[Coral-List] Shark Feeding Question

Douglas Fenner douglasfennertassi at gmail.com
Tue Feb 18 15:05:14 EST 2014


Sarah,
     Thanks for this, and thanks to everybody for contributing to this
interesting and informative discussion.
     At the end of your message, you touched on a point about making
observations and understanding.  You said:
     "There are almost no research funds to spend time underwater and just
look at the fish and see what they do, and understand why they do it.
That's the good old field-based behavioral ecology.  But the millions of
dollars moving around fisheries, ecotourism, diving, etc, they all depend
on truly knowing animal behavior."
     This reminds me of an article by Charles Birkeland, which I think few
are aware of and is almost never cited, but I think is well worth reading
and pondering.
     Birkeland, C. 2009.  Important roles of natural history in ecology.
Galaxea, Journal of Coral Reef Studies, 11: 59-66.

http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/130000298639/
   (click on "Read/Search at J-STAGE" to get a copy, open access.)

Chuck makes the argument that if you do fancy technical stuff, like fancy
math or stats with ecological data, you can go down the wrong track if you
don't understand the natural history of what's going on.  He gives some
examples.  It seems like today that everything is getting more and more
technical.  I've argued that one of the more useful parts of coral reef
monitoring is "eyes on the reef."  Watching, mostly outside of transects,
to see what's happening on the reef, seeing brief but important events that
routine annual transects miss, but which are important for the reef.
Routine, annual, transects, need to be done in a uniform manner, but if
that is all we do, we might as well be robots, with giant databases and
fancy stats, maybe we fool ourselves into thinking that we understand the
reef (?).  But that needs to be supplemented with lots of observation time
outside of transects, both spatially and temporally, to see the context and
processes of what's going on.  You can easily miss a brief disease
outbreak, hurricane, crown-of-thorns outbreak, fishing pressure, algae
bloom, etc etc. which drive the changes you measure in your transects.  You
can miss them even if they are happening as you take your transects, if
they are not under your transect.  Transects are important, but they don't
always tell you what caused the changes.  You can't understand the reef if
you never leave your computer or your laboratory bench (?)
    Anyhow, my 2 cents on that aspect.   Cheers,  Doug



