Jaws Should Be Terrified Of Us!

Forty years ago this week a dark fin broke the surface of the water around the fictional resort of Amity Island. To John Williams’ heart pounding theme, the 25-foot, three ton, Carcharodon Carcharius, promptly started chomping its way through naked bathers, fishermen and the odd water skier. Based on Peter Benchley’s best-selling novel, Jaws was an instant box office hit but controversy has always stalked the film much in the same way as Benchley’s shark stalked the residents of Amity. The project had been beset with problems during filming. The main stars disliked each other intensely, the mechanical shark that was used didn’t work properly and the director, Steven Spielberg, feared the whole thing would be a cinematic flop. The biggest controversy however, still remains forty years on. That controversy is the fact that many conservationists feel that Jaws propagates a myth, the myth of the “killer shark”. Peter Benchley, who would later become an advocator for shark conservation, even said he regretted writing the novel in the first place. “What I now know, which wasn’t known when I wrote Jaws, is that there is no such thing as a rogue shark which develops a taste for human flesh,” Benchley told the Animal Attack Files in 2000. “No one appreciates how vulnerable they are to destruction.” 

 

No one can deny that sharks do attack people and that these attacks are sometimes fatal. No one can deny either, the dreadful impact these attacks unquestionably have on the lives of survivors or the sense of horror and loss that families must feel when they are informed that their loved one has died as a result of a shark attack. Nor should we underestimate the psychological, drip, drip effect that news of these attacks has on the rest of the global population. 

In the movie Jaws, the towns Mayor, played by Murray Hamilton neatly sums this up when he tells Chief Brody (Roy Schneider): “Martin, it's all psychological. You yell barracuda, everybody says, "Huh? What?" You yell shark, we've got a panic on our hands...”

Then of course there is the notion that sharks serve little or no purpose in the ocean eco-system. Again this is neatly encapsulated in the film when the character Hooper, played by Richard Dreyfuss remarks that sharks are in essence machines. “…And all these machines do is swim and eat and make little sharks, and that’s all.” In short sharks only exist to swim around eating fish, surfers, swimmers etc and then pop off to propagate more sharks in order to continue the oceanic killing spree. But do sharks really deserve their reputation as voracious killers or is the idea of the “killer shark” really just a myth and if they serve no purpose as a species would it really matter if man looked upon them as a scourge of the oceans and simply wiped them out?

In 2014 there were 72 unprovoked shark attacks reported globally, seven of which ended in fatalities. Since 1900 the number of shark attacks reported has increased annually. The great majority of these attacks occur off the coasts of Australia, U.S. and South Africa. Florida is particularly prone to attacks with 54% of reported shark attacks in the U.S. occurring in that states waters. Troubling figures you might think, but let’s get some perspective. In the UK in 2014, road traffic accidents accounted for 1,713 fatalities. In the same year 42 people died in the U.S. as a result of dog bites and in Florida in 2014, firearms were used to kill 687 people.  Sharks don’t even make it onto the list of the top ten dangerous animals to mankind. Top of that list is the mosquito, which through transmission of malaria manages to bump off two million people every year, snakes kill on average 100,000, scorpions help 5000 people to shuffle off the mortal coil yearly and are followed in order by crocodiles, elephants, bees, lions, rhinoceroses, jellyfish and tigers. It is true that the number of shark attacks has increased yearly since 1900 but this is easily explained by the fact that the number of people entering the oceans has increased, More people swim, snorkel, dive, surf and play about on boats than ever before in history and thus there are more opportunities for interaction between man and sharks. Experts also cite the fact that reporting of shark attacks has improved greatly and so many more incidents are reported, logged and investigated. The great majority of attacks are often a simple case of mistaken identity, Surfers paddling on boards, divers and snorkellers floating near the surface, tend to resemble many a sharks favoured prey; seals. Swimmers splashing about in the shallows also attract sharks as they mimic the actions of fish in distress. Of course knowing that you have been mistaken for a seal is hardly going to enamour you to the toothy critter gnawing through your surfboard or heaven forbid your leg but it is worth remembering that your chances of being attacked is a staggering one in 11.5 million. 

