Shark bite article...

[arfy]

Deco Martini said :

"Jim Abernathy is basically that guy for shark diving. Most every other tiger shark encounter I've seen online uses a cage. And guess what, the people in them get great pictures........"

There is at least one other operator I know of who does not use a cage for tiger shark diving in the Bahamas (Scottie Smith of the Dolphin Dream, based in Florida). It's true that there are others who offer cages instead. However, I suspect that this really comes down to targeting certain 'markets'. There are plenty of people I'm sure who'd love to see big sharks like tigers but would prefer to do so from the confines of a cage - in addition you would need little diving experience to dive in a cage.

And then there are others who have no wish to be confined by a cage. I count myself among those and have been on a JASA trip - I would never, ever go on one of these trips using a cage, simply because I would find it far too restrictive.

And as for the merits of cage v non-cage regarding photography....well, Jim Abernethy caters for the best in the business. Whether it's video or stills photography, you'll find that the best out there tend to go with him (the list is endless but includes National Geographic, BBC, Discovery Channel.....Doug Perrine, Jeremy Stafford-Deitsch, Eric Cheng, Charles Hood, Douglas Seiffert and many more). It's no coincidence that consistently the best tiger shark photos from the Bahamas come from photographers who go with operators who don't use cages.

 

[seaducer]

I am not sure how we get back to beating a dead horse...again.

What I took from the article though, is something that I have been feeling for quite some time. And it transcends nearly every aspect of modern life. And while I generally believe in live and let be, I am starting to think that journalists need to start spending some quality time in a cage. The jail kind.

News and reporters affect so many laws and policy these days, swaying public opinion. Governments and buisness behave in certain ways because of the power of the media. But there is 0 accountability for journalists to tell the truth. You don' have to be accurate, only interesting.

If you are going to report news, you need to tell the truth without adverbs and conjecture. Leave your opinion out of it. Report facts, dry as they are.

If you are reporting your opinion, make sure you state it boldly.

Look at this incident? Some of those articles would have you believe the guy was bitten in half after having been stalked by the shark.

Accountability. Why not? Oh hell, nobody cares anyway...it doesn't sell enough copy...

 

[cowfish]

good post- but accountability for the operators too

 

[louisianadiver]

Cowfish, you've made some thoughtful replies. However, I think you've completely missed the point of operators like Jim Abernethy. I have not yet had the pleasure of being on one of Abernethy's trips (I know plenty of very talented shooters who have, and I can only hope to have a future opportunity), but I have done shark photography in the same area by another operator. These trips are, quite obviously, not what you think they are. They are nothing like the shark feeds done by operators like Stuart Cove or others. There are no divemasters in the water. The consumption of bait by the animals is not limited by a "feeder". There are no hard and fast rules to limit the behavior of the participants. There are no body guards unless a participant takes one along (they don't). Nobody tells divers when to get in; nobody tells divers when to get out. There is a briefing about how the boat operates, where the stationary bait will be, from which side of the boat fresh bait will be thrown, etc. to allow divers to assess risk, but the operator can't predict or control what the sharks will do. The only responsibility of the operator is to safely get the participants to an area where they will have the opportunity to photograph sharks. Every participant fully understands that. The last thing a photographer on a trip like this wants is a staffer swimming around making bubbles that might ruin a shot.

The only input the operator has regarding the diving is the safety of the diving and boating conditions--wind, waves, and current. Once the "pool is open", the staff stays busy chumming and getting divers and their cameras in and out of the water. There is no organized dive schedule, but the divers themselves will generally decide on their own procedures. For example, still shooters and videographers generally don't mix, as the video shooters move around more (which hurts the viz) and the video shooters don't want strobe flashes from still shooters to ruin their sequences. If a particularly good subject is skittish, the divers will likely limit the number of divers in the water at any given time so the animal may approach closer, and everybody waits their turn.

The divers on these boats are not your typical divers with cameras. They are often professionals working within a shooting budget, and their job is to get their shots as efficiently as they can. They simply can't afford to jump into the ocean and hope a shark swims within 2 feet of them. Nor can they afford to kneel on the bottom with their hands folded while somebody feeds Carib reefs from a bucket. Operators like Jim Abernethy fill a small niche. Obviously, it's not for everybody, nor is it intended to be. I didn't know Mr. Groh, but from what I know of divers who take advantage of the photographic opportunities offered by Jim Abernethy, I'd bet that he would be absolutely appalled by the furor that his tragic accident has caused, or by any accusation or implication that Jim Abernethy was responsible for his death. -Clay

 

[cowfish]

louisiana diver- i understand what you are saying and agree in theory- but his trips are not presented just the way you describe- he does not say "we're at the site now, the bait will be here. good luck" -it IS presented as supervised on many of the dives- and yes, he does get a lot of pros, but also many who may be serious about photo/video, but are not anywhere close to a pro, and many who have NEVER been in the water with tigers or bulls...

