Photographing Sharks

At the last meeting of BSoUP South African based underwater photographer Tony White brought up an interesting point regarding shark photography (which he does a lot of in South Africa). I thought that this issue was worthy of wider debate.

The jist of the argument was that you won't meet an underwater photographer who does not care about the fact that sharks are disappearing from our oceans. Indeed many of us write articles and actively support shark conservation. Most shark articles you read talk about the public misunderstanding of this animals as mindless killers - and try an change this perception.

All jolly good stuff, so far. If we can get people to understand and appreciate sharks it should help increase objections to shark fisheries.

The problem is that many of these same photographers (and I have to include myself in this category) also take the dramatic mouth open, teeth bared, sharks near the surface or near people type images that sell well. But there can be no denying that these images help to propogate the public misunderstanding about sharks.

That said, making a living as an underwater photographer is tough enough. And shark images always sell well. The more dramatic the better. Should we really stop shooting them. Do they not show something of the power of these predators? This has always been part of the public's fascination with sharks. Such images also help propell sharks into the mainstream media, and is there no such thing as bad PR?

So I guess the big question is, should we be taking such dramatic mouth open teeth bare shark images? Or should we be looking for new types of shark images that promote other aspects of their character?

Alex

To kick the conversation here are a couple of my photos from Wetpixel shark trips.

First here is one of my photos of a lemon shark. Showing teeth and drama at the surface. I like this image, but it certainly falls into the degrading the image of sharks category. Teeth bared, mouth open at the surface (where people swim). These are not good messages. Or does it show the power of a magnificent predator?

As an alternative below is my shark shot from this year's Wildlife Photographer comp.

My aim when I entered this shot was to make the shark look small in its habitat to highlight their vunerability to overfishing - that is also why this image is called Lone Shark (although actually there were many more on the dive). I do not think that this is as eye catching an image as the one above, but perhaps it shows sharks in a better light?

Alex

Most shark articles you read talk about the public misunderstanding of this animals as mindless killers - and try an change this perception.

Dr. Mustard, on that particular point, part of the problem (at least here in the USA) is that the three 24/7 cable news channels (Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC) sensationalize every shark attack. The coverage of the ones in southern Florida are the most intensive, sometimes with news helicopters hovering over the scene.

--------------------------

Unfortunately, in some cultures, shark fin soup is in the same class as elephant & rhino tusks: Both are harvested for their aphrodesiac properties. Once silendifil (Viagra) goes off patent in 2012 or 2013, and the price drops from $10 per dose to pennies for the generic version, I believe that this will benefit wildlife conservation, as the reason for these harvests will become pretty well moot.

A real Catch-22 I think. The dramatic shots of course get peoples attention, and unfortunately sharks rarely look cuddly - like other potentially dangerous animals such as polar bears.

I have no idea of how one would get these shots, but shots of sharks involved in more 'domestic' activities like breeding or raising young could be helpful - though with human's tendency to anthropomorphize everything, much of this behaviour might be interpreted as spousal and child abuse.

More importantly we need stuff that more clearly demonstrates why sharks are important to the environment, and even if they are / were potentially dangerous animals, that's no reason to destroy them.

...If we can get people to understand and appreciate sharks it should help increase objections to shark fisheries.

 

The problem is that many of these same photographers (and I have to include myself in this category) also take the dramatic mouth open, teeth bared, sharks near the surface or near people type images that sell well. But there can be no denying that these images help to propogate the public misunderstanding about sharks.

Over on this side of the pond, despite the sensationalized coverage of shark bites, over the last 20 years we've had an explosion of large aquariums, used for economic development. This trend started with the Baltimore Aquarium, which was successful beyond their wildest dreams, revitalizing a depressed urban area. Then, other cities looked at the success in Baltimore, and the politicians said "Gee, we need one of these aquariums as well." Sometimes it works -- The Tennessee Aquarium in Chattanooga, for example; and sometimes it doesn't -- The New Jersey Aquarium in Camden is an opposite example.

