine wildlife by divers in all State waters. September 6, 2001: The revised guidelines for feeding dives (prepared by FFWCC Staff) are presented and discussed at the FFWCC meeting. Industry representatives summarily decline to agree to accept revised guidelines, on the stated premise that they would effectively eliminate the possibility of commercially viable feeding tours. The Commission directs staff to re-initiate the rule-making process leading to a total ban on the feeding by divers of all marine wildlife in State waters. Late October 2001: DEMA attorney files for an administrative hearing challenging a number of procedural matters related to the FFWCC process leading to the ban, as well as a suit based "on the merits" of the new ban (the latter filed in circuit court). November 1, 2001: The FFWCC votes unanimously in favor of Rule 68B-5.005, which prohibits divers from feeding marine fishes, and prohibits commercial vessels from taking people to Florida's marine waters for the purpose of conducting or observing fish feeding (for the complete text of this rule, see Appendix). THE ISSUES: TWO VIEWS ON FEEDING MARINE WILDLIFEThe controversy regarding the wisdom of feeding of marine fishes by dive tour operators to promote client viewing and wildlife interaction is not new. What are the actual disputed issues at the heart of this controversy? As complex and obtuse as much of the discussion has ranged, two main contested points have formed the crux of the Florida debate: (1) Does fish feeding have adverse effects on either the animals fed or their environment? The primary charge of the FFWCC (as its name would indicate) is to see to the welfare and sustainable use of Florida's living resources. Thus, this remained the question of primary concern to the Commission from the outset of the fish-feeding debate. The pro-feeding advocates have maintained throughout the Florida debate that "not a shred of evidence" exists in support of the idea that feeding dives are harmful to either fish or the environment. Perhaps evaluation of this pivotal issue rests largely upon what one might reasonably consider "evidence" in this sense, but by any of the established definitions upon which much of modern conservation biology and species protections are based, the feeding of any wildlife is widely considered an unacceptable activity. Why? Chiefly because such activities have been shown through a century of research and experience with every class of vertebrate animals studied in this regard to cause (1) health problems for the animals fed, and (2) disruption of natural ecological processes and biological communities. The U.S. National Park Service (1975) stated the problem succinctly: "Unnatural conditions occur if supplemental food is provided to wild animals. This practice changes the natural distribution and behavior of fed species and the way in which their populations are regulated." For these reasons, as well as out of concern for public safety, Federal law prohibits the feeding of all wildlife in all of America's National Parks and Wildlife Refuges and prohibits the feeding of marine mammals in all U.S. waters. Federal (and often State) laws also prohibit the feeding of all federally listed threatened or endangered species. Under both the Federal Endangered Species Act as well as the Marine Mammal Protection Act law, the feeding by humans of any protected wildlife is prohibited solely on the basis that it harms these animals by "significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns" and/or "causing disruption of behavioral patterns". While fish-feeding advocates have argued that none of these lessons or precedents has anything to do with fishes, there is no evidence to substantiate that hypothesis. In fact, comparative scientific studies have revealed that sharks and bony fishes are every bit as "good" as bears and alligators when it comes to being "trained" (i.e., behaviorally altered) by human handouts. Certainly the National Park Service fails to make any distinction between feeding fishes and feeding bears. In a letter (July 2000) to the Commission, the Acting Superintendent of the Biscayne National Park (southeast of Miami) stated, "we would encourage legislators to promulgate rules similar to our regulations to protect all marine creatures and fish from adverse influences…any attempt to manipulate the natural life cycles…such as fish feeding, would be contrary to the mission and values of the National Park Service". While Florida shark experts have expressed mixed feelings about shark-feeding dives, all seem to agree on one key point: these activities alter shark behavior, and that is inherently problematic. Dr. Sam Gruber, a noted Florida shark behavioral biologist (who supports at least some of the more well run shark-feeding dives in the Bahamas because he believes they change peoples' negative attitudes about his favorite animals), admits that by feeding wild sharks, "we are altering shark behavior in a non-positive