Photographing Sharks

I'm not ducking it. I have chosen to ignore you in hopes the thread gets on track with the original question posed.

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

Simon, I feel like banging my head against the wall on virtually every biodiversity issue

Don't kid yourself about Canada's fishing industry, it's as poorly managed as a so-called "managed" fishery could be. There's little resolve in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and even less enforcement of rules. The only guys that seem to get scrutinized are the independent inshore fisherman, who probably do the least harm.

The big mulitinationals get away with murder on the high seas and Canada generally turns a blind eye, except when it is politically expedient not to. A good example of this was when Canada seized those Portugese trawlers for fishing Turbot in Canadian waters about a decade or more ago. That would have never been done if the fisheries minister at the time wasn't running for the leadership of the governing political party.

I live in an area where the fishery is the mainstay industry. I have several friends who are fisherman (some of who I fished with commercially with for 5 years harvesting sea urchins as a diver- I too, like everyone else is part of the problem). My former captain fishes for dogfish in the summer and according to him everybody's catch of dogfish is exported to the UK. Now, there may not be a huge demand for "rock salmon" in the UK, but there doesn't have to be, to put a serious strain on the already dwindling dog fish stocks in the NW Atlantic. The US is quite progressive in this area, and is one of the proponents of the red book listing for the species.

As for another post that questions whether sharks are plummeting in numbers because the "ocean is so big", well, you know North America is pretty damn big too, and we had no trouble wiping out the passenger pigeon or nearly wiping out the whooping crane. The North Atlantic is pretty big too, and we had no trouble wiping out the barndoor skate, the Atlantic race of the grey whale, the northern cod (almost), the Northern Right whale (almost), etc. etc. etc. What about the North Pacific, doesn't get much bigger than that, and we had no trouble wiping out the Stellar's sea cow!

That attitude that an ecosystem is just so big that there's NO WAY we could really affect it is really a symptom of how little the general public knows, or seems to care, about the natural world. The human race is permanently stuck in a serious trance of navel-gazing.

The EU are hopefully considering a no catch limit on Porbeagles ..... 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.

If you think that policies are pathetic, consider enforcement. In the UK we suffer from the 800 year old Magna Carta and its 'public right to fishery', which even today has implications. And when legislation is passed (in fact much is controlled by local by-laws) then enforcement is ridiculous. Its utterly underfunded, understaffed and a messy legal process to prosecute. We need a proper Marine Bill in the UK but rumour has it that the government is going to shelve plans to implement one (I'm waiting for a reply to questions about this sent to Hilary Benn (our relevant minister) and will try to post answers here.

As for dogfish, well anglers still destroy these - often diving under Trefor Pier (a local dive site) you will come across discarded dead dogfish - a pointless piece of destruction - which some anglers still seem to consider an appropriate way of dealing with them. Dogfish areof course a vicious type of shark as you can tell from this........

Sorry if this thread has been hyjacked a bit

Dan, many pelagic (oceanic) species of shark have been depleted between 60 - 90 % over the last few decades. Yes there really is a problem, it's real and it is very, very serious.

Cheers, Simon

I agree with Paul that the average fisherman can be very cruel. I have seen some pretty horrendous things done to creatures that have been brought aboard a fishing boat (I won't recount them here). Many fisherman and industry types, whether part of a multi-national or a local guy in an open boat, seem to have a complete and utter lack of respect for both the sea in general and its inhabitants. Many are in the middle of the spectrum, and a few treat the sea like it should be treated. Sorry, I'm getting way off subject here.

Sorry if this thread has been hyjacked a bit

 

Dan, many pelagic (oceanic) species of shark have been depleted between 60 - 90 % over the last few decades. Yes there really is a problem, it's real and it is very, very serious.

 

Cheers, Simon

In terms of absolute numbers, it is about 100,000,000 killed per year.

I agree with many here that the more compelling images in general are those of lone sharks or sharks caught in fishing gear (Ex. the gillnetted thresher in Brian Skerry's recent NG story on overfishing). Some of the most compelling anti-longline images I've seen over the years have been u/w shots of albatrosses and turtles hanging limp from longline gangions. It's not easy to get those images––gotta follow the boats or find their gear and risk a run-in with angry crews––but they're the ones that stay with you. It certainly matters to the public HOW these animals are killed, not just that they are killed.

