About the Shark Safety Centre “publicity” campaign
The Shark Safety Centre of the Reunion (CSR, ex-CRA) recently presented to us (press conference on 18/12/19) an “advertising” campaign intended to justify its record in terms of shark fishing. We learned many interesting things on this occasion that we would like to share with the public. Everyone can refer to the articles published in the press on the 18th and 19/12/19, as well as to the presentation from the conference, to the monthly summaries and to the quarterly reports of the fishing operations published on the website www.info-shark.re.
Get over the bulldogs!
In the objectives of its program, the CSR prides itself on “reducing the number of bulldog sharks (mainly responsible for fatal attacks)”.
Between March 29th, 2018 and November 30th, 2019, i.e. in 20 months of fishing, the CSR effectively liquidated 29 bulldog sharks, but also and above all … 114 tiger sharks!
Since the beginning of the CSR’s fishing activity, the proportion of tiger sharks killed has been systematically 4 times higher than that of bulldog sharks.
However – the CSR recognizes this itself – the tiger shark has very little involvement in the accidents.
However, the tiger shark lives offshore and is attracted to coastal environments by the waste brought back by rivers, coastal pollution (wastewater), organic waste (animal killings, waste from fishermen and fishmongers, waste from fishing industries), bait submerged by the CSR, etc., (cf. CHARC and ECoReCo-Run studies on the info-shark site).
Yet genetic studies by the University of Reunion and Australian universities have shown the great vulnerability of its populations in the area.
Yet it is already – like the bulldog shark – included in the IUCN red list with a status “almost threatened with extinction” mainly due to its overfishing. In fact, the tiger shark is mainly used by the CSR to “make up the numbers” to inflate its fishing statistics …
“We respect the environment” they say …
CSR says it is “an environmentally friendly program.” And boasts “to help preserve the entire ecosystem with minimal impact on other predator species frequenting the coastal areas where this fishery is deployed.” No kidding?!
Tiger and bulldog sharks as predators at the end of the food chain are essential links in the balance of marine ecosystems. To say that their systematic elimination helps preserve the entire ecosystem is a shameless lie.
Sharks – in particular the tiger shark, is a true “garbage collector” – they are the guarantors of the good health for populations of marine animals, by eliminating the corpses and sick and / or genetically weak animals. To destroy them is to endanger fishery resources and marine biodiversity.
As for the “minimal” impact on other predator species: in 20 months, the CSR caught 29 bulldog sharks (7% of the catch), 114 tiger sharks (26%) and…. 290 bycatches (67%) of which 56 (19%) were already dead when the fishermen arrived. This fishing program primarily catches bycatch. Indeed, the impact is “minimal” …
This is how for example in 20 months:
- Out of 11 morays captured, 10 died,
- Out of 41 Giant trevallies captured, 10 died and 4 were released “exhausted “,
- Out of 10 Sliteye shark caught, 4 died and 2 were released “exhausted “,
- Out of 35 hammerhead sharks captured (common or scalloped), 13 died and 6 were released “exhausted “. Note that the scalloped hammer has an IUCN “globally endangered” status, while the common hammer is classified as “vulnerable”.
- 28 Giant guitarfish were captured, 1 of which is dead and 1 released tired (species classified “critically endangered” by the IUCN). In addition to the fact that released “exhausted” individuals have little chance of survival in the short term, because of the consequences of the capture (lack of oxygenation and paralysis of the muscles by lactic acid when the fish has exhausted its reserves of energy by pulling on the line). If they are not simply devoured by other predators …
As the CSR specifies with regard to the scalloped hammerhead shark (synthesis no. 13), “this species is one of the most fragile among sharks because it quickly becomes paralyzed when caught”. Not to mention the obvious damage caused by the hooks to the internal organs when they are ingested deeply and are impossible to remove.
In this regard, the CSR had indeed attempted, in the specifications, to impose on fishermen recommendations concerning hooks, in particular the use of stainless-steel hooks so that, if the hook was impossible to remove, it could deteriorate fairly quickly on contact with seawater. However, this requirement was never met and was eventually abandoned (summary no. 4, quarterly observation reports no. 1 to 4).
So where is the “respect for the environment”?!
… And “we restore the balance”
The CSR claims that “preventive fishing” à la Réunion “(…) contributes to restoring the balance between species in coastal waters”.
Freely assumed and without any scientific basis. Technocrats imbued with their certainties who play the sorcerer’s apprentice with Nature by systematically destroying certain marine species without attacking at least the real causes of the problems in the world: organic and terrigenous pollution of coastal waters and overfishing which deprives sharks of their staple food, fish. What is more, the sub-prefect of Saint-Paul now claims to systematically go fishing for sharks in the enhanced protection zones of the national marine reserve! Probably to restore the balance between species …
The numbers seem rather strange
The CSR claims that on December 18th 2019 (date of the press conference), the targeting of species (% of targeted sharks caught) was in Reunion at 37% while the release rate (and not survival as claimed the CSR) of by-catch was 85%.