way". George Burgess director of the International Shark Attack File at the University of Florida agrees with this behavioral assessment, but is opposed to shark-feeding dives out of concern for both conservation goals and public safety. "These [sharks] become like underwater circus animals…their behavior has been modified, as has the ecology of the area…Instead of a bell ringing and a dog salivating, you have the [boat] engine running and sharks circling." (2) Do these activities (fish feeding by divers) increase the risk of wildlife attack and injury to feeding- tour participants, other nearby ocean users, or persons visiting feeding sites when feeding is not taking place? Those who market, sell and/or conduct shark/predator-feeding tours have maintained from the outset of the Florida hearings that these activities are safe; in fact most of the operators who testified or commented on this point claimed a "perfect safety record. Unfortunately, such claims simply do not agree with the facts. According to the International Shark Attack File, 15 shark-related injuries have been documented in connection with such feedings, while another eight involved professional photographers who used food to lure sharks. While it is certainly true that many thousands of divers have participated in feeding dives without injury, it is also true that worldwide and in Florida numerous injuries to divers either participating in these dives OR simply visiting the feeding sites have been documented. In evaluating the public safety aspect of feeding dives, we should be asking not only, "what is the is the probability of a participant being injured during in a feeding dive?" but also perhaps more germane (because participants have at least made a choice), "does this also create increased risk for nearby non-participants or those visiting the area between feedings? As nationally syndicated columnist Rick Barry (Tampa Tribune) succinctly put it, "How would you like to be swimming, without a sack of shark food, in the exact spot where some yahoo feeds sharks every day - on the yahoo's day off?" The following sample of citations documenting but a few of the known injuries to divers at fish feeding sites give a sense of the nature and extent of this problem: - "A tourist diving at a feeding site (Bahamas) on a non-feeding day was bitten on the head by a charcharhinid shark" (Burgess 1998)
- "In 1987…a diver...no longer carrying any fish…was watching…as a spotted moray was fed. Another (spotted moray) swam over her shoulder from behind and bit her face twice, severely ripping her lips and requiring reconstructive surgery". (Perrine 1989)
- "Feeding…has changed the (fishes) behavior. Often the cod become agitated during feeding, bumping divers and fighting each other for food scraps. It was especially at that time that divers had their hands bitten… An autopsy on the body in Cairns found a bump on his head and small punctures in his skin…the coroner concluded that he was drowned by a (potato) cod…it was hypothesized that while snorkeling the cod grabbed him and held him under long enough to drown" (Quinn and Kojis 1990).
- "As she reached into her bait bag for another piece of fish the barracuda suddenly darted in and shredded her fingers, which required 30 stitches" (Perrine 1989)
- "On a dive vacation to Florida (in 1999) I was attacked and bitten by a large green moray eel while on a "interactive feeding dive"…my attack was completely unprovoked, coming from behind" (Muckelroy, in letter to Gov. Bush dated 1/31/2000)
- "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." (Maldives-Dive Watch: Web Page)
Space considerations limit the number of such incidents that can be reported here. For more extensive (though far from complete) summaries of documentation of injuries received at or near feeding sites, readers are referred to Perrine (1989) and Alevizon (2000). When confronted with such documentation, fish-feeding advocates often attempt to cover themselves with colorful (but statistically meaningless) comparisons of the numbers of people injured on feeding dives as opposed to struck by lightening, hit by coconuts, injured by Coke machines, etc. The inherent fallacy of such analogies has not been lost on news columnists. As Dave Addis (The Virginian-Pilot September 5, 2001) correctly pointed out, such a ''statistic''... is as incorrect as it is dumb... You can be hit by lightning anywhere in the open; you can only be bitten by a shark if you wade into the water. Since there are infinitely more people walking around outdoors than there are wading in the ocean, the comparison becomes absurd." What does DAN, an organization that many divers heavily rely on for safety advice, have to say about fish feeding and "interactive diving? The DAN website, in a Section entitled "TIPS on AVOIDING MARINE ANIMAL INJURIES" advises, "Be passive in your interactions with marine life. Avoid feeding and petting animals or engaging in any other activities that may lead to accidental