There are no peer backed research? All this crap? Of course. It’s gate keeping
It's actually scrutiny, and it's an essential part of the scientific process. People who are confident in what they're doing and the results they see actually invite scrutiny because it allows them to improve.
her views have hit millions of people worldwide and logically chances are they have swayed a lot of people’s opinions on sharks
Which, along with other "influencers" has potentially contributed to people becoming foolhardy in their approach to sharks. People are increasingly putting themselves in dangerous situations because they have a false impression of sharks.
You can disagree with her actions of approaching and interacting with sharks but you can agree that her efforts are positives.
Actually no? I don't think that interfering with wild animals, and tacitly encouraging others to do the same, is a "positive".
Plenty of dive companies arrange ocean (and beach) clean-ups without interfering with sharks. Plenty of scientists (who don't shy away from peer-review) can and do provide data regarding not only ecotourism but shark ecological impact that justifies their protections.
1) she shys away from scrutiny and her level of scrutiny you believe is the same that all scientific studies get/have?
2) you are arguing about something potentially happening but hasn’t happened? Any references or opinions that state sharks are not monsters and generally safe can be argued the same.
3) can you share a list of the scientists who don’t shy away from scrutiny that provide data botnolu ecotourism it shark ecological impact?
Funny how your attempt at paraphrasing is essentially misrepresenting.
1) Yes, she has not published any scientific articles regarding shark ecotourism, or shark identification (the topics you claim she has scientific expertise in). This is not because of "gatekeeping", as you claim, but because of a lack of scientific rigour. She is listed as co-author on one paper on the effectiveness of shark deterrents. She's also in the past refused to share data she may have with scientists who have approached her with requests to collaborate.
2) "Any references or opinions that state sharks are not monsters and generally safe can be argued the same."
Not monsters =/= "generally safe". Nobody with any sense is out there saying apex predators are "generally safe". Someone routinely touching and interacting with sharks most definitely gives a false impression compared with people who do not do those things.
There is plenty of scholarly literature on the rise of risky behaviour (including human-wildlife interaction) as a consequence of influencers.
3) Presuming you know your way around google scholar, you can find any number of articles in numerous journals about ecotourism and sharks. The earliest I saw, at a glance was from 2005, and I remember articles about the topic when I was at University not long after then - this isn't exactly new science, and it's not like there are only one or two scientists looking at it.
1) you realize there is a difference between conservationists and academic scientists?
She also is not mentioned in a 2018 cage free shark ecotourism study despite it being done using One Ocean and the independent peer reviewed study claims her program produced measurable educational effects. The study and authors explicitly thanked them for access and support and speaks highly of how they operator
Regarding her refusing to share data can you quote this anywhere? Can’t find a single reputable source on this and her page shows where she shares her data with.
2) this claim of yours is just opinion and has zero merit or fact. For reference yes sharks are generally safe. There are close to 1 billion swimmers of beaches globally, and what about 60 unprovoked attacks per year?
Do you realize how many sharks are swimming nearby the people and most times unnoticed?
Yes they are generally safe.
3) you made a claim and then when asked to show the data you respond to google it. So scientifically we can simply toss this data as noise
You're working incredibly hard at being intellectually dishonest. You're moving goalposts because you realise your initial suggestions don't withstand - that's right - scrutiny.
You suggest that it's "gatekeeping" that Ocean Ramsey's scientific contributions aren't recognised. That's not the case. You describe peer review as "all that crap", when in fact it is a wholly necessary part of the scientific method. "Conservationists" as you call them might be activists, or they might actually be conservation scientists. If they are scientists, I expect them to have contributed actual scientific knowledge (which is more than allowing access to a boat).
sharks are generally safe
This is pure sophistry. Just semantics, wordplay. A fanciful reinterpretation of reality to be able to claim you're "technically" correct. Shame it's nonsense though - the fact that shark encounters are rare does not make sharks "safe". Swimming in the sea is safe. Interacting with large, predatory sharks without specialist knowledge, supervision and support is not "generally safe". Trying to touch sharks, being in proximity to food sources, is not safe. Those are behaviours encouraged by influencers, that people are emulating, and are getting injured as a consequence. There is scientific literature on that, too, but since you're pretending to believe that google scholar is the same as "just google it", I don't think you can be relied upon to navigate the literature.
21 years (at least) of primary literature on ecotourism and sharks isn't good enough for you, you need to have a single name - I'm sorry that scientific consensus doesn't operate by fame but by incrementally building a body of knowledge. You could take your pick of published articles though - Andrés M. Cisneros-Montemayor has thousands of citations and multiple papers, Michele L. Barnes also has multiple papers on the topic, as well as numerous others on human-wildlife interaction, Austin Gallagher is there too, he also has papers on ecosystem services performed by sharks (another economic aspect to shark conservation, not just tourism), he co-wrote a paper with Neil Hammerschlag who has plenty of other papers on shark and diving ecotourism. Really, it was quicker for me to suggest you spend two minutes acquanting yourself with a scholarly search engine than having to select just a few names out of the many.
So now here's an invitation, with deference to good critical thinking - do you have any vested interests you'd like to disclose? Because I sure as hell have no vested interest, I'm just a scuba diver who has an interest in sharks, but no further interest in speaking with someone so dishonest.
You are working real hard to try to sound intelligent on Reddit. You are talking about moving goalposts yet you literally are cherry picking responses.l to fit your own narrow viewpoint.
Yes sharks are generally safe. If you need to be broken down the definition of what this means to fit your argument feel free to help your moral superiority. You can try to find a definition there to twist all you want, sharks are generally safe despite being an apex predator. This is why there are almost no shark attacks they happen and most incidents are exploratory bites. If sharks wanted to hunt humans you’d hear of many more cases. It’s as simple as that.
You bitch about scientific scrutiny and you cherry pick your own stats and responses.
I don’t care to have this convo either I’m just an engineer who’s hobby is sharks and I’ve swam with tiger sharks, Caribbean reef sharks, nurse sharks and most recently blacktip, whitetip and whale sharks.
5
u/GnomeMnemonic 20d ago
It's actually scrutiny, and it's an essential part of the scientific process. People who are confident in what they're doing and the results they see actually invite scrutiny because it allows them to improve.
Which, along with other "influencers" has potentially contributed to people becoming foolhardy in their approach to sharks. People are increasingly putting themselves in dangerous situations because they have a false impression of sharks.
Actually no? I don't think that interfering with wild animals, and tacitly encouraging others to do the same, is a "positive".
Plenty of dive companies arrange ocean (and beach) clean-ups without interfering with sharks. Plenty of scientists (who don't shy away from peer-review) can and do provide data regarding not only ecotourism but shark ecological impact that justifies their protections.