The problem with sharks
Tue, 25 Nov 2008 9:04 am – Posted by Kirstie_Knowles | 10 Comments
For good reason, Jaws has been spoofed ad nauseum. And just when you thought this line of film had breathed it’s dying breath conservationists with cameras have taken up the mantle, bringing new levels of absurdity to this genre. The recently awarded Save our Seas Foundation video is just the ticket, driving home the point that sharks pose as much threat to our safety as falling coconuts & soda machines.
Re-think the Shark
I could rattle off a long list of astonishing facts about how sharks pose little threat to humans however it would do little to erase Spielberg’s seminal piece cinema from people’s minds. Single-handedly he drove people out of our seas and into our chlorinated pools, with the most traumatising piece of cinema since Hitchcock’s Psycho. It was only later that the author of Jaws admitted his folly in allowing the cinematic adaption of his book.
‘We knew so little back then, and have learnt so much since, that I couldn’t possibly write the same story today. I know now that the monster I created was largely a fiction. Today, I could not portray the shark as a villain; it would have to be written as the victim. Worldwide, sharks are much more the oppressed than the oppressors’
Peter Benchley, who adapted his book for the movie blockbuster Jaws.
Over history other animals have fallen prey to directors and writer’s vivid imaginations (anyone read Moby Dick? see Hitchcock’s The Birds), so there’s hope that sharks may fade from people’s Deep Seated Fears. However, given the rate at which sharks are disappearing from our seas due to the booming demand for shark fins, it may well be after they are snuffed out. Extinct. Gone. Forever.
Sharks present a unique set of questions for conservationists wanting to save this ancient species. Given that we’re dealing with an irrational fear is it best to battle it with hard facts & statistics? Do we need to like them to save them? And if so, how do we shift perception to save this species from extinction?
Before immigrating to New Zealand we lived in Cape Town South Africa and regularly swam and surfed at the beaches along the False Bay coast, a home of the great white sharks. These beaches have never had shark nets. A system had been developed that provided work for the unemployed and provide early warning of the presence of sharks. “Spotters” are placed on the hills adjacent to the popular beaches and when sharks are spotted the alarm is raised - this works well, although I can assure bloggers that when the alarm does go off you cannot get out of the water fast enough!
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-01/2008-01-14-voa30.cfm
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20060819091207286C663758
Although the expected outcry followed shark attacks there were, surprisingly enough, shark attack victims that bore the great white sharks no malice.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=qw1156661821643R131
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20050606110928453C217916
There was also healthy debate as to whether great white sharks became “man eaters” once they had attacked humans and whether they are to be hunted down and killed.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20050607103715460C117516
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20060819091207286C663758
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20050608074849686C349886
Oh, and just to show what they look like in False Bay, check this out. They are magnificent.
http://www.divetrip.com/photos/nachoum04.jpg
while a worthy object of conservationist’s limited time and resources, the ’save our sharks’, ’sealions’ etc. approach raises the debate of species led vs. habitat led conservation appeals. You rightly say its tough getting people to rethink attitudes about some species that big screens (and now little screens) condition society to fear. I think its even tougher, and even more valuable getting people thinking about habitats as homes for species. This is why cross-cutting habitat issues (e.g. desertification, global climate change, freshwater) deserve stronger focus.
ps Thanx Johan for that comprehensive / informative comment.
Brent,
I agree with you that the habitat- led approach is more valuable but more difficult. I think this is where a specie- specific approach may have some use - it may serve as a point of entry/reference for raising public awareness of the larger habitat issues. The habitat- led approach makes sense to the more informed but, to ensure wider support amongst the public of conservation issues, the species- led approach raises public interest .
I accept that scientifically habitat -led approach has to take precendence but so much more can be done if there is wide spread public support of initiatives and this is most easily done by the use of a specie-led approach e,g ice bears demonstrate climate change, whales demonstrate loss of diversity etc.
I guess it boils down to using both approaches, depending on the audience and circumstances, to pursue the same goal.
It is a tricky one - single species or habitat the home of many.
I think our job is to try and strike the balance. As Johan says - selling habitat protection is harder than it should be. Just look at the opposition to marine reserves. But battle on we must. Marine reserves offer a tool to protect a whole sweep of marin habiats. What about the freshwater habitats, forgotten lowland biodiversity, mangrove swamps, saltmarshes…..
How do we encourage people to act for them?
Ideas anyone?
Kristy,
As much as the purist in me says human encrouchment in these areas should not be allowed, the realist says that unless these areas are viewed by the public as “useful” or “resources” we are fighting an uphil battle where undisturbed existance will allways be seen as “wasted resources”.
So, what “use” can we put them to - the best I can come up with is the old “eco-tourism” - which is perhaps an oxymoron? If we allow tramping/controled or guided access this may create an appreciation. I have in mind for example Tahuna Torea Reserve in Glendowie, Auckland where the sandspit and wetland has been marvelously restored by volunteers and the council and that now attracts tourists. This is a small area (25 hectares) but a worthwhile example.
http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/whatson/places/walkways/pointtopoint/walkthree.asp
This approach can obviuosly not work everywhere but we should be on the lookout for these types of opportunities.
interesting. perhaps some of us suffer from being too idealistic about our idealism
on the topic of great projects like this one in AKL, would be grand if F&B had an awards programme to recognise excellence.
Brent,
It is perhaps to be expected but the success of the AKL project has much to do with F&B volunteers being involved.
0010122.e-xpert.co.nz/SITE_Default/SITE_centralauckland/x-files/7652.pdf
I will certainly be looking at my toaster differently tomorrow….!
Re saving habitat vs species, we are USED to seeing campaigns around saving a species. Because they are familiar, they ‘make sense’ despite being nonsensical.
I am impressed with the Save the Dawn Chorus campaign. It is really about killing nasty cute furry mammals, and about habitat rather than a species, but it has been marketed in a very clever way. Well done!
Just about every bit of market research ever done shows that people respond more to pleas for help for specific animals (and the cuter the better) rather than more generic pleas to save environments, habitat and so on. So while people in conservation know that you need to look after the whole thing, a lot of the general public aren’t that aware, and they don’t tend to have that emotional connection that they have to the cute and cuddly. A bit sad I know, but that is how it goes. If protecting for example the marine environment means showing people a cute sea lion pup as the “poster species” for the marine environment as a whole, then that’s what we gotta do.