injury. Interactive diving: education or exploitation?The pro-feeding coalition defends the practice on the grounds that properly run shark-feeding dives benefit marine conservation efforts by reversing long-held negative attitudes towards marine predators, thereby creating an "army" of conservation advocates. Not surprisingly, those opposed to feedings contest this view. It would seem that the mainstream marine conservation community agrees more with the latter assessment. If there was in fact a genuine conservation value to wildlife feeding dives, one might ask why such an impressive array of leading conservation organizations, including World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense, Defenders of Wildlife, Caribbean Conservation Corporation, Reef Relief, Humane Society of the U.S., and the Surfrider Foundation - not to mention the U.S. National Park Service - have taken the trouble to go on record with the FFWCC in support of a total ban on feeding dives. IMPACTS ON THE SPORT: A BROADER PERSPECTIVEThe echoes of the two-year fight waged in Florida will linger for some time to come. Rightly or wrongly, the debate over marine wildlife feeding tours has in many ways changed the way both the public and the press now perceives the entire "dive industry". To a large extent, this has occurred because the Florida pro-feeding coalition routinely used the term "dive industry" to describe themselves, apparently to convince the FFWCC that any attempted regulation of fish feeding dives in Florida involved "taking on" the entire sport diving world. In an deliberate attempt to rectify this misperception, the author (a NAUI Instructor and former NAUI Environmental Liaison) presented the FFWCC (at a Commission meeting) a list of the more prominent dive training organizations now operating in the US and abroad, pointing out that of the more than 15 listed only PADI had come forward in support of feeding dives. In response, Mr. Jeff Nadler (PADI representative) told the Commission that many of the training organizations listed were foreign-based (why that would make them irrelevant to the issue at hand remains unclear), and of the rest, PADI, because of its market share, was for all practical purposes "the dive industry". Thus, sport diving professionals and organizations throughout the world have been "represented" in the Florida debates for the most part without their knowledge or consent. To many observers, the entire industry would appear to share the views expressed by the small group of self-appointed industry "spokespersons" who led efforts to stop regulation of four commercial shark-feeding operations in Florida. In so doing, these people have tarnished the image of the entire sport, as evidenced by recent scathing editorials in Florida's leading newspapers: "The dive industry, which should protect the welfare of the thousands of divers who have no interest in feeding or interacting with sharks, supports the shark feeders... Of course, the dive industry won't admit it's about the money. Shark feeders tell how they gained an appreciation of sharks by interacting with them... I think it's amazing that even at this stage in our environmental awareness, good people can go diving, terrify the indigenous animals and then suggest that the experience helped them understand the animals and their environment." (Steve Waters, South Florida Sun-Sentinel Aug 12, 2001) "The whole concept of tossing bloody fish parts in the water at the same spot every day so tourists, often snorkelers and scuba divers sharing that same patch of water, can watch sharks feed at close range, is ludicrous, bordering on moronic... But of course, the motive is, oh, yes, here it is in propaganda from the diving industry: Education... State Rep. Charlie Justice, R-St. Petersburg is filing a bill prohibiting this foolishness in state waters... And the diving industry is on him with both flippers. Who knew sharks - those with fins, anyway - had lobbyists?" (Rick Barry, Tampa Tribune Sept. 1, 2001) "At least four outfits in South Florida advertise shark-feeding scuba trips. These are promoted as ''interactive experiences,'' meaning dive operators get to interact with your money... the FWC asked the dive industry for guidelines ensuring that the excursions will be safe for both the divers and the sharks... The proposals didn't satisfy some commissioners, so the FWC is supposed to tackle the controversy again next month... A smarter idea is stopping the dives, which are about as educational as a rerun of Jaws III. Chumming sharks is nothing but a thrill gimmick designed to hook tourists." (Carl Hiaason, Miami Herald, August 16, 2001) The lawsuit filed by DEMA to challenge the FFWCC feeding ban is in its infancy, and will likely be in the courts for at least a year. In the mean time, the Florida ban will be in effect and will be enforced. This in itself will rapidly trigger moves by federal regulatory agencies (Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, regional