This was posted by a local operator from a shark dive last week in Beqa Lagoon, Fiji. The camera rig was not recovered. Yikes!

There are a couple of operators in Beqa that run these baited shark dives. I’m really not a fan of behaviour modification for my entertainment - when the sharks are trained that boat + splash = food, I don’t want to be the splash! I did this dive 20 years ago and only nurse sharks turned up. Now they are regularly attracting bulls and tigers. I am always thrilled to see them under natural conditions but will stay away from artificial feeding frenzies.

Edited Sunday at 01:30 AM3 days by Troporobo
Typo

I'm not a fan of these dives either.

Spectacular series of shots tho 🙂 Most sharks will n e v e r come close enough for photos w/o something to attract them, which might be fine. An acquaintance diver lost a rig in a similar fashion to a tiger shark in the Aldabra atoll some 20 years ago. Think it made the tv news in his home country (Netherlands) .

The first minute of this video shows what the dive is like. This is the operator’s official version, there are many more on YT that confirm the scene as recently as last week. I understand why some people would find it exciting. It looks like a circus to me, a risky one at that.

To be clear, this is a very good operator that’s done a lot for conservation. I dive with them regularly, just not on the shark experience.

Beqa shark dive

Maybe the shark was offended the diver was only shooting with an action cam?

changing the behaviour of wild animals to associate scuba divers with food

it IS only a matter of time before......

It happend.

In Nouvelle Calédonie a diver was injured the third of january
REQUIN. Le "craquage de bouteille", une pratique mise en cause dans l'attaque d'un plongeur le 3 janvier en Calédonie

With plastic bottle he made noise like the noise when a shark is eating a fish...

The shark came and ... :(

Translation
"Avoiding "an overreaction" and "unnecessary fear"

"I am testifying today because accurate data is the only way for organizations and the government of New Caledonia to make informed decisions about shark management," the witness defended. I want to avoid an overreaction from the authorities, such as the killing of sharks, which often occurs when the facts of an incident are misunderstood. Making the truth known also helps protect the local diving industry from the economic damage that unnecessary fear can cause."
"A very dangerous way of proceeding"

In another testimony, a couple of Australian tourists claim to have witnessed the cracking of a bottle during a dive in New Caledonia in October. "One thing we observed was that the instructors had brought plastic bottles underwater during the dives so that they could create this cracking sound in the water and to attract sharks. "It's a very dangerous way of proceeding," warns the man, "because we don't know exactly how sharks can react to this."

"I think there's a difference between trying to deliberately trigger a certain behavior," she adds, "instead of just observing how the animal evolves in its natural environment."

Like "a devoured fish skeleton"

Unlike shark feeding, this sensory stimulation technique is not prohibited in New Caledonia. Claude Maillaud has been cataloguing attacks for years. Asked about this, he believes that this could partly explain the attack on January 3. "It could reproduce the cracking of a fish skeleton that is devoured by a shark."

A bull shark, to be precise. According to Claude Maillaud, the shark that attacked a scuba diver's forearms on January 3rd at the large bend in Kele reef was a female, approximately three meters long, and was clearly identified

I would have thought that a 3m bull shark could do a lot worse than bite you on both forearms if it was in the mood

18 minutes ago, Mike Saunders said:

if it was in the mood

It wasn't... good for the diver... no?

I know this is a sensitive topic, and I’m not here to judge anyone. I know many people in this community enjoy these dives and will keep doing them. I’ll admit, the photos you can get are amazing and it's very tempting, but personally, I’ve decided not to do them.

We often talk about how photographers (or simply divers) affect the ocean. For example, everyone seems to agree with the new rules in Thailand about diver experience, or the fact that we can't wear gloves in the Red Sea. No one complains about those rules.

But let’s be honest: shark feeding changes how these animals behave. In the end, it’s all part of what we call human impact on nature. The classic justification for these dives has always been that they help debunk negative myths about sharks. But guys, we are all adults now and it’s 2026. Does that still make sense?

To change the subject, Shark Week, which used the same justification, continues to cause a lot of damage IMHO.

I’d love to hear what you think about this 😇

3 hours ago, Mike Saunders said:

changing the behaviour of wild animals to associate scuba divers with food

it IS only a matter of time before......

I made a feature documentary about this very site and the story behind it, I also know the diver in the photos. The sharks there are conditioned to behave a certain way under a certain set of circumstances but I can tell you from experience having tested it myself, it hasn't impacted the sharks natural behaviour at all.