 

[cowfish]

also- louisianadiver- you say these trips are nothing like stuart cove...exactly my point- diving with tigers is way different than with reef sharks- you cannot sit looking only out in front of you with tigers- if you do its only a matter of time until a bump or worse... with reefs you do not have to worry seeing every shark that is approaching from any direction...with tigers you do- now combine that with someone staring into a camera or video for long periods of time and I would say a little supervision may be a good thing...and just because you say photographers wouldn't want that- if you've ever worked on a dive boat, yes even with experienced divers, you don't just do whatever the divers want! thats exactly how divers(and operators) get in trouble-and if you are a professional crew, you know how to "supervise" without being all over the diver or getting in his shots.... but i do understand your post and the type of trip you are talking about- I just don't think you made a distinction from the way you may handle a true professional who is out there on his 100th tiger shark dive and is "working", and the avid serious amateur, who may be on his 1st or 2nd tiger dive. Many people are serious photographers and have hundreds of dives but may have never been in the water with a tiger or bull being fed...that makes them more of a beginner i'd say...

 

[arfy]

Cowfish, I've been on one of Jim Abernethy's trips and they do tend to be supervised, with at least 1 crew member in the water with the divers at most times. Jim and his crew are very observant of other divers' behaviour, to the extent that advice or even instructions are given as to how to improve one's behaviour in the water with the sharks, if required.

I can't emphasise enough how extensive the safety 'briefings' (a misnomer in this context!) are - you're told how to behave with them, what to expect etc and specific instructions are given with regard to photographers - eg, don;t look through your viewfinder for more than 5 seconds without looking about. It really is blatantly clear how you're expected to behave and the crew do their best to keep an eye on you on the water.

However, there's only so much Jim Abernethy and his team can do if you have a diver who decides he'll behave with the sharks on his own terms and ignores the rules. Inexplicably it does occasionally happen, and the consequences of that are made clear from the outset - do it once and you'll get a severe warning, again and you're off the boat (which indeed has happened).

 

[cowfish]

arfy-i get what you are saying-and everything you said basically just refuted lousianadivers info and argument- i guess if you look at my past posts in this thread i was just asking or wondering what the "supervision" was doing during the incident or where it was= thats all...i know these are questions not easily answered...maybe i'm not being fair...I understand its a high risk activity and if any of the divers didn't that would be stupid, but having also been on board, i saw "safety" divers from the crew with their own cameras...in fact, i rarely saw a crew member get in without a camera...how can you take photos and watch divers- whats the priority as an employee...

 

[Papa_Bear]

CF, how many dives do you have? To say someone who makes a living in the water can't do something is presumptuous at best! Some of us can chew gum and walk at the same time let alone watch what is happening and take pictures! This is a matter of simple choices and accountability of an operator for sharks is ridiculous! If your walking down the Boardwalk and a seagull "Gets you" is the Boardwalk operator responsible? We will all have to agree not to agree and that in the world there are those that Lead, Fallow, and don't get out of the way, but they want someone to take responsibility for their lives!

 

[cowfish]

papa bear- i have thousands of dives including 300 plus reef shark "feeding" dives and around 150 tiger and bull dives... i understand your point, but I don't think you are getting what i am saying- YES, personal responsibility is a must, and i don't believe you will find in any of my posts a call for any type of law suits or any of that crap- but all i started out saying here, was not calling for a guide for every photographer, but just asking what was the supervision(and he does brief that there will be supervision in the water) doing allowing a diver to be right next to the bait, which is what happend(and i mean right next to it, not 4 feet away). And asking how many dives i have because i don't think someone can do as good a job supervising with a camera than without? let me ask you this, lets say you were working there, and were the only crew member down, with 5 tigers sharks around...and in the course of the hour long dive, you took 250-300 pictures(which i saw them do...)do you think your ability to watch other divers would be as good as if you didn't take any pictures?Are you really saying yes to that? no, your not(are you?) but now you will go on again about personal responsibility...yes yes, i hear you...but did you ever think of the personal responsibilty of the crew-not to themselves but their passengers- or is taking photos more important to them. i'm not asking for a personal protector for every diver- just a little responsibility....