That being said, these aquariums don't sit idle during the week: Dozens of school buses can be seen, as hundreds of school children take field trips, often including a lecture by a staff expert... And often in front of a huge pane of Lexan with the subject of the sharks swimming by. It is these school field trips where we are "winning the hearts & minds" about conservation, starting at a young age.

---------------------

Ironically, sometimes conservation for land animals can work a little too well when it comes to dangerous animals, with bears and alligators encroaching into populated areas. This is something you need to keep in the back of your mind: Sharks are certainly in this class, and sugar-coating their ferocity -- as has happened with bears here in the States, leading people to feed them (especially in National Parks) -- can lead to harm as well. In other words, we have to make sure that "Oh, let's feed that cute bear" doesn't morph into "Let's go swim with that friendly shark."

My take on shark conservation:

I was in the Galapagos with a Discovery Channel film crew. The sound-man, Mark Roberts, was Chinese (born in the UK). He confessed to serving shark fin soup at his wedding in HongKong. He said that to not have it at a Chinese wedding was tantamount to not having champagne at a Westerner's wedding. All Chinese people want to eat sharkfin soup.

China is experiencing an industrial revolution unprecedented in the history of the world. We in the West are fuelling it. At the moment about 200 million Chinese people are involved but the population numbers 1.3 billion.

As they get richer, the price of sharkfin soup escalates. We cannot expect to buy cheap Chinese manufactured products and for fishermen elsewhere not to try to meet the demand for sharkfin soup. The trade is simply too valuable and WE have made it so. WE are killing sharks.

We have to find some way to discontinue demand. All efforts to promote shark conservation must be made in China. Otherwise we are simply wasting out time. It's like asking Americans to stop using fossil fuels without offering a cheaper or better alternative.

(I got fired as a patron of the Shark Trust for expressing this view.)

Actually, John beat me to the punch: We both reject Tony White's argument, because the cause-and-effect don't match up. What does showing photos of sharks baring their teeth have to do with shark fin soup demand?

(more)

At the last meeting of BSoUP South African based underwater photographer Tony White brought up an interesting point regarding shark photography (which he does a lot of in South Africa). I thought that this issue was worthy of wider debate.

 

The jist of the argument was that you won't meet an underwater photographer who does not care about the fact that sharks are disappearing from our oceans. Indeed many of us write articles and actively support shark conservation. Most shark articles you read talk about the public misunderstanding of this animals as mindless killers - and try an change this perception.

Going back to my wildlife analogy, what does showing a brown bear in Washington catching salmon have to do with bear meat consumption?

As they [the Chinese] get richer, the price of sharkfin soup escalates.

...Then, is not the answer for the shark the same as for the alligator in the southern U.S.? Breed them on farms, and release a percentage (mostly female) back into the wild? We have salmon farming -- And some of the new ones in the Pacific Northwest are ecologically friendly -- so why not shark farming?

[Actually, I just learned this about alligator farming on the Discovery Channel's Dirty Jobs show, with this very episode re-airing Tuesday night at 11PM EST]

There's an old joke that (sort of) applies here:

If God wanted man to be a vegetarian...

Then why did he make cows out of meat?

Alex

If I'm honest about it, I really doubt that underwater photos of dramatic, savage sharks really have a substantial effect on the image of sharks and their potential protection or lack of it. Although that said, dramatic images used in the right way might actually help to increase public awareness that one of the last great predators is under ever increasing threat. Reducing the numbers of this type of photo in circulation, or even providing more images of sharks in which they are portayed as more docile creatures in unlikely IMHO to significantly change long held public perceptions of sharks.

Shark fishing is the greatest threat faced by sharks and John is right to say that whilst a demand exists and it is economic to fill it, then shark fishing will continue and only economics will dictate when this ends (and not always - whaling as an example can hardly be economic today). A solution is for us personally to campaign or promote active campaigning by anyone interested in sharks so that people lobby their government representatives about overfishing and the lack of effective legislation or enforcement of fisheries law. Whilst China may well create a demand, places like the UK have an attrocious record of fisheries mismanagement and incompetence which continues to this day (on a recent trip to Monterey I was amazed at how much further ahead California seemed to be in terms of real marine protection than the UK - although no doubt someone will post and say that California's approach is lacking in many respects!).