On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres <
sfrias_torres at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all, Not long ago, I got crucified in this list for showing a video
> where I was interacting and (oh the horror) touching a Goliath Grouper. In
> the upheaval, I didn't get the chance to say that I had done a Jane Goodall
> on that grouper, meaning, I had spent several dives getting to know that
> particular grouper, not feeding her but slowly swimming by her side,
> hanging around grouper-style and earning her trust. Perhaps that's the
> lesson to learn here.
> After years studying animal behavior in the wild, my personal take of
> feeding wild animals is that the wild is always at the loosing end. The
> purpose of feeding wildlife is no other than to put the animals at our
> service. We want to see the animals doing things, and since we don't have
> the patience of Jane Goodall or Diane Fossey, we trick them with food to be
> here and now, so they fit our entertainment purpose.
> Even the most well intentioned ecotourist is a predator, a benign one, but
> still a predator. You can predate old style (i.e. killing and eating a
> fish), or you can be subtle and set its behavior in disarray just enough to
> diminish long term fitness.
> What kinds of behavior can we interfere with?1) pecking order, a sequence
> that determines who feeds first and who follows. This order could be well
> established, such as the alpha (dominant male and female) to the omega
> individual in the wolf, or it can be more fluid and ever changing as in
> marine species. The fish have already figured out who should eat first, but
> the humans don't know the correct feeding order. 2) feeding ecology: we
> don't always provide the correct food3) site attachment: by feeding
> regularly the fish, we condition them to associate divers with food at a
> specific time and place, which can conflict with their normal daily or
> seasonal movements.4) naivete: Billy Causey already  illustrated the fate
> of the naive fish who no longer watch out for anglers or spearfishers
> There are almost no research funds to spend time underwater and just look
> at the fish and see what they do, and understand why they do it. That's the
> good old field-based behavioral ecology.  But the millions of dollars
> moving around fisheries, ecotourism, diving, etc, they all depend on truly
> knowing animal behavior.
> Sarah Frias-Torres, Ph.D. Coordinator Reef Rescuers ProgramIsland
> Conservation Centre Nature Seychelles,Amitie, Praslin,
> Seychelleshttp://www.natureseychelles.org-and-Research
> CollaboratorSmithsonian-National Museum of Natural Historyat Smithsonian
> Marine Station, Fort Pierce, FL, USATwitter: @GrouperDocBlog: http:/
> /grouperluna.wordpress.comhttp://independent..
> academia.edu/SarahFriasTorres
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:22:57 -0500
> > From: sealab at earthlink.net
> > To: billy.causey at noaa.gov; dobura at cordioea.net
> > CC: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Shark Feeding Question
> >
> >
> >    David and Billy,
> >
> >
> >    While you both expertly appeal to common sense, it seems that science
> today
> >    prefers to reflect popular culture rather than challenge its
> transgressions.
> >    At the risk of sounding sanctimonious, the trend is ominous because it
> >    is likely  an indication of what's to come. Diverting from established
> >    doctrine (pertaining to the general practice of feeding wildlife), the
> >    conclusions cited in a number of recent papers on the subject of shark
> >    feeding  seem  to suggest that conservation efforts and protected area
> >    management would best be served by facing reality and accepting
> things for
> >    what they are or at the very least, finding creative ways to
> subscribe to
> >    and  benefit from what they have become. Although this may be the most
> >    pragmatic approach, it gives the impression that authoritative
> scientific
> >    objectivity has given way to the whims of shifting societal values and
> >    beliefs. For the time being, those who condone shark feeding are
> provided
> >    cover  from  the full range of implications that may result from these
> >    activities by a fog of ambiguity. There is no hard scientific
> evidence to
> >    contend  with  and they know full well that by the time enough data is
> >    collected and crunched, baselines will have been obscured and a new
> era of
> >    "novel natural communities" will have taken hold. This is pretty much
> as it
> >    always has been. Humankind will by then have moved on and adjusted to
> a new
> >    reality remorseless in reaction to the impacts of its intrusion.
> After all,
> >    baselines reflecting the pristine conditions that once existed on
> coral
> >    reefs  of  the past are little more than a fading memory becoming more
> >    mystical, unfamiliar and elusive with every passing day.
> >
> >
> >    Hoping for change.
> >
> >    With best regards,
> >
> >    Steve
> >
> >    -----Original Message-----
> >    >From: Billy Causey - NOAA Federal
> >    >Sent: Feb 18, 2014 8:49 AM
> >    >To: David Obura
> >    >Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov"
> >    >Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Shark Feeding Question
> >    >
> >    >David,
> >    >It's always great to hear from you! You made some excellent points in
> >    >your response and I agree with all of them.
> >    >
> >    >Please allow me to share a short story from the mid - 1980's when I
> >    >was managing the small Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary in the
> Lower
> >    >Florida Keys. At the time, we allowed fishing on top of the fore reef
> >    >and the spur and groove formation. Now that area is a no take
> >    >Sanctuary Preservation Area.
> >    >
> >    >Back to the story, one day I received a call from an older, excited
> >    >recreational fisherman who exclaimed that "this sanctuary thing was
> >    >working!" He said he had tied up to one of our mooring buoys and
> >    >caught his limit in huge Yellowtail Snapper in minutes! What he
> >    >didn't know was that he was catching fish that divers had been
> feeding
> >    >crackers, cheese whiz and all sorts of food matter to the fish. The
> >    >old fishermen had found a gold mine of fish that had been conditioned
> >    >to bite anything that hit the water!! But, he liked that sanctuary
> >    >thing!!
> >    >
> >    >A sad, but true story that was frequently repeated .
> >    >
> >    >Cheers,
> >    >Billy
> >    >
> >    >Billy D. Causey, Ph.D..
> >    >Southeast Regional Director
> >    >NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries
> >    >
> >    >33 East Quay Road
> >    >Key West, Florida 33040
> >    >
> >    >Phone:
> >    >305 809 4670 office
> >    >305 395 0150 mobile
> >    >305 293 5011 fax
> >    >
> >    >Email:
> >    >billy..causey at noaa.gov
> >    >
> >    >
> >    >> On Feb 18, 2014, at 7:30 AM, David Obura wrote:
> >    >>
> >    >>
> >    >> Hi all,
> >    >>
> >    >> general experience with feeding or attracting wild animals (which
> fish
> >    and sharks are) in Africa has been that the direct result of increased
> >    human-animal interactions is precisely what you could predict. Where
> those
> >    animals are nice and cuddly, the interactions are probably beneficial
> (at
> >    least to humans). Where they are large or potentially dangerous
> (hippos,
> >    leopard, elephant, lion), then, surprise surprise, the number of
> harmful
> >    interactions  on  humans  go  up!!  Where habitat loss also results in
> >    intensification  of  human-wildlife interactions you also see the same
> >    results,  of  greater harmful interactions to people, though hardly in
> >    proportion to the increase in harmful interactions for the animals.
> >    >>
> >    >> Finding published literature on this can be difficult (though I'm
> sure
> >    its extensive in terrestrial cases) because it is of course so
> emotive to us
> >    - but it is common sense. The micro-view of pro-feeders, centered
> around
> >    their own business opportunity or "I know my backyard" mentality
> should not
> >    be given excessive weight against what is common sense AND backed up
> by a
> >    mix of experience and data from the broader world out there!
> >    >>
> >    >> My two cents, anyway,
> >    >>
> >    >> David
> >    >>
> >    >>
> >    >>
> >    >>
> >    >> CORDIO East Africa
> >    >> #9 Kibaki Flats, Kenyatta Beach, Bamburi Beach
> >    >> P.O.BOX 10135 Mombasa 80101, Kenya
> >    >> www.cordioea.net // www.iucn.org/cccr
> >    >> Mobile: 254-715 067417
> >    >> Email: dobura at cordioea.net; davidobura at gmail.com
> >    >> Skype dobura
> >    >>
> >    >> _______________________________________________
> >    >> Coral-List mailing list
> >    >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >    >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> >    >_______________________________________________
> >    >Coral-List mailing list
> >    >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >    >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> > _______________________________________________
> > Coral-List mailing list
> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>



-- 
Douglas Fenner
Contractor with Ocean Associates, Inc.
PO Box 7390
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799  USA

phone 1 684 622-7084


More information about the Coral-List mailing list