California: Great White Shark Diving Essentially Over

California Shark Diving:2003 Update

Shark dive operators have agreed to a "150 foot viewing distance" from
the GWS they take paying divers to cage dive with at the Gulf of the
Farallons Marine Sanctuary, effectively shutting down this dive site
to any diver wanting to actually see a Great White shark in person.

From California Dive News July 2003
http://www.saintbrendan.com/cdnjuly03/Kelp7.html

New Regulations for Diving With Sharks In The Works
For the past decade scientists, conservationists, researchers,
surfers, shark divers, and government officials have been arguing over
how to regulate the growing shark diving industry. In the mid 1990s,
shark diving was banned in near shore waters within the Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary, and a similar move was begun at the
Farallon Islands. All parties have tentatively agreed to a set of
guidelines that will probably result in new regulations. They include
prohibition of chumming, limitations on the use of decoys, and
establishes a 150-foot minimum distance to view a natural feeding
event. Researchers and recreational divers will follow the same rules.
For more information check out:
http://www.prbo.org/marine/sharkreg.htm.

How do they get the sharks to keep their 150' distance?

Kevin <lawson698@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Shark dive operators have agreed to a "150 foot viewing distance" from
>the GWS they take paying divers to cage dive with at the Gulf of the
>Farallons Marine Sanctuary, effectively shutting down this dive site
>to any diver wanting to actually see a Great White shark in person.

Good riddance. Anyone diving in a cage at the Farallones missed the point
of that rather unpleasant boat ride out. Just get in the water and see
what happens.

I'm a bit surprised the operators would voluntarily agree to a 150ft
distance, though. While the viz is generally pretty good out there,
we're still talking about norcal where often you wouldn't be able
to see the entire shark body at a time.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Jason O'Rourke wrote:

> I'm a bit surprised the operators would voluntarily agree to a 150ft
> distance, though. While the viz is generally pretty good out there,
> we're still talking about norcal where often you wouldn't be able
> to see the entire shark body at a time.

I went on one of the dive trips in the Monterey Bay, before the ban there (it
might have even been the first trip). Most of the people on the trip lounged
about while the chumming was going on. So, when a shark finally did show up,
only a few of us made it into the cage. I had some problems with not enough
weight and messing around with a camera, but the interesting point was that I
almost missed seeing the Blue Shark even when it was only a couple of feet
away. I can't imagine trying to see a shark at 150', even if it was a Great
White. What do you get to do, see a blip on a sonar screen?

Appearently if the sharks get within 150 feet the dive operator has to
move away similar to whale watching regs. No towing of surf boards
anymore either, just static drops over the side of the boat.

Kevin.



Paul Carroll <paulc@ubtanet.com> wrote in message news:<3F0BA8A1.1D1FD4D0@ubtanet.com>...
> Jason O'Rourke wrote:
>
> > I'm a bit surprised the operators would voluntarily agree to a 150ft
> > distance, though. While the viz is generally pretty good out there,
> > we're still talking about norcal where often you wouldn't be able
> > to see the entire shark body at a time.
>
> I went on one of the dive trips in the Monterey Bay, before the ban there (it
> might have even been the first trip). Most of the people on the trip lounged
> about while the chumming was going on. So, when a shark finally did show up,
> only a few of us made it into the cage. I had some problems with not enough
> weight and messing around with a camera, but the interesting point was that I
> almost missed seeing the Blue Shark even when it was only a couple of feet
> away. I can't imagine trying to see a shark at 150', even if it was a Great
> White. What do you get to do, see a blip on a sonar screen?

"Kevin" <lawson698@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bc2f7c.0307081500.5bb86351@posting.google.c om...
> California Shark Diving:2003 Update
>
> Shark dive operators have agreed to a "150 foot viewing distance" from
> the GWS they take paying divers to cage dive with at the Gulf of the
> Farallons Marine Sanctuary, effectively shutting down this dive site
> to any diver wanting to actually see a Great White shark in person.

I think the best option out of California for Great Whites is Guadalupe
Island anyway. We had a total of 22 animals last year, Pointers everyday
morning til night. I return this coming October for another trip on Horizon
to Guadalupe.

I've been skunked in Australia, and relegated to the boat deck because of
poor vis in S. Africa, and all along there were some 100 Great Whites
frolicking freely around and near that beautiful Mexican island. I could
have saved a lot of money had I only known that.

Jason O'Rourke wrote

> I'm a bit surprised the operators would voluntarily agree to a 150ft
> distance, though. While the viz is generally pretty good out there,
> we're still talking about norcal where often you wouldn't be able
> to see the entire shark body at a time.

I'm absolutely astounded that researchers agreed to the same thing.

But I see from prbo that chumming is still allowed by "by commercial and
sports fisheries". Bizarre!!



"Kevin" <lawson698@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bc2f7c.0307081500.5bb86351@posting.google.c om...
> California Shark Diving:2003 Update
>
> Shark dive operators have agreed to a "150 foot viewing distance" from
> the GWS they take paying divers to cage dive with at the Gulf of the
> Farallons Marine Sanctuary, effectively shutting down this dive site
> to any diver wanting to actually see a Great White shark in person.
>
> From California Dive News July 2003
> http://www.saintbrendan.com/cdnjuly03/Kelp7.html
>
> New Regulations for Diving With Sharks In The Works
> For the past decade scientists, conservationists, researchers,
> surfers, shark divers, and government officials have been arguing over
> how to regulate the growing shark diving industry. In the mid 1990s,
> shark diving was banned in near shore waters within the Monterey Bay
> National Marine Sanctuary, and a similar move was begun at the
> Farallon Islands. All parties have tentatively agreed to a set of
> guidelines that will probably result in new regulations. They include
> prohibition of chumming, limitations on the use of decoys, and
> establishes a 150-foot minimum distance to view a natural feeding
> event. Researchers and recreational divers will follow the same rules.
> For more information check out:
> http://www.prbo.org/marine/sharkreg.htm.

Hank Sweet <hank.sweet@dontwantanyspamtesco.net> wrote:
>But I see from prbo that chumming is still allowed by "by commercial and
>sports fisheries". Bizarre!!

Putting bait on a hook is essentially chumming.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

"Jason O'Rourke" <jor@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:bf26il$2239$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Hank Sweet <hank.sweet@dontwantanyspamtesco.net> wrote:
> >But I see from prbo that chumming is still allowed by "by commercial and
> >sports fisheries". Bizarre!!
>
> Putting bait on a hook is essentially chumming.

Not hardly. That's about like equating the glider you got in a Cracker
Jacks box to a 747. Think a slick of fish oil a mile long.