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.

No Peace For The Wicked From This Man’s Green Organisation

The oceans are under assault. Plastic waste, chemicals, effluent and industrial pollution threatens to suffocate the life out of the marine environment. Over fishing by floating factories is decimating fish stocks and through the problem of by-catch; dolphins, turtles, seabirds and a host of other species are being killed in the nets. Sharks, the supposed super predators of the ocean, are having their dorsal fins mercilessly hacked from their bodies and then thrown back into the sea to drown in order to supply a nutritionally useless soup to the restaurant tables of China and South East Asia on a scale that beggars belief. Illegal fishing is rampant throughout the ocean threatening extinction for some species and Whalers from Japan and Norway still ply their trade unencumbered by the anger of people across the world. Many people are concerned about these outrages and insist that something must be done, but what exactly. Well, some say we should all gather together with painted placards and protest outside embassies and national parliaments. Others suggest legal solutions should be pursued through the courts and international organisations like the United Nations. Others still, insist that we should all look to get involved personally and organise things like beach clean ups or buy recycled boardshorts or hold candlelight vigils for haddock. And others still, suggest that scientific solutions should be investigated without delay, as only science can stop the ensuing environmental massacre. 

Such activities have their place in the environmental activists tool kit but let’s face it; demonstrating, holding prayer meetings or hiring a bunch of snazzy dressed lawyers rarely achieves much. As for scientific solutions, well they might work for pollution but what scientific breakthrough is going to stop a harpoon smacking into a whales flesh or make a rich Chinese bloke turn his nose up at his shark’s fin soup. Faced with such an onslaught; protests, boycotts, church raffles and decade long law suits become nothing more than self righteous “ middle class” smoke that actually obscures the damage that has and is still being done. What’s needed is something far more meaningful and far more dangerous than many of us would contemplate, something that many legal minds would call piracy. Enter stage right, radical defender of the seas, troublemaker and self-confessed pirate Paul Watson, co-founder of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

Paul Watson, who likes to be called Capt. Paul Watson, (wow what an ego) was a founding member of Greenpeace but disagreed with the way the organisation was heading and was ousted from the organisation in 1977. Soon after he co-founded the Sea Shepherd Society. The Society’s mission was to take the fight direct to those who were committing the offending acts that so many environmentalists complain about but yet do nothing themselves to stop. He successfully led campaigns against the seal hunting trade, exposed the massacre of dolphins in Taiji and in the 1990’s used his ship to ram and sink twelve Japanese whalers. Sea Shepherd still undertakes annual operations against whaling activities in the Antarctica. There are those, including the Greenpeace Foundation, who condemn Watson and Sea Shepherd, calling them violent, but Watson is unrepentant.

“Pirates get things done without bureaucratic red tape… Yes, we be proud pirates, however we are disciplined pirates with our own special code of honour. That code demands that we do not cause injury or death to our enemies… We operate within the framework of international conservation law meaning that we only oppose unlawful exploitation of marine life… We do not target legitimate operations, even if we disagree with them. We are not a protest organisation, we don’t hang banners, we intervene against illegalities.” 

Watson cites the United Nations World Charter for Conservation, which he says, allows for nongovernmental organisations to intervene in order to uphold international law. “We have been called vigilantes. And indeed, we are vigilantes, because when the law exists but enforcement does not, a vacuum is created that allows for the actions of vigilantism…” 

The activities of Sea Shepherd have not just invoked commendation from what Watson calls the green crowd of protestors, banner wavers and lobbyists. The Japanese government is a particularly fervent critic as are other governments and global companies who have labelled Watson and Sea Shepherd as eco-terrorists. Watson’s activities have led to more than a few brushes with the law too. In 2002, after being invited to lead a fight against over-fishing by the Costa Rican Government, Watson boarded a vessel suspected of illegal fishing and escorted it to harbour. On arrival however, it was the Sea Shepherd crew that were arrested. Many believe that the crew of the fishing vessel had friends in high places. Fearing an unfair trial – being self professed pirates probably wouldn’t have helped - Watson and his crew fled. Watson was arrested ten years later in Frankfurt in relation to the Costa Rica incident, but skipped bail before he could be extradited. He therefore appears to remain a wanted man yet seems unfazed about court action against him in the US and other jurisdictions, and the more whalers, sealers and illegal fisherman rail against him the more he believes he’s winning.

“The more enemies we recruit from that crowd of ecological criminals, the more successful and credible we become.”

And successful they have become, Sea Shepherds activities and adventures are posted all over the web, they’ve had their own television series called Whale Wars and have stopped the issue of whaling from falling off the more mainstream environmental agenda. In 1998 they even planned to use a submarine in their actions against whalers, an idea that prompted the Canadian Navy to rebuke the organisation publicly by saying: “no one at Sea Shepherd know anything about operating a submarine and it is ridiculous for Sea Shepherd to acquire one.”