As of November 30th 2019, these rates were 33% and 81% respectively.
It should already be noted that since July 7th 2018 (summary n ° 6), the release rate of by-catches claimed by the CSR has been systematically 1 to 2% higher than the real rate. Calculation error (systematic ??) or deliberate deception, the question is asked. For the rest, we are happy to know that these rates skyrocketed in 18 days, just before the press conference, in particular the release rate, which has stagnated between 79% and 81% since August 17th 2018 (summary no. 9) …
A somewhat opaque “transparency”
To underline its “transparency”, the CSR states that “independent observers embark regularly to assess compliance with the specifications and fishing recommendations. They prepare quarterly reports available online at info-requin.re. Regular summaries of fishing operations are published monthly on info-requin.re”. We will refer to the summaries in question: the observation is edifying. Example for November 2019:
- On 10 days of fishing in the bay of St-Paul, 1 single day with onboard observers;
- On 15 days of fishing in St-Pierre, 2 days with on-board observer, etc.
And everything is in line.
As for the quarterly reports, they state that on-board observations have represented since July 1st 2018 between 4.7% and 7.5% of the fishing effort.
In fact, trips with an on-board observer are the exception! So where is the famous transparency?
What is more, the latest fishing reports and summaries were published two and a half months late … on the day of the press conference. We can’t wait for the next conference! And this notwithstanding the errors that dot the various syntheses and which have never been corrected. Examples:
- Synthesis n ° 15 shows, in the cumulative total, 2 bulldogs + 1 tiger caught for this period while there are 2 bulldogs + 4 tigers caught;
- Synthesis n ° 20 shows only one tiger captured but nonetheless counts 2 targeted sharks captured;
- Synthesis n ° 26 reports 9 targeted sharks captured while there are 2 bulldogs + 9 tigers captured;
- Synthesis n ° 31 mentions: “1 living tiger shark, escaped”. But it still counts in the sharks collected.
- The quarterly observation report No. 5 reports the capture of an exhausted, Gulper shark (Centrophorus granulosus). The latter does not appear anywhere in the CSR summaries. Probably confused with a Sliteye shark (Loxodon macrorhinus).
How to fish without attracting: the CSR recipe
The SRC claims that fishing gear is not dangerous and that “preventive fishing in coastal areas does not attract more dangerous sharks to the coast.” An assertion that would be supported by “a rigorous statistical analysis”, the results of which are that “neither the baiting, nor the types of bait, nor the presence of catches on the lines, increased the presence and the duration of visiting dangerous sharks that are detected in the study area ”.
Any scientist knows that statistics can be made to say almost anything.
If baiting does not attract sharks, how is it that the tiger shark, which lives mainly offshore, finds itself caught on the lines at the coast in proportions 4 times higher than a coastal species like the bulldog?!
If the types of bait are of no importance, how is it that the CSR tried, at the outset, to impose on fishermen requirements relating to bait on CAMVAP (vertical longlines with catch alert): usual criteria for baits must be respected (minimum length and weight of baits of 30 cm and 1 kg respectively; baits previously frozen; whole fish). Priority # 1: Skipjack “(RTO Quarterly Observation Report # 1)?
Systematic non-compliance with these provisions has led the CSR to abandon them for the most part – a shame – with the exception of the freezing obligation for which the independent observers specified from 20/04/19 ( RTO n ° 4): “The requirement concerning the prior freezing of bait, poorly understood by fishermen, is maintained in order to limit the attractiveness of gear to a limited area”.
Alas, in the following months, this obligation was also abandoned for more attractive baits (RTO n ° 5), the fishermen being probably anxious to make profitable their outings and the CSR wishing to kill more bulldog sharks: “No constraint on the pre-freezing of baits, fishermen will be able to use the baits freshly caught by them. (…) Live bait can also be used (…)”.
So, they attract or they don’t attract, these types of fishing gear?
And if we say that the presence of catches on the lines does not attract sharks, how can we explain for example this Yellow-edged lyretail and this Giant guitarfish attacked by sharks in May 2018 when they were caught on the hook (summary no. 3)?
And this comment from the CSR itself in July 2018 (summary no. 7) about the Giant guitarfish lines: “two individuals were found with wounds linked to the bites of big sharks, illustrating the fact that this species constitutes a prey potential of large predators like bulldog sharks”?
