SHARK FEEDING BANNED IN FLORIDA...

[Walter]

An interesting debate.

I agree this ban will have no effect on the recent shark attacks. I also agree the recent media coverage of the attacks are what prompted the ban.

This ban on feeding marine animals is no different than the ones which prohibit feeding dolphins, bears or alligators. Why do we need to feed wild animals? There are many reasons why we shouldn't.

I find the statements about operators who won't feed Bull Sharks pretty funny. I can see it now, the DM is happily feeding Jewfish, Morays and Nurse Sharks when they all vacate the area. He's confused. Why did they all leave, there's plenty of food left? He looks around and sees a 10' Bull heading for him. He shakes his finger at the shark and says, "Sorry, you are not invited."

WWW™

 

[sea nmf]

Um, wouldn't baiting a hook be a form of feeding marine animals? I think the verbage of the ban should be quite specific or fishing could be banned if bait was used. Don't you think?

 

[bradymsu]

There is a big difference between feeding fish and fishing though both have an environmental impact. Fishing ("taking" of fish) is an activity that can only be done legally with a permit issued by state conservationists. It is strongly monitored and its environmental impact is controlled. Maybe instead of a ban on feeding it should just be licensed and monitored like fishing.

Earlier a comment was made about peeing in a wetsuit impacting the Ph of the water is impacting the aquatic environment like the feeding of fish. Sure they both impact the environment, but it's kind of like saying breathing and car exhaust both impact air quality. It's a matter of degree.

 

[syruss32]

Good point, where will it end. In Oregon many rivers are only fishable with baitless hooks, and if fish and game could be stricter they would.

Many a fisherman in Oregon has come to the conclusion that the way fish and game wants you to fish is, you buy a handfull of quick desolving, non-barbed hooks. You stand on the banks of the river or lake and throw the hooks in. Any fish that wants to be caught will pick up said hook and bring itself and the hook back to you. Sounds like utopia to me.

This could become that way. Is feeding them for filming going to be banned. Much of what we know of sharks has come from documentary shows. They bait the fish with guts and blood to get them close. Does this teach them to associate humans with food? Or maybe they will associate the underwater camera with food. Who knows. That is the crux of the debate we just don't know what if any affect these feedings have had on the sharks.

My vote is that if more people knew more about sharks, they would be a lot less feared and more appreciated. Then things like cutting their fins off for soup and dumping them back in the ocean might outrage more people and the practice stopped. But who can say.

All we can say is some stupid politicians will vote on anything that helps them get re-elected. They will seek the advice of only those that say things that reflect the decisions they want to hear to make decisions that will cast a positive light on them

I say before we go making laws and banning things, lets study the problem to see if it is even a problem. Lets not make hasty, snap decisions that may make little or no difference other than to curry political favor.

That is my 2.97 cents on the dilema!

Syruss
http://www.coraladventures.net

 

[bradymsu]

Syruss,

Are your baitless hook rivers in Oregon trout streams? If so, we have them in Michigan too. They can only be fly fished for good reasons. Do you think maybe there is a reason you can't use a baited hook on your rivers or do you just think your state department of natural resources is evil and hopes to eliminate all fishing in the your state?

Have any of the Florida members of this board contacted their legislators? It would be interesting to hear what they have to say. Too often we complain about stupid politicians over-reacting yet so many people have never contacted their representative on anything if they even know who they are. Are local politicians suppossed to guess what's on our minds and what our opinions are?

The problem sounds more like stupid citizens and armchair conservationists to me.

