Shark Attack versus Ecotourism: Negative and Positive Interactions A.PeterKlimley Dept.ofWildlife,Fish,andConservationBiology,UniversityofCalifornia,Davis,California TobeyH.Curtis SustainableFisheriesDivision,NationalMarineFisheriesService,Gloucester,Massachusetts ABSTRACT : Unprovokedattacksbysharksonhumansareexceptionallyrarephenomena.Sharkstypicallyhavetwomotivations, feedingordefense,thatresultinattacksonhumans.Threespecies,thebull,tiger,andwhitesharks,areresponsibleforthemajority ofattacksonhumans.Thesepredominantlyfeeding-motivatedattacksareoftentheresultofthesharkmistakingitshumanvictim fornaturalprey.Manyspecies,however,exhibitadefensive,aggressivedisplaythat,unheeded,mayresultinasinglebiteor slashingwoundtoahuman.Thenumberofunprovokedattacksbysharksonhumansworldwidehasrisenfrom8during1900- 1904,ofwhich2werefatal,to330during2000-2004,ofwhich29werefatal.Theratesof5.8fatalitiesperyearduring2000-2004 and6.4fatalitiesperyearduring1995-1999arenegligiblerelativetotheaverageof42,593fatalitiesperyearduetoautomobile accidentsreportedfrom1993-1995intheUnitedStatesalone.Takingalookatsharksfromanotherperspective,ecotourismhas becomeimmenselypopularinthe1990sand2000s.Thereareopportunitiestoviewsharksinthewildoneverycontinentexcept Antarctica, with the scalloped hammerhead, white, whale, and reef sharks being among the most popular subjects. Shark ecotourismisprovidingthepublicwithanobservationalexperiencethatcanbeaspleasurableaswhalewatching,anditcanbea cost-effectivealternativesourceofemploymentforfishermen.Thiscouldleadtoreducedsharkfishingincertainregionsofthe worldandenablesharkpopulationstorecovertotheirformerlevelsofabundance. KEY WORDS : agonisticdisplay,ecotourism,publicsafety,sharkattack Proc.22 nd Vertebr.PestConf. (R.M.TimmandJ.M.O’Brien,Eds.) PublishedatUniv.ofCalif.,Davis. 2006. Pp.33-44. INTRODUCTION beach recreation is characteristically at its peak, were Sharksaremanyoftheoceans’toppredators.Along reportedbythemediawithgreatsensation,andthisbad withrays,sharkscomprisethesubclassElasmobranchii,a pressresultedinbathersfromtheNewJerseyandNew groupofmostlycarnivorous,cartilaginousfishesthatare York metropolitan areas avoiding their customary presentinalloftheworld’soceans.Eventhoughtheover recreationaldestinationsfortherestofthesummer.This 403speciesofsharksmakeuponly1.4%ofthe27,977 notoriousseriousofevents,whichadverselyaffectedthe species of fishes inthe oceans (Nelson 2006), none are economy of many coastal communities in New Jersey, morefearedbyhumanswhoentertheocean.Atleast30 wasthereal-lifeeventwhichwasthebasisofthefictional species of sharks have been confirmed attackers of accountinPeterBenchley’s Jaws . humans,butonlyafewofthelargestpredatoryspecies, ThisphenomenonisnotconfinedtotheUnitedStates the white ( Carcharodon carcharias ), tiger (Galeocerdo ofAmerica.A16-yearoldboy,MichaelHely,wasbitin cuvieri ), and bull sharks ( Carcharhinus leucas ), are thehipbyaragged-toothedshark( Carchariastaurus )at responsible for the majority of attacks (Caldicott et al . Amazintoti, Natal during April 1960 (Davies and 2001). D’Aubrey 1961 a), and although not fatal, this shark Asharkattackonahumanusuallyattractsimmediate attack was reported widely in the South African press. and extensive attention by the media. The newspaper Thiswasfollowedbyafatalattackona25-yearoldmale, headlines and articles reporting the attack are usually PetrusSithold,138kmawayatMargate,amajorresort sensational and frightening and may have a negative towninNatal,duringDecemberofthesameyear.These impact on tourism in coastal recreational areas. The attacks,andtwoadditionalonesonyoungboys,13and magnitudeoftheimpactisamplifiedgreatlyifmorethan 15yearsold,on6and22ofJanuary1961(Daviesand oneattackoccursatroughlythesameplaceatthesame D’Aubrey1961 b,c)created widespreadfearinthelocal time. For example, Charles Vansant was killed by a community. The news of these attacks was reported shark swimming in the waters near Beach Haven, New widely in newspapers across Europe and resulted in a Jersey,on1July1916.Fivedayslater,on6July,Charles greatreductioninthenumberoftouristsvisitingDurban, BruderwaskilledbyasharkatSpringLake,NewJersey, afavoritedestination,overthenext5years.Theneedto 70 km from Beach Haven. Just 6 days following that learn more about sharks’ motivations to attack humans, attackon12July,asimilardistanceaway,twomenwere and to develop ways of avoiding it, led in part to the fatallyattacked,andonemanwasseriouslymauledbya creation of the South African Association for Marine sharkatMatawanCreek,NewJersey(SchultzandMalin Biological Research and the building of the Durban 1975, Fernicola 2001). Though the species responsible Aquarium,andeventuallyledtothesettingofprotective for these attacks has not been conclusively determined, nets