Tony is quite right in questioning whether it is moral to take images which perpetrate a stereotype myth, but I suspect that public opinion over the vicious predatory nature of sharks would be a difficult one to alter quickly and would only be a small factor in deciding the shark's future.

Going back to my wildlife analogy, what does showing a brown bear in Washington catching salmon have to do with bear meat consumption?

...Then, is not the answer for the shark the same as for the alligator in the southern U.S.? Breed them on farms, and release a percentage (mostly female) back into the wild? We have salmon farming -- And some of the new ones in the Pacific Northwest are ecologically friendly -- so why not shark farming?

Being that there is evidence to show that salmon farms are a major problem with that eco system in the Pacific Northwest. The farm salmon with paracites which end up infecting the wild salmon and other species in the ecosystem. Follow that to the bears which eat the salmon when they swim upstream. Bad situation that probably has not shown all it's effects yet.

IMHO

Todd

To the main point Alex, I have to agree that the dramatic pictures tend to reasonate with people. But, that is also what will stick with them when they think of sharks. They don't really lend themselves to the warm cuddly shot but, maybe showing them in situations with divers where there is not "teeth and mouth open" is a better option. That said, does showing images period help to keep them forefront in people's minds thus being better than none?

Unfortunately, in some cultures, shark fin soup is in the same class as elephant & rhino tusks: Both are harvested for their aphrodesiac properties.

Sharkfin soup consumption is based on status. Serving it at a wedding banquet establishes you as prosperous and willing to spare no expense.

The price of Viagra will not change that.

I'm personally more drawn to images like Alex's lone shark on the sand or the Oceanic Whitetip on the cover of WPQ or Bruce's Cheshire cat grin or even Eric's breech sequence.

Lemon and Greatwhite jaws are an adrenalin rush to take, but I'm not nearly drawn into those images.

I don't think it would help any shark conservation campaign to have a bloody, gaping mouthed Lemon shark as a mascot. It does play into the whole idea that this mouth full of razor sharp teeth are going to jump out of the water one summer day and bite my leg off.

It's hard to say whether we should stop taking these kinds of images or what the purpose of those kinds of images should be. But, I do think there are plenty of compelling, emotionally stirring images of sharks that should be used to campaign the truth about their lives and precarious position.

On the Two example images shown at the start of the thread I have to say that the 'Lone Shark' ecites me more and Everyone who has seen it of my friends says it is one of the best shark photos they have seen. Granted my friends are all divers and most are used to UW photos from the last decade.

People who know are BORED with the same old shark with teeth showing be it on the surface or down below kinda photos.

On the whole do the photos that sell help hinder the general efforts of shark conservation .. In my mind .. yes they do because they help sustain fear in the populations minds and so therefore whatever way you are trying to protect sharks be it against fisherman or development (just because finning and fishing are in the limelight doesn't mean they are the biggest effects on population, it's human development that is the cause .. as stated by John and Bella about the China status and as we build their economy)

The reason Shark finning is a problem is because of how much of it is happening. The practice has increased in order to meet demand from a growing Asian economy as western business moves over there to obtain cheaper manufacturing etc. Photos of sharks won't affect this, however their economy surely will. This is a population and human development one .

I was just chatting with a gentleman who works in Reptile Conservation and our conversation led to the end of the conservation road .. or at least half way. When you have success as a conservationist and numbers start to return to a population you want to publicize this and let everyone know the success so you can get more money and hence work harder at the program and get ever better results.

The trouble with publicizing results is that you let the poachers and hunters and evil doers know of regained population and where to go hunting and fishing.

So in general what I am saying is I don't think photographs themselves help or distract from efforts. I agree with Paul it is how the image is used and you can use any photo in a positive way. So maybe there is no need to take different photos but control, more so, their use.