It was rebuke that Paul Watson savaged with buccaneering style by replying: “Since World War II, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has boarded more ships, rammed more ships, engaged in more high seas confrontations and sunk more ships than the Canadian Navy. They are hardly in a position to presume to judge what we are competent or capable of doing.”

No one apart from the Japanese and Norwegians seem to think that whaling is acceptable and the slaughter of dolphins in Taiji, Japan, is as pointless as it is sickening. So whether you agree or not with Paul Watson and his Society’s methods there is no doubt that he has shown a courage and commitment that few of his fellow environmentalists have. In truth while illegal fishing is rampant, whilst the Japanese still pretend that slaughtering whales on mass is necessary for scientific research (seriously how many whales do you have to kill before you work out what a whale is?) and Sharks are killed in their millions for their fins whilst all the while the United Nations, national navies and law enforcement agencies the world over sit by and do nothing, we need Paul Watson. We need the volunteers of Sea Shepherd and thousands more like them.

Some of you out there may be content to paint catchy slogans on placards and hang banners from bridges. You might even prefer to hold a jumble sale or hold an all night candlelight vigil in the hope that such demonstrations might prick the conscience of hardened whalers or stop illegal fishing. We however are slapping on the eye patches and raising our frothing glasses in salute to Paul Watson and all the souls in Sea Shepherd. Hoist the Jolly Roger me hearties  Argggh!

More information on Sea Shepherd is readily available on the web. However we’ve added some pertinent links below. You can sponsor Sea Shepherd directly via their website click here. The more adventurous amongst you might even want to volunteer for active service in one of their many operations or simply help out in their onshore activities if so click here.

The Taiji dolphin slaughter video – caution graphic content

Whale Wars on Youtube

Sea Shepherd in Paul Watson’s own words

The Easybreath Full-Face Snorkelling Mask. We Don't Know Why You Need It.

Last year we spotted an article in the Daily Mail that hailed a revolution in snorkelling equipment. A mask that let’s you breathe through your nose! In all honesty we paid little attention at the time. Full-face snorkelling masks are not revolutionary; they have been around since the 1950’s in various forms but have never caught on, mainly because they didn’t actually work. Now however we’ve noticed that the Internet is awash with articles, blog posts and images of this new mask. So we thought we’d better have another look, just in case someone really has come up with a full-face snorkelling mask that works. In hindsight, we really shouldn’t have bothered.

The Easybreath Mask is designed and manufactured by the French company Tribord and came about as a response to the problem of people wanting to snorkel, but not being able to because they couldn’t breathe through their mouth. To explain this problem the company released an advertising video where we were introduced to three wannabe snorkellers. Jean-Marc had a terrible problem, every time he put a snorkel in his mouth he felt “oppressed” and found it impossible to breathe. “It just didn’t feel natural” he bemoaned. Yang on the other hand, had leaned his head too far forward, when he first tried the sport, and consequently swallowed the water that entered his traditional snorkel. Yang was so panicked by this event he never tried snorkelling again. Finally there was Catherine. Catherine had dreadful trouble with both putting on and wearing a mask. “I tended to breathe through my nose and therefore suffocate”, she said despondently. “Then it fogged up, I couldn’t see anything, it was too tight and therefore I was really scared”.  All of these snorkelling-preventing problems were solved instantly when they tried the new Easybreath. Jean-Marc stopped feeling oppressed and started feeling more at ease. Yang could move his head as much as he liked and thought that this was just great. Catherine was equally gushing in her praise. “I saw fish, starfish”, she said joyfully. “It’s really great, I felt incredibly free”.

It was not just Jean-Marc, Yang and Catherine who are impressed either. In December last year, the Easybreath Mask won the Oxylane Innovation Award for 2014. Impressive you might think, until you realise that the Oxylane Group is the new name for French sports company Decathlon and Tribord is one of their brands. In a rather tacky ceremony, with dancing girls and overexcited Frenchmen prancing about everywhere, the people who make the Easybreath were presented with the 2014 innovation award by the people who…. Err… Make the Easybreath. Doesn’t look that impressive now, does it? So let’s go back to that advertising video with the oppressed Jean-Marc, Yang with his head issues and the “prone to suffocation” Catherine and see if we can solve their problems without inventing a brand new, revolutionary mask. 