along the coast of South Africa to exclude sharks most experts suggest that the attacker(s) was either a fromthebeachesandthusreducetheriskofsharkattack white shark or a bull shark. These 5 attacks, which (CliffandDudley1991). occurred close to the 4 th of July holiday, when public Overthelast46yearssincetheattacksinDurban,the 33 publicperceptionofsharkshasslowlychangedfromone withover80%ofreportedattacksfollowingthatpattern offearandmisunderstandingtooneofmorefascination. (Caldicott etal .2001).Swimmersandsurfersinshallow Thischangeinpublicopinionhasbeencausedinpartby waters are common victims of this type of attack, in theavailabilityofmoreaccuratescientificknowledgeof whichtheshark makesasinglestrike,leavingabiteor the behavior and ecology of sharks (e.g., Gilbert 1966, slash wound before retreating and not returning. The Hodgson and Mathewson 1976, Klimley and Ainley victimrarelyseestheattackerduringthebriefinteraction, 1996, Carrier et al . 2005). This research effort was andthewoundsaregenerallyminor.Ananalysisof86 stimulatedatfirstbytheNavy’sinterestinidentifyingthe South African shark attacks showed that 81% of attack motivation(s) for sharks to attack humans, in order to victims suffered only minor injuries, requiring only avoid attacks or deter them while in progress. Even primarysutures(Woolgar etal .2001). thoughtheoccurrenceofsharkattackshasrisenslowlyas Victimsof“sneak”and“bumpandbite”attackstend human utilization of the seas has risen, sharks are now to suffer more severe injuries. These attacks tend to beingperceivedbymanytobevaluablemarineresources, occurindeeperwatersondiversorswimmersandmay bothasafoodsourceandamagnetforecotourism,and involvemultiplestrikes.Thesharkisnotseenpriortothe notsomuchasdangerouspests. “sneak”attack,whichtendstobeapowerfulandviolent The purpose of this article is to review both the interaction typical of a predatory attempt by the shark negativeandpositiveaspectsoftherelationshipbetween usinganambushtactic.In“bumpandbite”attacks,the sharksandhumans.Wewillfirstidentifythemotivations shark circles the victims, often bumping them with its that lead sharks to attack humans. Our next step is to snoutpriortoattack.Thisbehaviorisbelievedtoallow establishhowcommonlysharksattackhumansandhow the shark to assess the palatability of the potential prey significant the risk of losing one’s life due to a shark item, or to determine the potential threats it may pose attack is, relative to losing one’s life due to other more priortomakingadecisiveattack.Alargepercentageof commonhazards.Wethenbrieflydiscussthedeleterious these types of attacks result in fatality (Caldicott et al . effectofhumanfisheriesonsharkpopulations.Thenext 2001). subjectdiscussedissharkecotourism,apastimeenjoyed by divers worldwide that come to view sharks in their MotivationtoAttackHumans own habitat, and we discuss attempts to convert One can avoid being attacked if one decreases the fishermen,whoheretoforekilledsharks,intomembersof motivationofthesharktoattack.Hungerisoneobvious theecotourismcommunity. motivationforasharkattacktoattackahuman.Attack wounds often do resemble bites by which the shark METHODS attemptedtofeed.Ontheotherhand,themagnitudeand We base our discussion of the motivation of shark shapeofattackwoundsdo notalwaysbearthisout.If attacksonareviewofthescientificliterature.Thestatis- attacksarefeedingmotivated,onewouldexpecttheprey ticsonattacksonhumansbysharksarebasedonrecords tobeconsumedeitherpartiallyorwholly.Indeed,thisis fromtheInternationalSharkAttackFile(ISAF),whichis thecaseinsomeinstances.DuringOctober,1939,two maintainedattheFloridaMuseumofNaturalHistoryat diverswerewitnessedbeingattackedoffabeachinthe theUniversityofFlorida.TheISAFisanarchiveofall province of New South Wales, Australia, and on the knownsharkattacksworldwide.Sinceitsestablishment following day their remains were recovered from the in1958,morethan4,000individualshark-humaninterac- stomach of a 3.5-m (total length) tiger shark (Klimley tion investigations have been compiled, covering the 1974).Oftentheevidenceisnotsoconclusive;remains period from the mid-1500s to the present. Unless of victims have been found in shark stomachs, but the otherwise noted, all references to shark attacks only attackshavenotbeenwitnessed.Thevictimsmaywell include cases of “unprovoked” attack, defined as have drowned before being consumed, and hence are incidents where an attack on a live human by a shark classifiedasscavengingeventratherthananattack. occursinitsnaturalhabitat,withouthumanprovocation In many instances, victims of shark attacks have of the shark (G. Burgess, ISAF, pers. commun.). We experiencedthelossofonlysmallamountsofflesh.One obtained the statistics on deaths due to various injuries such example occurred