On two occasions I've taken video of sharks getting frisky a bit too close to divers/snorkelers, but I've never used it. It would be very easy to reinforce the shark stereotype with those shots, but they were 'false' situations as although they were not being fed, there certainly was chum in the water. Some of the shark photography that I've see over the last few years or so has been awe inspiring. Any shot that can get through the hype and stereotype and show the true beauty of these animals is a winner in my book (A good example being Alex's lone shark posted above).

I think John Bantin's point is very valid when it comes to the conservation suject though and I'm amazed the Shark Trust booted you out for expressing it. We can hope to protect small local populations of sharks in the coming decades and we may even be successful at it, but if you want to save sharks as a pelagic species then the only way to do it will be to stop the demand of Shark Fin Soup. There really is no other way for pelagic species to still be around in 20 or 30 years time. Eventually of course commercial shark fishing will become economically unviable, but that doesn't bode well for what's left of the shark populations. By that point they'd almost certainly be biologically extinct.

By hey I'm preaching to the converted aren't I? Well actually no I'm not. For example the Shark Trust has...... wait for it........... the mighty figure of 200 or so members who are certified scuba divers. 200.

Pretty pathetic eh?

Cheers, Simon

This is a tough question. My own thoughts on the issue is that still photos of sharks are more likely to be used in constructive contexts such as books and articles that may have a conservation, or at least a location theme- not always but at least some of the time. And, the photographer should have the ability, and the responsibility to determine where and when his/her pictures will be used. We're the ones who deal with the clients, so you could always ask for which use a given image is being purchased for. And, if you're dealing with stock agencies, you should make sure their values and convictions are in harmony with your own.

Video footage, on the other hand is more likely to be used in that cynical, greedy, money-grubbing, marketing machine known as television which produces such atrocities as Discovery shark week. Even many of the so-called "scientifically" based shows on sharks are laughably shallow (no pun intended) and play up the danger card at every chance they get. Can't remember the last time I actually saw a documentary that wasn't hyped to some degree. But that's the problem: the average TV show has to be dumbed-down to the lowest common denominator to grab the interest of the average viewer: titillation.

On another note, there's more than just the Asian demand for shark fin soup. There's a huge demand for the shark cartilage in western countries that is used in pseudo health products to treat arthritis. The product is called "chondroitan" (wonder where that name came from!) and is found in health food stores and other "natural" medicine outlets.

Of course, as is the case with so many of these so-called miracle treatments, shark cartilage has shown little or no benefit for arthritis. But lots of companies benefit to the tune of millions by exploiting the naivety and desperation of people suffering from the disease.

Here in Canada, we really don't protect sharks. We're I live we have an ongoing fishery for porbeagles, despite their being considered for listing as a RED BOOK species, and for spiny dogfish, which are also being considered. The demand for Canadian caught dogfish, which is being absolutely decimated in the Northwest Atlantic, is being driven by the UK. Dogfish is exported for use primarily to be used in traditional British "fish and chips". So, we better start with the damage we are doing in our own backyards before we foist all the responsibility on Asia (as deserved as it might be). At least we have half a chance of controlling the actions of our own.

Seeing a Frans Lanting shot of a tiger eating a cute gazelle does not effect my desire to protect the tiger from extinction.

Maybe we should take photos of sharks helping little old jacks cross the reef, or perhaps reading a novel.

We have to find some way to discontinue demand. All efforts to promote shark conservation must be made in China. Otherwise we are simply wasting out time. It's like asking Americans to stop using fossil fuels without offering a cheaper or better alternative.

I agree with the point, but the analogy isn't very good. Every nation uses fossil fuels. Consumption of fossil fuels are necessary for everyones way of life. Shark fins and ivory tusks are not.

Here in Canada, we really don't protect sharks. We're I live we have an ongoing fishery for porbeagles, despite their being considered for listing as a RED BOOK species, and for spiny dogfish, which are also being considered. The demand for Canadian caught dogfish, which is being absolutely decimated in the Northwest Atlantic, is being driven by the UK. Dogfish is exported for use primarily to be used in traditional British "fish and chips". So, we better start with the damage we are doing in our own backyards before we foist all the responsibility on Asia (as deserved as it might be). At least we have half a chance of controlling the actions of our own.