fishery management councils) to enact complimentary bans affecting Federal waters bordering Florida's coast, as per standing agreements with the State of Florida to achieve consistency in fisheries regulations in adjacent State-Federal waters. At the same time, the Florida legislature appears ready to move to enact its own version of the ban, which will remain law even in the unlikely case the DEMA lawsuit against the FFWCC ban should prevail. A number of environmental groups are petitioning to enjoin the DEMA vs. FFWCC suit as "friends of the court", allowing them to support the State's efforts. As the case goes to trial next year it will inevitably attract national media attention, generating headlines to the effect, "Dive industry battles Florida conservation commission and environmentalists over State's attempt to protect marine wildlife". As this article goes to press, the sport diving "ship of state" is being run up on the rocks. It is time for other, more rational voices within the sport to stop looking the other way, step up to the plate and be heard loud and clear. The alternative is to go down with the ship. Sport diving is a global enterprise involving hundreds of local, regional and national organizations and hundreds of thousands of individuals, the vast majority of whom have never expressed support for activities (such as fish feeding) that inherently alter natural marine environments and the natural behavior of marine wildlife. The sport is far greater than DEMA, PADI or any small clique, not matter how vocal or well-heeled. It is not the environmentalists nor Florida government that have raised the specter of widespread regulation of the sport. Rather, it has been the actions of a few individual "spokespersons" whose voices have remained too long unchallenged from within the sport itself. References CitedAlevizon, W.S. 2000. Feeding wild fishes: exploration or exploitation? Alert Diver. Jan/Feb 2000 Burgess, G. H. 1998. Diving with elasmobranches: a call for restraint. Shark News July 1998 (Newsletter of the IUCN shark specialist group). Berkshire, U.K. Perrine, D. 1989. Reef fish feedings: amusement or nuisance? Sea Frontiers 35 (5):272-279. Quinn, N.J. and B.L. Kojis. 1990. Are divers destroying the Great Barrier Reef's Cod Hole? Diving for Science 1990: Proceedings of the American Academy of Underwater Sciences Tenth Annual Scientific Diving Symposium: p.303-309. AAUS, Costa Mesa, CA. APPENDIX: FFWCC Rule Approved November 1, 2001: 68B-5.005 Divers: Fish Feeding Prohibited; Prohibition of Fish Feeding for Hire; Definitions. (1) No diver shall engage in the practice of fish feeding.
(2) No person shall operate any vessel for hire for the purpose of carrying passengers to any site in the saltwaters of the state to engage in fish feeding or to allow such passengers to observe fish feeding.
(3) For purposes of this rule:
(b) "Fish feeding" means the introduction of any food or other substance into the water by a diver for the purpose of feeding or attracting marine species, except for the purpose of harvesting such marine species as otherwise allowed by rules of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
(a) "Diver" means any person who is wholly or partially submerged in the water, and is equipped with a face mask, face mask and snorkel, or underwater breathing apparatus.
PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2002.
Specific Authority Art. IV, Sec. 9, Fla. Const. Law Implemented Art. IV, Sec. 9, Fla. Const. History - New.
NAME OF PERSON(S) ORIGINATING PROPOSED RULE: Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600. About the author:Bill Alevizon, Ph.D. has been a NAUI certified diver and University of California Research Diver since 1969, and a NAUI Instructor since 1992. He served as NAUI 's Environmental Liaison from 1993-1998, and was awarded NAUI's Outstanding Service Award in 1994 for his work on developing NAUI's Coral Reef Ecology, Kelp Forest Ecology, and Underwater Ecologist Specialty Certification programs, and the NAUI Conservation Diver Recognition Program. Bill is a professional marine ecologist specializing in the ecology of Caribbean coral reefs and reef fishes. He is a former Professor of Marine Biology (Florida Institute of Technology) and visiting Professor (University of California at Berkeley), and has authored or co-authored numerous scientific papers and technical reports on these subjects. He has also served on advisory panels for the U.S. National Research Council (National Academy of Sciences), the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program (NOAA), and the Florida Sea Grant program. Copyright © Dr. William Alevizon. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the prior written consent of Dr. Alevizon. SCUBA FORUMDISCUSS THIS TOPIC - Dive in and have your say at Scuba ForumMore from CDNN:SCUBA FORUM: Shark FeedingDrowning in Open Water: DEMA Spins Out of ControlDEMA, Shark Feeding and the Red Herring of Divers' Rights | 