Dan Schwartz,

The suggestion that we farm sharks like we far salmon is a non-starter for many reasons, but the big one is just how much space and time would be required. Teleosts like salmon and cobia and tilapia and kona kampache all mature relatively early and have high fecundity. With sharks, maturity takes years and gestation periods (assuming you could get them to survive captivity and mate) are often a year or two. You would essentially need to fence off vast areas of ocean, and even then you'd have a really hard time controlling the many variables and events that need to be controlled in aquaculture.

There are coastal populations that are threatened, and certainly they were affected earlier on in the history of industrial fishing and perhaps hit harder due to their proximity to shore (which allowed small and large vessels to get at them). But as others have pointed out here, modern boats are also hammering the pelagics (blues, oceanic white tips, Galapagos, silkies, threshers, makos) that swim out where the Indianapolis went down, and they have been doing so for a while. There are numerous studies that detail the decline of pelagic shark populations, not just the coastal populations. These populations (and we're talking about more than sharks, too) are heavily fished and they are especially vulnerable to overfishing because of the lack of international regulations in these areas and/or a lack of enforcement of regulations. It is essentially the "tragedy of the commons" scenario, only the tragedy can unfold for sharks much more quickly because of their reproductive strategy. When you hear about threatened populations of sharks, you are not just hearing about coastal populations.

One thing we can hope for (sort of): that the price of oil continues to soar, and fishing (especially pelagic longlining) becomes less feasible. One thing that will keep a boat at the dock, aside from bad weather, is when the price of fuel is so high that that best you can do is hope to break even.

I respectfully disagree: I believe it goes to the heart of Dr. Mustard's question about how to depict sharks, and the threats from humans they face.

Replace "shark" with another (formerly threatened) creature with a nasty bite, "alligator," and you'll see why my question makes sense.

I'm not ducking it. I have chosen to ignore you in hopes the thread gets on track with the original question posed.

The suggestion that we farm sharks like we far salmon is a non-starter for many reasons, but the big one is just how much space and time would be required. Teleosts like salmon and cobia and tilapia and kona kampache all mature relatively early and have high fecundity. With sharks, maturity takes years and gestation periods (assuming you could get them to survive captivity and mate) are often a year or two. You would essentially need to fence off vast areas of ocean, and even then you'd have a really hard time controlling the many variables and events that need to be controlled in aquaculture.

Do you think technology can overcome the hurdles? I remember back in the early 70's the drawings from PSE&G to locate a floating hurricane-proof nuclear power plant complex about 10 miles off the New Jersey shoreline by building a mile-square concrete seawall around it in about 60 feet of water.

There are coastal populations that are threatened, and certainly they were affected earlier on in the history of industrial fishing and perhaps hit harder due to their proximity to shore (which allowed small and large vessels to get at them). But as others have pointed out here, modern boats are also hammering the pelagics (blues, oceanic white tips, Galapagos, silkies, threshers, makos) that swim out where the Indianapolis went down, and they have been doing so for a while. There are numerous studies that detail the decline of pelagic shark populations, not just the coastal populations. These populations (and we're talking about more than sharks, too) are heavily fished and they are especially vulnerable to overfishing because of the lack of international regulations in these areas and/or a lack of enforcement of regulations. It is essentially the "tragedy of the commons" scenario, only the tragedy can unfold for sharks much more quickly because of their reproductive strategy. When you hear about threatened populations of sharks, you are not just hearing about coastal populations. [Emphasis added: DLS]

These are the kinds of answers I was seeking... Thank you for taking the time!

Simon, no it hasn't been hijacked: The nature of the threat determines how we should -- And should not -- photographically portray these great creatures... (more)

Sorry if this thread has been hyjacked a bit

 

Dan, many pelagic (oceanic) species of shark have been depleted between 60 - 90 % over the last few decades. Yes there really is a problem, it's real and it is very, very serious.

Going back to my alligator example, is the threat from sharks from beach patrol officers who kill them, to make sure they don't attack (tourist) swimmers?

If this is the case, then any education campaign -- Accompanied by appropriate photos, which was Dr. Mustard's original question -- has to take this into account.

