Jump to content


danielandrewclem

Member Since 16 Jan 2007
Offline Last Active Mar 31 2014 11:39 AM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Fin choice, etc.

29 January 2014 - 07:28 PM

I really like the Force Fin Pro with comfort insteps. They're small, light, very easy to pack, and they allow for high-speed chases as well as subtle but extremely helpful maneuvers such as backing away from a reef wall by rolling your ankles a few times. You can walk around in them because they are so short and the blades are bent upward. As far as kicking efficiency and power they are fantastic as long as you are away from the surface, where they tend to come out of the water a bit too much. (If I'm going snorkeling or I think I'll be at the surface a lot, I use Apollo split fins.) But if you're diving in a current or trying to get away from a crowd, the Force Fins are awesome and their efficiency means extended bottom time.


In Topic: Critique wanted on whaleshark pics

10 January 2014 - 12:04 PM

I like 4, 6, and 7 the most, with 6 and 7 being the most striking because of the pair of whale sharks and the poses you captured.

 

7 might be even more striking if you adjusted to make the whales more like silhouettes and/or tried it in black and white.


In Topic: Do you think Ocearch really love sharks?

19 December 2013 - 11:30 AM

Here's a Wired article about some of the GW tracking so far: http://www.wired.com...t-white-sharks/

 

Interesting and not surprising to hear that Fischer is being rebuffed by West Coast scientists, and one of the East Coast scientists says they have enough tracking data for the time being. Maybe that means the Ocearch will not be parking off Chatham next summer?


In Topic: Do you think Ocearch really love sharks?

01 December 2013 - 04:41 PM

Me too, Mike. And I also hope that those rich sponsors like Caterpillar etc. will stop sponsoring them till they improve in their methods.

 

Unlikely. Caterpillar sponsors the Ocearch because the Ocearch uses Caterpillar engines and generators, as do thousands of other big seafaring vessels.


In Topic: Do you think Ocearch really love sharks?

27 November 2013 - 06:36 AM

Gina,

 

Here's a link to the editorial board of Animal Biotelemetry—not exactly a bunch of slackers, if you know anything about research of large pelagics. And here's an explanation from Editor-in-Chief Peter Klimley about the journal's purpose, why the articles are available to everyone, etc.

 

If you'd like to read a review of the Domeier-edited book, you could try this review in Copeia. I haven't read it.

 

By the way, don't assume that an article is better or its findings more "legitimate" just because it appears in a big-name journal such as Nature or Science. Ten years ago, Nature published something by Ransom Myers and Boris Worm that was subsequently panned by many other scientists, yet because that paper (technically it was a "letter") was in Nature and it had really scary numbers about large fishes being severely overfished (just 10% of pre-industrial levels) throughout the world, that letter's findings are still used as the lede for countless mainstream articles, TV shows, documentaries, keynote addresses, and other media about overfishing. (Usually, people interpret the letter's findings as "90% of the world's large fish are gone," but interpretations have been looser, too.) Even though the letter has been debunked (here's one critic's summation)—or at the very least thoroughly disputed by other analyses—it is likely that that "90%" number will endure, given the way people rely on Google and, in mainstream media, many writers just copy each other's work. And it's such a great number—90%!—with such an undeniable wow factor, that just about everyone who is looking for such a number will happily use it and not bother to learn about the many rebuttals that followed that paper. For example, see Greenpeace's page on overfishing. And, of course, Sea Shepherd is all over it. Some numbers are just too damn sexy to die. Anyhow, the point is, an obscure journal can publish great work while the most prominent journals can be sloppy in what they choose to print. And vice versa, of course.