Is it really too difficult for Jean-Marc to learn to breathe through his mouth? All divers and snorkellers have experienced the same issue when they first try the sport. Breathing through your mouth using a demand valve or snorkel takes practice but we would hardly call it an oppressive experience. It’s something that you get used to the more you do it. As for Jean-Marc’s suggestion in the video that breathing through the mouth is unnatural, we imagine that he must never have undertaken any strenuous exercise. Anyone who has ever exercised, run for a bus or had to take the stairs because the lift was broken will know that, as your muscles demand more and more oxygen, you stop breathing through your nose and switch to breathing through your mouth in order to increase the amount of air getting to your lungs. The same thing will happen if you exert yourself when snorkelling. Then there is Yang and his water swallowing issues due to immersing his head too much. This is not an uncommon problem and is easily solved by using a snorkel with a dry-valve purge system. These valves are available in a variety of makes and models. In fact the Easybreath uses exactly the same technology itself! Now we come to Catherine and her problem of suffocating herself and her mask fogging up. We’re worried about Catherine, very worried and here’s why. If every time that Catherine has difficulty getting air through her nose she starts to suffocate, how on earth does she cope when she gets a cold? We don’t want to sound rude here, but open your mouth Catherine and breathe! Seriously, even premiership footballers have mastered mouth breathing so it can’t be that hard. As for mask fogging, this is due to a number of reasons from variations in temperature between the outside and the inside of the mask to the inside of the mask being contaminated with microscopic dirt which moisture can attach to. There are a number of ways to stop fogging from using commercial de-fogging spray to the old tried and tested method of spit and rinse. However the best advice we can give you here Catherine is that when you buy a new mask make sure you clean it thoroughly to remove any remaining contaminants left over from the manufacturing process. Many people claim rubbing the lenses with non-abrasive toothpaste works but we prefer a simple solution of washing up liquid and water – works a treat. There you go Tribord, de-fogging solved without having to design, develop, test and re-test a revolutionary new mask.

Besides, the suggestion made by the company that the Easybreath eliminates the problem of fogging does not stand up to much scrutiny anyway. In fact the Easybreath designers state that their exclusive anti-fogging concept (yes it’s only a concept) is based on the principle of ventilation used on car windscreens (and they never fog up do they?) and only actually works properly in water temperatures over 18 degrees. Umm… That means if the water temperature is below that optimum, the anti-fogging concept stops working. This means snorkelling in the UK and most of the Mediterranean is out of the question.

There are other problems too. The Easybreath cannot be used for breath hold dives, even short ones, due to the fact that you cannot equalise pressure since you can’t get to your nose to pinch it. The volume of air in the mask is also considerably larger than traditional designs and diving down to even the relatively shallow depth of one metre means that the increase in pressure is going to make your face look like a squashed tomato when you surface. 

You can’t do much swimming in the Easybreath either. The Company states on it’s  website: Swimming requires a lot more effort than snorkelling, just as running requires a lot more effort than walking. Swimming training needs a significant amount of oxygen and your body will automatically switch to intensive mouth breathing. At this point, breathing with the Easybreath® would become very uncomfortable. 

Apparently no one at the company bothered to tell Jean-Marc that. Nobody at the company seems to be aware either, that not all snorkelling consists of simply bobbing about at the surface. As some of our other posts have highlighted, snorkelling has some inherent dangers and the ability to be able to swim quickly is damn important. Swimming quickly and being able to breathe too is even more important.

Then there is the problem of sizing. The Easybreath only comes in two sizes, Small/medium and large/extra large. These two sizes the company suggests, encompass 90% of the worlds faces… Really?  Bad luck for the other 10% then. Because it is also a full-face design, beards will play havoc with the seal and based on the FAQ’s on the company website and customer feedback received, there are quite a few other issues. The Mask sometimes leaks, the snorkel sometimes doesn’t work, sand tends to cause things to block, breathing causes a buzzing sound in the mask and the mask is rather cumbersome.
 

1955

All in all the Easybreath seems to be a solution to a problem that doesn’t actually exist outside of the mind of the designers. At £35 it’s cheap and unfortunately, with its garish colours and child’s toy-like appearance, it looks it too. The size and shape makes the whole thing unwieldy, the tightening strap has a tendency to break and the entire design limits your snorkelling activities to simply viewing the underwater world from the surface – you could do the same thing from a glass bottom boat. If, like Catherine, you can’t master the survival skill of breathing through your mouth or like Jean-Marc you want an oppressive free snorkelling experience, then the Easybreath will probably suit you – if it fits. If however, you want to experience the underwater world closer up, if you want to be able to swim and breathe at the same time and generally go snorkelling rather than laying dead still, face down in the water, like a drowned fisherman than we think that you, like us, will come to the conclusion that the makers of the Easybreath haven’t come up with anything revolutionary at all. Instead they have re-visited an old idea that didn’t work and come up with a new idea that doesn’t work either.