Sharks do kill people but they are definitely not the deliberate, stalking killers of Jaws fame. But what if you’re not convinced? What if you still think that the ocean would be a much more pleasant place to frolic in without worrying about sleek, dark shadows lurking in the depths ready to sink a thousand razor sharp teeth into your flesh. What would a world without sharks be like?  The law of unintended consequences comes into play here. An ocean without sharks will not be the tooth free wonderland one might imagine. Sharks are the oceans top predators and if you remove them, then the chances are that the creatures they prey on will proliferate. These creatures in turn, unimpeded by predation, will overwhelm the food chain below.  In the U.S. in 2007 it was reported that over fishing of sharks in the northwest Atlantic had led to a boom in other marine species and as a consequence commercial fishing for oysters and scallops had been devastated. Most experts believe that the removal of sharks from the ocean would lead to catastrophic effects on the lower parts of the food chain. The bottom end of the chain would be destroyed and as a result reefs would die and the water itself would become a cloudy morass of detritus, jellyfish and microbes. The oceans as we know them now would become little more than a memory. A trip to the beach doesn’t sound that inviting if your sunbed is situated just a few metres away from a smelly, slimy oceanic bog infested with jellyfish rather than a crystal clear, azure ocean does it? We have much more to fear from an ocean without sharks than we have of sharks being in the ocean.

It might already be too late however. Shark numbers are in sharp decline and as usual it is man that is driving this decline.  Between 70 and 100 million sharks are killed every year. Most are killed to supply the repulsive shark fin soup trade. Shark fins sell for hundreds of dollars each and although the soup produced is bland and nutritionally useless, it is highly regarded in China and South East Asia with single bowls of the stuff reputedly selling for $150. Although 85% of shark fins are moved through Hong Kong, don’t think that the problem is simply an Asian issue. Mexico, Argentina, U.S.A, New Zealand and Nigeria have significant shark fishing industries. The practice of shark fining is banned in the European Union but European fishermen still net an estimated 100,000 tons of shark each year. Spain, France and Portugal are the leading culprits; together they are responsible for 12% of the global shark catch. Deliberate fishing isn’t the only problem either; a great many sharks are killed accidentally in commercial fishing nets and are hooked on long lines.

The rogue killer of Jaws fame it seems is far more threatened by man than man is by it. 

The myth of the “killer shark” really is just that, a myth. Yet that myth still seems to have a strong, cold grip, on our imagination. But here’s a thing, Peter Benchley’s novel and Spielberg’s film aren’t the problem here. Sharks and the fear of their attacks have terrified us long before Robert Shaw delivered that hair-raising U.S.S. Indianapolis monologue in the movie. Sharks are supreme predators with mouths brimming with razor sharp teeth and being wary of them is just common sense. But there is a difference between having a healthy respect for sharks and hysterical fear. Jaws is just a movie, a very good movie mind, but nevertheless just a movie and its main character, that 25-foot shark, is a mechanical fake. Jaws is simply Hollywood entertainment just as The Terminator movie is, and like the Terminator you have to willingly suspend your disbelief or the whole thing becomes preposterous. We, man, are the real problem here. Our fear of sharks is often driven by ignorance, helped in no small part we’re sure, by media hysterics when an attack occurs. We need to grow up here, we need to educate ourselves and learn that sharks are not mindless, cold-hearted killers but the supreme pinnacle of marine evolution. We need sharks, the oceans need sharks and if we want to keep our coral reefs and marine eco-systems, if we want to swim in azure waters and enjoy the benefits of healthy seas we are going to have to stop thinking like children and start thinking like adults. We are going to have to accept that even in a perfect world a little danger must always lurk.

Debunking the myth, the Sharkwater Film. Please check this out if you haven't already seen this brilliant 2007 film.

Shark Tracking - global shark incidents tracked yearly

Boredom, Despair And Numb Buttocks. It Must Be World Oceans Day!

June 8^th was World Oceans Day. You didn’t notice? Well that’s not surprising considering the bright sparks who organised this global invent decided that it should be held, of all days, on a Monday. There were apparently lots of events held around the world, but you almost certainly didn’t notice those either as you were probably working. Even the media coverage of the event seemed lacklustre at best. Despite being a Monday and the general sense of apathy, we decided that since we are always going on about marine conservation, that a few of us should go along to the event held at The Royal Geographical Society in Kensington, London. “Realising the potential of our oceans and coasts” was billed as chance for the public to hear and discuss how governments, communities and the private sector can respond to the challenges of pollution, overfishing, climate change and habitat destruction and how many of the benefits and opportunities provided by oceans and coasts are being missed or lost. 

