Jump to content


danielandrewclem

Member Since 16 Jan 2007
Offline Last Active Feb 11 2013 09:39 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Kill sharks before they attack humans? Australian state will do just that

28 September 2012 - 07:49 AM

Maybe the authorities will take a cue from the site's poll results and put this ridiculous idea back in the Stupid Ideas folder.

In Topic: Tonga Humpbacks

19 September 2012 - 03:00 PM

Terrific. Was this in Ha'apai or Vava'u?

In Topic: Use of whale blubber to chum for sharks for TV and "research" purposes

19 September 2012 - 12:16 PM

Or live in Iceland, the Faroes and Norway, where whale meat is available in the local markets. Posted Image


or certain places in East Asia, where cetacean flesh makes appearances at seafood markets. http://www.flickr.co...lem/2088863477/

In Topic: Use of whale blubber to chum for sharks for TV and "research" purposes

16 September 2012 - 05:16 PM

Gina,
I'll leave it to you to read up on "Shark Men." There are things about their techniques that are both spectacularly telegenic and extremely useful to shark biology (such as allowing scientists to walk right up to an 18-foot white shark for all kinds of sampling and sophisticated tagging), but there are also some things that have been called disconcerting, dangerous, and appalling. How you perceive their operation will depend on a lot of factors. Personally, I wish there weren't so many shark diving and shark filming operations that weren't so dependent on manipulating or capturing sharks to achieve their goals, and I think the degree to which any of these things "promote conservation" tends to be exaggerated by the operators so they can justify what they do—both to their clients and to themselves. If all it takes to justify a shark interaction—whether it's hooking and landing a large great white on "Shark Men" or cozying up to Emma at Tiger Beach to take photos—is to say "I like sharks" or "I think my photos/videos/writings will promote conservation," well, then it's going to be awfully easy for people to justify what they do because the ends justify the means.

"Shark Men" has had some bad outcomes, and sometimes those are captured in the Nat Geo shows, such as the expedition to the Farallons when one of the sharks was released with a hook still embedded in its mouth. And earlier this year there was a fatal white shark attack not too far from where a production was underway in South Africa. (Probably a coincidence, but it didn't look good.) The reason I posted this poll about the use of blubber is to see if this is an aspect of this production that would rub people the wrong way if they knew about it. (I'm particularly interested in the Chatham production because I've spent a lot of time there in my life.) The upside, we're told, of using blubber is that it works better than anything else to get sharks to the boat—and that's what the show is about. But it's easy for amateurs to follow the leads of these shows and start doing really stupid things because they see something work well. Earlier this summer someone was caught by the Chatham Harbor Master towing a dead seal. Was this person just bringing in the dead seal as a favor (as he claimed) or was he trying to have his own Chris Fallows/Air Jaws adventure?

And like you said, what happens when non-permitted fishermen or amateur filmmakers decide to start chumming for white sharks themselves? Do they look for whale carcasses?

In Topic: Use of whale blubber to chum for sharks for TV and "research" purposes

16 September 2012 - 03:36 AM

Indeed I am talking about Shark Men, Drew. I don't have a strong opinion about their use of legally-procured whale blubber, but I do wonder what other people think about it, especially in cases when the Shark Men are operating in U.S. waters, as they were the last two weeks.