(March 3, 2003) Many Nor Cal surfers have reacted strongly to some local individuals and organizations, who supposedly have been using chum to entice great white sharks to attack surfboards for eco-tours and/or research. After all, is it really a good idea to do anything that could possibly cause sharks to associate surfboards with food???

As a shark expert points out, the potential conditioning effects on great white sharks (to attack surfboards) cannot be easily confirmed. In fact, it's possible that baiting surfboards could have drastically different results than what many people assume. Ralph S. Collier, head of the Shark Research Committee, takes a scientific look at this controversial issue.

Collier writes:

"I think several elements should be carefully considered before judgment is passed on any individual, organization or government agency.

A brief discussion of surfboard towing in the coastal waters of California would seem to be appropriate. Depending upon which side of the surfboard argument you align yourself, this practice could promote a positive or a negative learned behavior by the white sharks that strike the boards.

Most white shark researchers, excluding myself, believe surfers, divers, swimmers, and kayakers are attacked because they resemble a natural prey of the shark- a pinniped. Also, keep in mind that if surfboards were baited with "cow blood and a nice rump roast" as has been suggested by some people, these attractants are not naturally occurring in the sharks environment and therefore are probably unfamiliar in taste. How often does a white shark come upon a cow swimming off Maverick's or Salmon Creek? When a shark hits one of these towed targets they are presented with a smell, taste and hard texture that is totally unfamiliar- and not representative of a pinniped.

The two hypotheses might present the following arguments:

The negative side of this issue could present a hypothesis that the white sharks are being lured to the surfboards and they are incited into striking them, usually with such force that they leap clear out of the water, a large energy expenditure. This practice would seem to teach the sharks to strike any surfboard they might come across in their coastal migrations. Similar in some respects to the 'Pavlov' experiments- the sharks would strike the cruising object at the surface- except in this case there is no reward.

The positive hypothesis would state, like the negative hypotheses, that the sharks are initially attracted to the boards because they simulate a natural prey- a pinniped. The sharks strike the board, whereupon they determine rather quickly that the object in question was not food, but instead a piece of hard non-edible material with an unfamiliar smell and taste. After observing the board's movements and striking it a number of times the shark might eventually learn that the movements and silhouette associated with this object are not food. Therefore, it is possible that the shark might not strike a surfboard should it come upon one during its inshore movements because it would have "learned" that the board is not food and a senseless expenditure of energy.

This is a somewhat simple 'pro and con' for this argument, however, I think it demonstrates that in order to better understand whether baiting and towing of these targets is truly teaching sharks to strike surfboards, a well thought out and planned series of controlled field experiments would be required before categorically stating that this practice were potentially harmful to surfers and/or white sharks.

It is truly unfortunate that our planet has become a world of regulations and restrictions because we can't seem to treat it with dignity and reserve. We have forgotten that this planet was a gift and we are responsible for its well-being. Haven't we all heard the expression "Mother Earth?" Now, because of our actions we are regulated to a point of almost non-use of our environment.

Such is the case with the coastal waters of California. It is rare that any form of regulation is unbiased and equally enforced amongst all parties. Such is the case with the marine sanctuaries of California's coast. A common sense approach by all user groups could prove to be beneficial to all who utilize the area. It is possible that the divers who photograph white sharks at the Farallon Islands might capture a unique, and as yet unobserved behavior by a white shark. To assist those conducting white shark research within the marine sanctuary, a fee could be paid by the eco-tourist company that would provide funding for more costly behavioral telemetry or biological studies.

Although these comments are brief, I hope they convey the one important point that seems to escape everyone involved in the surfboard-towing debate. We don't know why white sharks attack divers, swimmers, surfers or kayakers. It is all speculation based on our interpretation of the facts surrounding a specific event being studied. Was it a 'predatory attack' (also referred to as 'mistaken identity') or was it 'investigation' of an unfamiliar object… or was it a form of 'displacement' or 'territoriality?'

We do know that a white shark will consume a marine mammal and that numerous predatory events have been observed and photographed. Whether additional studies are required along the coastline near human usage areas is questionable and potentially dangerous. A cooperative program of data accumulation from researchers and ocean user groups (divers, surfers, kayakers and swimmers) would benefit all. Cooperation between all concerned might be more beneficial than humiliation."

Send shark stories to Contact SurfPulse.

Read other shark-related articles in SurfPulse's Shark section.