Good points.

At least you have a mangement plan in place in Canada on the Porbeagle fishery though, unlike we have in the UK or Europe as a whole where there is a free for all, anything goes, catch what you can attitude. The EU are hopefully considering a no catch limit on Porbeagles in December, but of course that wouldn't stop imports from Canada. As for the Dogfish then if there ever was a case to 'sex up' a shark then it's them that need it! I'm surprised that there is such a demand for them from the UK though. They are sold as 'Rock Salmon' in Fish and Chips shops, but it's never been a huge demand as far as I'm aware, but then I don't eat fish so I maybe out of the loop and with the decimation of local Cod stocks (which was the staple of fish and chips) it could be possible. Any links on where this info came from as I'm be interested in finding out more? I'm going to be filming them next year so I'd be really interested in finding out what's going on in Canada.

Europe as a whole has a pathetic fishery policy and you are absolutely correct in saying that western nations need to put their own house in order. The EU (mainly Spain) is the largest exporter of shark products to Asia.

As always when Shark conservation issues come up I feel like physically going to the nearest wall and banging my head repeatedly

Cheers, Simon

I'd like to ask a question to Dr. Mustard and others that, some here, would think amounts to heresy:

With 70% of the earth's surface covered in water, are sharks really disappearing globally?

Or, are they just disappearing from coastal and island regions, where they are overfished, and still plentiful farther out?

For example, the USS Indianapolis sank at 12°2′ N, 134°48′ E, "the area in which she sank has some of the deepest spots in the world"... And any surviving crewman would testify there were plenty of sharks out there.

So my question to the marine biologists: In the 62 years since the USS Indianapolis sank, are there still as many sharks far away from land, where the threat from man is reduced?

With disbelief...

If you take the top predator out of an ecosystem it affects everything down the chain. So if they are not in the coastal waters the effect can be catostrophic to a reef ecosystem and so on and so on.

The rest of your comment I will not touch.

Straying off sharks and towards salmon (but still relevant to farm-raised sharks)...

Yes, there are problems with salmon farming: Due to riparian rights here in the U.S. the States regulate fish and crustacean farming... And some states are better than others when it comes to regulation.

I just saw 3-4 months ago a documentary on fish & shrimp farming worldwide; and if you think it's a mess in North America, it's an ecologic disaster in SE Asia

On the other hand, they showed a eco-friendly salmon farm in (IIRC) Rhode Island or Massachusetts, where the pens were over a mile offshore in deeper water, and the density of the fish population is lower than other farms.

Moving back to the issue of shark depopulation, wouldn't one way to deal with demand be to commercially farm sharks, in an eco-friendly manner? Like we already farm salmon and catfish?

We already did this successfully with buffalo, where, along with conservation in our National Parks, the population has been pretty well restored... And you can buy buffalo burgers at many grocery stores, too.

Being that there is evidence to show that salmon farms are a major problem with that eco system in the Pacific Northwest. The farm salmon with paracites which end up infecting the wild salmon and other species in the ecosystem. Follow that to the bears which eat the salmon when they swim upstream. Bad situation that probably has not shown all it's effects yet.

Todd,

Sadly, ducking the basic question doesn't make it go away. Everybody here cares about keeping the various shark breeds from becoming extinct; but you're not going to stop the demand for shark fin soup by legislative fiat.

So, in order to conserve what we have, we have to ask the experts the basic questions; and challenge assumptions.

On land here in the United States, we brought back our National symbol, the bald eagle, from virtual extinction in the 1960's, back to the point where they are in every State in North America, from Maine to Florida to California to Alaska... And Canada, too.

It took work from conservationists; and it took the political will to ban DDT; but we proved it can be done.

To get the job done with sharks, we have to examine every variable... Hence my question about the global population.

With disbelief...

 

If you take the top predator out of an ecosystem it affects everything down the chain. So if they are not in the coastal waters the effect can be catostrophic to a reef ecosystem and so on and so on.

 

The rest of your comment I will not touch.