 

The event was jointly organised by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), The Prince’s Charities’ International Sustainability Unit, University College London (UCL) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). At 6:30 in the evening we were guided into the lecture theatre, complimentary reading matter in hand and took our seats. Some fifteen minutes later, backsides feeling a little numb from the ridiculously uncomfortable bench seating, our host introduced himself. Unfortunately we were so engrossed in discussing the disturbed mind that could have created such torturous seating that we missed his name, but he was a well-dressed gentleman with a perfect coiffure of grey hair and the slight air of a car salesmen. He gave us a quick run down of the evening’s timetable. There would be a few short presentations followed by a high level question and answer session with a select panel. He then introduced a video message from H.R.H the Prince of Wales no less. His Royal Highness apologised for not being able to attend in person – he probably had something better to do. H.R.H. mentioned the challenges the oceans face and the fact that he was launching a photography competition to celebrate the importance of our blue planet. The winning images would be featured in a special exhibition in Malta in November this year. Why the exhibition was being held in Malta wasn’t explained. Perhaps the staff of his International Sustainability Unit didn’t fancy the notorious cold of a November in London - a little tip to the sun anyone? H.R.H. then informed us that he had been assured that we were all in for an exciting evening, though he didn’t sound too convinced, and as the numbness began to travel down our legs, nor did we. 

The coiffure of grey hair then introduced His Excellency Kamalesh Sharma, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. Mr Sharma is an amiable man with extensive diplomatic experience and well-known interests in the empowerment of young people, women’s rights and the eradication of poverty.  Unfortunately what he didn’t seem to be interested in was making sure his microphone was working – it wasn’t. What followed was a twenty-minute mumble. Occasionally we picked up the odd word here and there such as “economic functionaries” (whatever they are) or global warming (climate change Kamalesh, climate change! We don’t say global warming anymore) but along with the rest of the audience we were too polite to demand that this heavyweight of global politics should speak up. Thus, none the wiser about what he had been saying, we joined in the courteous applause as he left the stage and the building. He probably had something better to do as well.

By the time the next speaker was introduced, the numbness in our lower extremities was becoming a serious concern, and a few audience members had made a bolt for the door. No one it seemed, wanted to hang around for the Q&A – did they know something we didn’t? 

John Tanzer, a rotund Australian and Marine Director of the WWF, bounded onto the stage with vigour and thankfully, a fully functional microphone. How do you get to be a Marine Director of WWF and how much does it pay? Are just some of the things we really we wanted to know. Mr Tanzer though didn’t want to tell us. Instead he talked about the WWF report called: Reviving The Ocean Economy. He talked about NGO’s and lamented that the WWF sometimes doesn’t get invited to the meetings where real decisions are made. Sometimes, he told us sadly, he feels irrelevant.  Later, he showed us a slide of a bemused looking girl from Mozambique; the same girl appears in the WWF report. Mr Tanzer didn’t explain too much about the girl other than to say she illustrated his point. What that point was we weren’t sure, but we did wonder why the poor girl looked so bemused. Was it because she had just had a camera shoved in her face? Then we wondered if she had received any money for having her image used in the WWF report or even if there were any legal requirements about such images. Can anyone use your image in publications without your agreement or do they have to pay? Perhaps she had agreed. Perhaps someone else had agreed for her?  Perhaps that was why she was bemused? Anyway we agreed we didn’t know and turned our attentions back to Mr Tanzer, who was talking about himself, though not about his earnings. Mr Tanzer informed us that he had dabbled in politics and it showed, he is a good performer and self-promotion appears not to be one of his weaknesses but did we get any real sense of what the Marine Director of the WWF actually does, or what the report is all about? Sadly no. 