Clearly, why bother with expensive baits paid for by the taxpayer, if it does not attract the species you want to fish? Better to fish with bare hooks, right?
The CSR is reported to be fishing for sharks with bait that does not attract sharks. No, frankly? How do they do it then?
The justification for overfishing
The “scientific manager” of the CSR declared in the JIR of 19/12/19: “All the sharks collected are dissected and analysed by the University of Reunion so that we can better understand their behaviour”.
We understand little or nothing about the behaviour of a living animal by killing and skinning it. It’s propaganda. At most we will know what it ate based on the contents of its stomach …
To justify the fishery, the same “scientist” says that targeted shark catches are becoming scarcer – and therefore this program is effective in its eyes. Bizarre. Over the years 2013 to 2017 inclusive – i.e. in 60 months – the different fishing programs (Ciguatera 1 and 2 – Valo Shark – Cape Shark 1 and 2) captured 113 bulldog sharks and 137 tiger sharks. In comparison, over 20 months of activity, the CSR captured 29 bulldogs and 114 tigers. For the same duration, if the number of bulldogs caught during the CSR period fell slightly, that of tigers on the other hand literally exploded by being multiplied by a factor of 2.5!
What’s more, between April 2019 and 18/12/19, the number of catches – mostly tigers – remained at a high level, even reaching a peak at 12 targeted sharks in November, with a strong return catches of bulldogs in early December. So how does the CSR make its learned calculations? Quick, a statistical study!
Similarly, he claims that the number of attacks has dropped significantly since the implementation of the first fishing program in 2013.
According to the info-shark site, there have been since the start of the program: 6 attacks in 2013 (including 2 dead); 1 attack in 2014; 4 attacks in 2015 (2 dead); 1 attack in 2016; 3 attacks in 2017 (2 dead); 1 attack in 2018; and 2 attacks in 2019 (2 dead).
Note that the high figure for 2013 is to be tempered by three cases where there were no injuries or deaths:
- Spear fisherman simply attacked by a shark because of the fish that were caught,
- Surfers for whom “the attack” boiled down to a “slight scratches on the board”.
So honestly, at least in the number of deaths, we don’t see where the “significant” drop is. The death of the “shark crisis” will be appreciated…
For the rest, it seems essential to us to underline that if the number of attacks could appear to decrease, it is also and especially related to the fact that:
- Since July 2013, a Prefectural decree prohibits swimming and nautical activities on almost the entire coast,
- Surfers’ frequentation of spots – the main community affected by accidents – has dropped considerably,
- The latter ended up, willy-nilly, by changing their attitude in terms of practice: they have become more careful, surf less at any time, and are often now equipped with individual repulsion devices (see conclusion). As a result, the probability of encounters between sharks and surfers has also dropped significantly, which the CSR is careful not to highlight: fishing above all!
Silence, we are killing!
In the end, this tissue of untruths finds its explanation in a declaration by the “scientific manager” of the CSR (Daily of 19/12/19): “fishing must be practiced everywhere and all the time”. Overfishing has become the new credo of the CSR and the State, incapable of implementing non-lethal alternative solutions.
Where did the results of the tests funded by the taxpayer and undertaken by the CSR on magnetic barriers, detection sonar, personal protective equipment for surfers go (tests carried out in New Caledonia)? All under the carpet…
Killing sharks is a lot simpler, it calms a segment of public opinion, and it pays off to certain categories of people.
Between the start of the shark hunt in 2013 and November 30th 2019, the state liquidated no less than 415 tiger and bulldog sharks in Reunion waters. To no avail. The overseas ministry has confirmed this to us: unable to find a viable solution, the state does not want the public to say that it is doing nothing and sitting idly by. Even less does he want to be sued in liability proceedings.
So, he opens the umbrella wide and kills sharks, at least there he does something.
The CSR has an annual budget of 2 million euros, including 800,000 euros for shark fishing alone. In the 2020 forecast, the only “coordinator of the fishing program” is paid 5000 euros monthly. Meanwhile the local SNSM (Société Nautique de Sauvetage en Mer) – which works only with volunteers – closed shop on 30/11/19, for lack of subsidies to buy… life jackets in accordance with the regulations.
Deplorable!
As a conclusion, we would like to submit this statement to you (Daily 30/12/19) from Mrs. Alice Lemoigne, triple ISA longboard world champion, a Reunion reference in surfing, who returned to live and train on his island at the end of 2018:
A courageous declaration imbued with honesty and solid common sense, the same that are sorely lacking in the CSR and the French State in this case!
Collective of associations:
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society – Longitude 181 – One Voice – ASPAS – Saving Sharks Integration Sharks – Tendua – WAVES