I would dive that site on non-feed days to examine the sharks behaviour to answer this very question and you couldn't get the sharks to approach any closer than within 20 feet. They do not associate random divers with food.

I’d be very interested to see that documentary- is any part of it available online?

As for associating divers with food, maybe not, but the potential for things to go wrong is clear. In this video from the same site, a very large tiger may have just been “investigating” but the consequences could have been very serious.

Beqa interaction gone wrong

I’m happy when they stay 20’ away!

Inme it is a common misconception in popular and mainstrean media that the sharks behaviour is ”altered” or ”modified”. The truth is that it’s very difficult to alter the behavior of an animal who has been perfected through longer time than any animals on earth. What we do when we use fish scraps or plastic bottles is exploiting their natural behavior. Dangerous? It depends, but it is more dangerous than when there’s no baksheesh.

Edited 16 hours ago16 hr by Christian K

Hey mate! If you search for Of Shark and Man you’ll find it, it’s on loads of platforms.

You’re right, the potential is always there but it’s not linked in the way people think it is. Just by introducing sharks to divers the risk will increase.

The other incident you mention is a different part of the same reef and they have very different protocols there, not as defined or strict as those carried out by BAD. It’s the way a shark feed is executed that makes all the difference.

41 minutes ago, Troporobo said:

I’d be very interested to see that documentary- is any part of it available online?

As for associating divers with food, maybe not, but the potential for things to go wrong is clear. In this video from the same site, a very large tiger may have just been “investigating” but the consequences could have been very serious.

Beqa interaction gone wrong

I’m happy when they stay 20’ away!

Thanks for the feedback.

I want to clarify that I’m not a marine biologist, but after seeing some comments, I did some research on Google Scholar to see what the peer-reviewed data actually says.

It’s true that the scientific community isn’t unanimous, and the debate is quite complex. On one hand, some studies suggest that the impact might be limited. For example:

• Hammerschlag et al. (2012) found that despite frequent feeding at Tiger Beach (Bahamas), tiger sharks still maintain their long-distance migratory patterns.
  

• Gallagher & Hammerschlag (2011) argue that the economic value of shark tourism provides a vital 'conservation shield' against the much greater threat of overfishing.

On the other hand, there is significant evidence of localized behavioral changes:

• Vertical Shift in Bull Sharks (Carcharhinus leucas) - Fiji: Research by Brunnschweiler and Barnett (2010) showed that these sharks completely changed their vertical distribution and space use to match feeding schedules.
  

• Social Aggression in Grey Reef Sharks (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos) - Australia: Fitzpatrick et al. (2011) documented increased intra-specific aggression and injuries due to the 'conditioned response' triggered by feeding.
  

• Health Concerns: Some studies (like those in Oslob regarding Whale Sharks) show that a human-provided diet can lead to nutritional deficiencies compared to their natural, more varied diet.

Ultimately, while science may not have proven catastrophic long-term damage to entire populations yet, from an ethological standpoint, altering the routine of an apex predator is rarely 'zero cost.'

To me, the real question isn't just whether the shark survives, but whether it’s right to turn a wild animal into a conditioned one for our own entertainment and photography. I believe we should base our community's ethics on both our passion and this kind of scientific precaution.

To be fair and look at both sides of the coin, I think it’s important to mention the study by Gallagher & Hammerschlag (2011).

Their research highlights the 'Conservation Shield' provided by the shark diving industry, showing that a single reef shark in the Bahamas is worth about $250,000 USD in tourism revenue over its lifetime, compared to just $50-$100 USD if killed for its fins.

This economic reality was a massive win for conservation. It gave governments a concrete reason to create Shark Sanctuaries and protect these animals from overfishing. The core argument was simple: a shark with slightly altered behavior is still much better off than a dead shark.

However, while I agree with the importance of that study, we have to remember it was published in 2011. Now, in 2026, the context has shifted significantly.

Back then, the "economic shield" was a desperate and necessary tool to stop the immediate slaughter of sharks. It worked, and many populations stabilized as a result. But after 15 years, we have to ask ourselves: are we still doing this for conservation, or has it just become a mature, high-profit business?

At what point does 'saving the sharks' stop being a valid excuse for turning a wild ecosystem into a controlled photo studio? In 2026, we have better technology, better-managed Marine Protected Areas, and many examples of 'Blue Tourism' that don't rely on feeding to be successful.

The conservation argument was a vital starting point, but it shouldn't be a permanent license to ignore anthropogenic impact indefinitely. It’s a tough balance, but I believe it's time to move past 15-year-old justifications and aim for a more ethical interaction with these apex predators.