On the other hand, if the population has drastically "been depleted between 60 - 90 % over the last few decades" because "(i)n terms of absolute numbers, it is about 100,000,000 killed per year," then the purpose of the psychological image the photos of the sharks convey, changes.

Think of Dr. Mustard's original post as a challenge to the photojournalist side of your photography profession: Who, What, When, Where, How, Why.

I agree Dan. But everyone else reading this forum knows about situation sharks are in. We are trying to talk about the specific issues without having to go back over the basics in every discussion. To drag the discussion back into talking about the status of shark populations, fish farming etc just hinders the intended discussion about how we should be trying to photograph sharks. There are many discussions on Wetpixel about the status of shark populations and threats to them.

Always having to go back to the basics is like discussing having to press a little button that activates the shutter in a discussion about photographic techniques, or having to start the engine before driving a stock car when you are discussing the details of setup. The aim of this post was to generate a more involved discussion of an issue that we haven't discussed before.

Also, please call me Alex! I didn't even use DR on the cover of my new book which is all about marine life!

Alex

Alex, just because you and I and probably many others here know about the perilous situation of sharks, we should not assume "everyone on this forum already knows about sharks". If it was a shark conservation forum proper, I would understand your statement, but this is a photography forum. I think a safer assumption, and one we should always make as photojournalists, is that people DON'T know about a given issue. Otherwise, what's the point of journalists, at all. As it relates to the question you first posed in this thread, discussing some of the issues surrounding sharks would actually put your concerns and your very prescient original question in a better context for those who may not be that aware of shark troubles.

Alex (since you insist! )

Scott beat me to the punch, as I was mentally composing my answer.

Moreso, on bulletin boards, there are dozens of "lurkers;" and even more brought in by the random googling; so Yes, a quick couple sentences to frame your question better would have helped.

Since, as was established, the biggest threat to these great creatures comes from Chinese line chefs and not from Florida beach wardens, your PJ question got off track.

As someone else pointed out previously, photos -- As opposed to videos for TV -- convey a different message, by the composition, as opposed to the frenzied motion. You, yourself, recognized this when you took your award-winning "Lone Shark" photo and converted it to monochrome.

Perhaps the most compelling image of the threat to the shark is one being dismembered on the deck of a fishing boat?

Alex, just because you and I and probably many others here know about the perilous situation of sharks, we should not assume "everyone on this forum already knows about sharks".

(cut)

PS: Our copy of your book had to be shipped from England; and will not be unwrapped until my father's birthday on 25 November.

Alex,

I have given some thought to your original post, and maybe from now on my own approach will change. Like many of us on this thread, I have my own series of spectacular 'bite' shots, but have to admit that there are now a few thousand just like my own, all over the place.

Probably we could do our toothy friends more of a favor in the long run if we concentrate our photographic efforts on showing the public what magnificent creatures sharks really are

For me personally, it was mr Peter Benchely who got me into sharks in 1976. Today I'm a member of the Swedish Elasmo Society and since long a Shark Trust Supporter.

So I guess the toothy stuff also works - on some. But we could definetely use a more varied imagery of the shark. I'll do my best to contribute to that.

/christian

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?act=S...;highlite=shark

a quick search here on wetpixel in the conservation forums provides many discussion on the basics alex talk about.

There is even more reading to be had from a google search http://www.google.com/search?q=shark+conse...lient=firefox-a

First i'll address Dan's question about shark farming. I think it is just not practical to farm sharks. At most, most sharks are only able to rear a few pups at a time and mature VERY slow. Salmon are able to to gorw much quicker and rear many more young per adult. The advancement in cultureing marine fish is coming a long ways including maine ornamanetals, but as far as sharks are concerend, the space and money needed just isn't practical.

Second, I really don't think the way photographers portray sharks will have much of an impact on how people feel about them. (which is sad) I have done many research projects and reports on shark behavior, feeding, and attacks. It is almost impossible to change the way people feel about sharks unless they are well educated about them. I think the way the public sees sharks has a lot to do the movies and hearing about shark attacks on the news (which is not very often, but when it happenes, it's all over the news like it somthing that happens everyday.)

