Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by danielandrewclem

  1. Pair of Ikelite DS-125 substrobes with NiMH batteries, flex arms, regular ball mounts, spare flex-arm mounts, dual sync cord, charger, and spare battery latch. (I replaced one battery toggle, but the latch itself was fine.) I just don't use these very much anymore—married, kids, don't dive much anymore, blah blah blah—so I'm looking to sell them. Asking $700 plus shipping. PM with email address for photos of the gear.
  2. Thanks very much for your thorough reply. We're pretty sure we'll go next summer (possible we'll opt for April if it's less expensive, less crowded, and better for seeing cetaceans) so it's very helpful to get info about the dive sites, water temperature, and what to do. Nice shots!
  3. Thanks, Ali. We will definitely check out your place and get back to you if we commit to visiting the Azores.
  4. Thinking of taking a family trip (as young as 5 to as old as 80) in summer 2019 to the Azores. About half of us would be interested in doing some diving and/or whale watching and possibly whale swimming if the permits aren't too expensive. (We did the whale swim experience in Tonga last summer and loved int.) If the prospects are good I will bring my u/w photography setup. Happy to take advice on where to stay, what to do, how to get around, too. We'd be flying there from Boston, most likely. Mostly looking to just chill out, drink some wine, eat some seafood, and enjoy the views. Thanks.
  5. Just found an extra zoom sleeve 5509.28, so I'll throw that in as well. Unused adhesive pads.
  6. Used Ikelite 5505.5 port for 4.5-5.5" macro lenses. $100. Hasn't been used in four years, and just sold the lens I used with it, so it's currently obsolete for me. Neoprene cover included. Will figure out shipping charge once someone makes an offer.
  7. Selling my Ikelite 5510.11 port, which I don't need. (When I get my rig in the water, which is rare, I use a longer lens and thus a longer extension port.) Asking $105. I'll ship for free to lower 48. Paypal payment, please.
  8. I found the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 better than the 10-17 fisheye, both underwater and topside.
  9. Very cool. Looks like the boat was anchored of Uoleva in the first part of the video. Were the whales around there or were they mostly around Foa and Ha'ano (Kauvai)?
  10. Who'd you go with? Someone out of Point Judith?
  11. Are you going to Utila to look for whale sharks? When I was there for six weeks in Feb-Mar 2004, they were the big draw. Dive boats would look for them in between dives and/or on the way back to town from dive sites on the north side of the island. And other boats would go out solely to look for whale sharks, especially from the nicer resorts like Laguna. If/when you get to snorkel with one (or several) whale sharks, it'll be hard to imagine a better photo opportunity. I saw one on a proper dive, too, though I was doing my safety stop and didn't get a chance to get a shot off. There were also rough-toothed dolphins, quite a few hawksbill turtles, spotted eagle rays, big schools of horse-eye jacks, barracudas, and other photogenic species. The juvenile drums were definitely popular macro subjects. Also look for sargassum frogfish in the floating sargassum.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Here's a Wired article about some of the GW tracking so far: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/12/secret-lives-great-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?
  15. Unlikely. Caterpillar sponsors the Ocearch because the Ocearch uses Caterpillar engines and generators, as do thousands of other big seafaring vessels.
  16. 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.
  17. Actually, Gina, they are peer-reviewed papers. This book is similar to the book that Klimley put together back in the early '90s. Lots of different authors in there, many of whom are as respected as they get in the elasmo world. Yes, let's just employ instincts and feelings and eschew all this messy, questionable science. Have a headache? Just open a vein and let some of the bad humors out! Found a turtle on a Cape Cod beach in November? Doesn't it look so sad with its teary eyes? I hate to see turtles crying! That's why I just throw them back in the water. After all, that's where they belong, right? I also let my five year old son punch classmates in the face. After all, he does so instinctively, and human instincts are infallible. If it snows tonight I'm going to sacrifice a goat to the weather gods so the snow melts and my wife and I can get to the hospital to have our next child this week. Wait, did I say hospital? I meant to say I'm going to call the local medicine man, who'll deliver the child the old fashioned way. No vaccinations for my kids, either. I get my vaccination info from Jenny McCarthy, who has "mommy intuition." Drew, PLEASE watch "Sharkmen" again and try to let your instincts tell you what's going on in the footage. Do NOT listen to science. Unless you happen to find some research papers that show how bad Ocearch is for sharks, in which case please DO read those papers. Yes, Mr. Thomas certainly has been busy. I wonder if it took a "whole year researching" to come up with the nifty analogy that fishing for spiny dogfish off Chatham is like "rape" or "genocide." Maybe a little less than a year? Maybe he was just watching a couple hook boats and gillnetters offload their catch, and it all just looked so darn rape-like and genocidal and yucky, well, the analogy just came to him instinctively. No matter that NMFS has deemed that dogfish stock rebuilt, or that MSC has certified that fishery as sustainable, or that sustainable seafood advocates throughout the Northeast are encouraging chefs and consumers to give dogfish a try, especially with cod and other groundfish stocks in dire straits and Cape fishermen struggling to make ends meet. Who cares about all those science-based analyses when one can just watch an offload and witness genocide before one's very eyes!
  18. This is a good point. Plenty of research that's wholly directed by biologists does indeed result in mortality, especially when Murphy's Law comes into play and a gillnet or longline soaks for longer than intended. (If you catch a ton of fish it's much harder to finish the haulback in a timely manner, which means you end up with more mortality through exhaustion or asphyxiation, whereas in a "normal" set you may be able to catch and release everything.) I think the distinction we may be reaching for—perhaps unfairly—is the one between mortality that results from "pure" science (a NMFS survey, for example) and the mortality that results from non-scientists employing methods that are aimed at two different objectives: getting data and making good TV. I'd be curious to learn if Ocearch does things differently now that they are no longer reliant on TV production.
  • Create New...