 

[uwsince79]

I won't even get into a debate about how our rights are being stripped away form us, but this whole shark thing is starting to piss me off. I have yet to hear one person talk about the upwelling of cold ocean currents close to shore along the eastern seaboard. The temps are in the 40's at the bottom and are very close to shore down here in south Florida. Ocean life and schooling bait fish are following it in. There is a huge thick layer of plankton at the 140' to 180 fsw mark. Could any of these natural events cause the sharks to come in and feed closer to shore? Maybe? (maybe we should feed a few of our government to the sharks.) [ I am joking of course.]
Instead we the "smartest" animals on the earth decide to make law governing how we deal with a non-human species. Please give me a break. We continue to think ourselves the great healers and governors of our world and we are not even a spec on the earth’s time line.
If shark feeding can show people that that they are an animal that should be protected for our decision making the shark a soup and that it is a balancing part of the oceans ecosystem than it should be allowed to continue. Stopping man from feeding does nothing to protect humans at the beach. Do you really think that feeding is bringing these animals close to shore???? Please! How many of you have ever taken a plane or helicopter ride along the shore? You would see quite a few sharks swimming amongst the people in the water... and guess what- they are not eating them!
The 6 senses of a shark have an ability that goes way beyond ours and it looks for food on a constant basis. We enter its world and, Mother Nature (bless her heart,) says ok you can swim but your fair game too. We as humans have a hard time with that one. There are more people in the water than ever before and although the press would have you believe otherwise shark attacks are down. Now if I had an ounce of brains I would think that might be a problem with the math. Lets see more people less attacks… maybe less sharks????
My rant ends……

 

[syruss32]

Originally posted by bradymsu
Syruss,

Are your baitless hook rivers in Oregon trout streams? If so, we have them in Michigan too. They can only be fly fished for good reasons. Do you think maybe there is a reason you can't use a baited hook on your rivers or do you just think your state department of natural resources is evil and hopes to eliminate all fishing in the your state?

The problem sounds more like stupid citizens and armchair conservationists to me.

In some cases yes, they are trout streams in other areas they are rivers. I do see a point to some of it, but when it comes down to studies being conducted that show conflicting information who is right? That is where this is. There are tons of studies done on using bait vs using natural lures and flys, both pro and con. Same with the barbless hook issue. Many studies show barbless hooks cause more damage to the fish because they get hooked and get off with damage done multiple times.

Which is the reason for my post. It has nothing to do with stupid citizens, or armchair conservationalists. It comes down to the facts of the situation which we do not have as well as the motivations behind passing these laws and controls.

Do we know they are passed for the good of swimmers and divers in the ocean or more so for political "Look guys I am pushing to make the world perfect, do I get your vote?"

But who's perfect world are we trying to get too? Obviously opinions differ here, and rash judgements are of no use, nor are politically motivated judgements.

Syruss
http://www.coraladventures.net

 

[syruss32]

uwsince79

I could not have said it better myself!

Syruss
http://www.coraladventures.net

 

[lildiver]

I'd just like to add MHO. I personally do not agree with feeding sharks (or any other wild animals). I choose not to sign up for the shark feeding dives, but if other divers want to experience that type of dive, far be it from me to voice an opinion...I think that it is a matter of indivdual conscience. BUT, I feel it is wrong for any type of governmental agency to tell me what my conscience should be. IF the government is allowed to step in here and tell us as divers "no" on this subject, what else will they soon be telling us "no" to?
Thanks for the opportunity to voice my opinion.... this is a great site to learn more about diving and to exchange ideas. A great bunch here!

~lildiver

 

[NINman]

uwsince79,

Great point. I might be opening another can of worms here but I agree with uwsince79 on that the changing in the currents and such might be causing sharks to move in closer to land. What is causing that? Maybe the hole in the ozone layer? Pollutants? Etc... What are all these caused by? US, Humans :boom: . We are trying our best to reverse the problems that we caused when we didn't know any better. Like killing off almost all the Buffalo. Dumping PFC's in the Hudson River. Dumping junk into the oceans. I can go on and on, so I guess my point is that education is the answer. Media has always been known to stretch the truth to get ratings and we all know there are people out there that will believe is anything we tell them. (Just look at the Darwin awards; http://www.darwinawards.com :bonk: )

So I feel that the best action to all this Shark frenzy hype and all the other hype that is around that the government feels they need to stick their big money hungry hands in is EDUCATION. I guess education would cost too much for that to be an option.