The last thing i'll say about this right now is a fact that I learned while preparing for one of my seminars. Years back, in Hawaii after a boy was killed by a shark attack, there was a plan to try and catch as many sharks as possible around the island and kill them to hopefully reduce the numbers of sharks and attacks. So this lastest several years and hundreds of sharks were caught and killed from around the island of Oahu. The result: More sharks in the area due to feeding and attracting them to the area, and an increase in shark attacks. The plan sort of back fired. Which brings me to another point that others have already addressed. It is hard to say weather or not sharks are dissapearing. Many dive opperations have been shut down due to feeding these animals in coastal waters and because of this many sharks have left the area. This doesn't mean shark populations are dwindling, they may just be relocating.

I agree that sharks need to be protected and educating the public may help the cause, but I think trying to change peoples opinion about sharks to help conserve them, goes way beyond how we photograph them.

To flesh out the original point. Tony's argument was that everytime there was any shark story in the mainstream media it would always be accompanied by a great white shark gaping teeth on display out of the water - irrespective of what shark the story was about. And therefore these were the main/only images that the general public see of sharks.

As we are the community who takes/owns such pictures it is worth discussing whether we shoud allow them to be published. It is easy to blame the media for only wanting these types of images. But we are the ones who own them - should we resist a payday for the sake of sharks (or will the newspapers just buy the photo from another photog!).

Alex

p.s. I also accept Scott and Dan's points that all discussions should be free ranging - and contributors can steer them in whatever way that want. But I also think it is important to keep discussions on theme - especially when there have been many discussions before on similar topics.

To flesh out the original point. Tony's argument was that everytime there was any shark story in the mainstream media it would always be accompanied by a great white shark gaping teeth on display out of the water - irrespective of what shark the story was about. And therefore these were the main/only images that the general public see of sharks.

I can see how a photos of a great white barring its teeth may give a negative impression to the general public about sharks.....but in all fairness, that's waht sharks do. Whether the shark is barring its teeth in the photo or swimming along gracefully, if somone (the general pubic with little knoledge about sharks) sees each photograph, they will have the same opinion about that animal. It has been so beat into everyones head that these animals are mindless killing machines from movies and shark attacks on the news, that trying to change peoples opinions now just doesnt seem possible in my opinion. But don't get me wrong, I love these animals and wish we could do soemthing about it, and maybe im completely wrong but unless we start training sharks to jump through hoops and smile at us like dolphins, the general opinion about these animals isn't going to change.

I think John Bantin hit the nail right on the head. I agree with his views 100%.

FYI, my wife is chinese from Singapore, I got married in Singapore and had to specifically ask for shark-fin soup to be taken off the menu. No one complained though.

Changing the culture of shark-fin soup in a great challenge that is difficult to figure out how to address, but it the end it is the only solution imho...

if this culture isn't changed, the more depleted sharks become, the more people will pay for the fins, accelerating the downward spiral.

Scott

ps - Alex, to specifically answer your question, I do think its good to try to photograph sharks in a "better light", I don't think it will hurt.

Yes. More shots of non-biting behaviors and non-toothy aspects of their physiology, please. The less sharks are portrayed as mindless eating machines, the more realistic and respectful people will be. It's no mystery why we are so preoccupied with their eating habits––we are, and always will be, fascinated by things that occasionally eat us––but it really is pretty boring and stupid that so much of the imagery in the mainstream media is of teeth and jaws and feeding behaviors (often induced by chumming, of course). Teeth certainly sell, which is why the cover art for "Jaws" was changed from this to this, in which the shark's teeth are like swords. But I think capturing images of other aspects of sharks and non-feeding behaviors can certainly change their image and counteract our obsession with the sensational and the morbid. Just think what the "air jaws" images of great whites in South African waters have done in just a few years' time to the popular iconography of that species.

One thing I wouldn't want to see, however, are more images of cowboys who think that because they rode a great white's dorsal fin and lived to tell about it that they're somehow communing with or learning about these animals in some kind of quasi-scientific way. (Likewise with the Rob Stewarts of the world who think that hugging sharks is a testament to their kindhearted relationship with sharks.) Film and photography can radically alter public perception––remember what this photo did to America's feelings about the Vietnam war–-but encouraging folks to hold or feed or otherwise interfere with the sharks is a slippery slope.