The sound of a gentle snore emanated from the back seats, and a few more members of the audience made a dash for freedom as the next speaker was introduced, the one and only Ben Miller. Our ears pricked up, our stone-cold buttocks suddenly warmed a little. Ben Miller, the comedian? Sadly we had misheard, it wasn’t the amusing Ben Miller but the academic Ben Milligan. Mr Milligan is a Senior Research Associate at UCL (how much does that pay?) and despite not wearing a tie and having the sort of trendy classes you might associate with a socialist comedian he was not remotely interested in making us laugh. Ben thanked John Tanzer for his very personal view (did we detect a hint of condescension in his voice?) before turning his attention to the audience. He talked about marine protection, marine management and marine investment. He mentioned carbon credits and blue bonds though oddly, nothing was said about over population. Ben then showed us some slides, which like Mr Tanzer before, he too insisted clearly illustrated his points, but again we weren’t too sure. Clear explanation didn’t seem to be the point of these little presentations. Perhaps the speakers didn’t have enough time or perhaps they didn’t think we, the general public, would understand or perhaps they really didn’t care. Ben continued his talk. He showed some more slides and talked about natural flood barriers in Florida and told us all that he really was hopeful for the future – perhaps he’s secured some more funding or maybe he too had something better to do afterwards. Ben finished his time on stage by asking a question: What do we do now? At least that’s what we think he asked. The buttock inducing numbness of the seats might have finally reached our ears or perhaps the bleakness of the evening had fuddled our senses but we were sure that was the question. We didn’t know about the rest of the audience, but we knew exactly what we were going to do. Before the select panel had taken their seats for the question and answer session we were off. Enough really was enough. We needed to restore the circulation to our lower limbs and some spark to our minds. 

At a local hostelry, a cold beer in hand, we reflected on the evening. Perhaps the question and answer had turned into a whirlwind of intelligent debate. Perhaps the audience had thrown up some intriguing ideas or asked some searching questions. We didn’t know. What we did know was that this event was supposed to have been organised so that the academics, professional charities and conservation heavy hitters could engage with the public, to explain the challenges and the opportunities. And more importantly, tell us what they actually all do. In essence this was their chance to inspire. On that front unfortunately, it was a hapless failure. All we felt was abject despair. We felt disengaged, uninspired and we now knew how poor John Tanzer felt when he and the WWF don’t get invited to those really, really important meetings. We felt irrelevant.

Of course we should not have been surprised at this, In fact we really should have known better. The number of conservation organisations, charities, sustainability units, NGO’s, committees, projects and funds are increasing at a bewildering rate. Conservation has become big business and this event was the industry giving us the old sales pitch. Yesterday it was the rain forest, the day before polar bears, and the day before that it was global warming. Today however it is the oceans and the great conservation gravy train rolls on.

The coiffure of grey hair had stated that he wanted us, the audience, to spread the word via twitter and social media. And that message was that we should all support the WWF, IIED, NGO’s, professional academics, bureaucrats and the hordes of charity directors, managers and sustainability officers out there. They need our help, our social media sites and our donations. In fact, we were bit surprised that a collection plate wasn’t passed around between speakers – give generously please.

So what are we to finally make of this event? Well clearly there is a business opportunity for furniture manufacturers to supply more comfortable seats to the Royal Geographical Society and audio recordings of the presentation could be marketed as a cure for insomnia.  As for raising the awareness of marine conservation and discussing possible solutions to the challenges, we have to award the event and its organisers a gold plated zero! We must also sound a warning here. The field of conservation really is in danger of becoming a perverse piece of theatre. The players, all those NGO’s, academics and sustainability units will prance about the world stage holding discussions, lobbying governments, formulating policy documents, making decisions and raising revenue, whilst the rest of us will be reduced to the role of an audience. Silently watching on, possibly bored witless but nevertheless, totally irrelevant to the drama playing out. The great conservation show and its industry players appear more and more to be self-serving, self perpetuating and increasingly self-important. And that must stop.

Perhaps though there is a silver lining to the clouds of despair. Milligan, Sharma, Tanzer and the World Oceans Day industry might not have inspired us but they have done something else. Disengaged and uninspired we may be but more importantly we are disgruntled. So in the coming weeks, months and years we will be paying close attention to work of the WWF and it’s publications along with the IIED and all the rest, and we are rather certain that we will not be a very compliant audience

One last thing, if any of you out there think that if we had paid more attention to what was said and less time worrying about our numb backsides, we might have learnt something. Then we can only respond in the words of disgruntled Vietnam Veterans everywhere: “You don’t know man… You weren’t there!”

A PDF of the WWF “Reviving the ocean economy” can be found here.