Jump to content
wahlaoeh

Do you think Ocearch really love sharks?

Recommended Posts

I don't know about you but even if I ask a 5 years old would an animal be stressed after hooked haul, dragged and then having bolts drilled into their body. I think that the answer is YES. Do re-watch the capture of the sharks on Sharkmen etc. and tell me that the sharks are indeed unstressed.

 

 

 

Daniel: I like your humour, I really do ;)

 

Okay, there is a hint of tactlessness on my comments above but that was written when I realized that my posts/comments were deleted from the Ocearch page. I can assure you that those comments that were originally posted was not demeaning but questions that need clarification. I admit that I was a little annoyed at that moment and I have already apologize to Drew for my bluntness on my last post. ;)

 

I started this thread to understand is it really necessary to employ Ocearch methods, which is invasive and damaging to the sharks, IMO. And are the data collected more invaluable than any other tagging methods? What I have seen from the replies here so far is that: If there is any amazing data, it has yet to be seen? Am I missing something?

 

 

I know that there is a recent case of shark attack fatality in Western Australia. This has caused both media/public frenzies and WA fisheries was trying to capture the “culprit” shark which is tragic, IMO. Western Australia's Shark Monitoring Network has reported to have tagged more than 300 sharks but occasional shark attack still occur so I’m not sure if tagging a few more (or hundreds) will help in this rare occurrences.

I was talking to someone from WA on another forum and he mentioned that the beach goers can use the shark alarm system to make a decision and feel a level of security.

http://www.sharkalarm.com.au/sightings

 

I looked at that website and noticed that many of the reported sightings are from Helicopter and there is a lapse since 16, April 2013. To which he has replied:

 

“Shark Alarm is not a govt sanctioned website as far as I know, its done by volunteers. Public post sightings - not always accurate either - dolphins have been mistakenly added at times. Surfers are the main users of this webpage. I guess the organisers of this site are going with the some information available is better than no information and if you want to go out, up to you to check sightings. I havent gone through all the pages but I would hazard a guess the activity in Aug/Sept/October correlates with more people having this information on the media so therefore more people looking for and filling in reports -

 

14 July 2012 Ben Linden, 24, is killed while surfing near Wedge Island, 180km north of Perth. A witness who tried to help said the shark swam away with the body.

31 March 2012 Peter Kurmann, 33, is taken in south-western WA while diving in the Port Geographe Marina. His brother, who was diving with him, tried to fight off the shark with a knife.

22 October 2011 George Thomas Wainwright, 32, an American tourist, sustains horrific injuries and dies while scuba diving off Rottnest Island, near Fremantle.

10 October 2011 Bryn Martin, 64, disappears at Perth’s Cottesloe Beach and is presumed a shark-attack victim. Only his damaged Speedos were found.

4 September 2011 Kyle Burden, 21, is taken by a shark while bodyboarding with friends at Bunker Bay, near Dunsborough, about 300km south of Perth.

 

So my guess is people were still ''worried'' in those following months and really jumped on the shark alarm website in greater numbers - I went back to 2009 and saw sightings from all over Aus listed. The peak reporting seems to be around the fatals. Fatals not in the news, less people jumping on the reporting band wagon.

 

Again, it is a public site that the public have access to if they want to report a sighting - not the CSIROs tracking program. If people use that website to decide they will or will not go to the beach, fine, up to them. The percentage of people who use that website to make decisions is not something I can answer...Ive never checked it before going to the beach. Im a fan of sharks - that site will not deter me from entering the water. When I go down and the fisheries dept have their guy sitting there and a beach closed sign up, then I cannot enter the water. When beaches are closed by fisheries (in the case lately of the whale carcasses on the beach) the information is broadcast over the media. Big sharks and lots of them are part of life here, and Im glad about that. I dont think the target audience is divers, if you check most of the reports on that site are from surfers or fishermen.

 

So, in short, the answer is no, that is not what the public use for tracking sharks - the CSIRO and Fisheries dept track sharks and provide that information to the public when risk assessment meets the criteria for media announcing

 

The other link I posted is what the OPs question relates to, The Tagging program - Extension of the shark monitoring network is one source of information at a scientific level, the shark alarm site is simply an illustration of how we are involving the public.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also question has there been any correlation done to see what percentage of these shark alarm sightings are tagged sharks but has gotten no reply. Anyone?

 

The shark safe barrier IMO is a better barrier system to protect both marine life and people. At least that is better than shark nets used previously. Are these safe shark barrier being used in WA? Anyone?

http://www.sun.ac.za/english/Lists/news/DispForm.aspx?ID=130

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by wahlaoeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say,Daniel, this is the first time someone has posted Jenny McCarthy in the WP forums that I haven't had to edit out! LOL However, to correct you, it's "mommy instinct" not intuition. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:mellow: ..

 

Thanks for editing your comments, Drew!!! But was that comment based on instinct as well? ;)

Edited by wahlaoeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a perfect world, everyone would understand that sharks need to be let alone, no one would overfish or even fish them, and we would be totally fine no knowing where they go.

 

However, this is not the world we are living in. Sharks are killed. It raises concerns, and politician are listening to both sides :

 

one that say "we are feeding people, making money, paying people to be fishermen, sharks are just fine we still catch a lof of them and when we don't we will stop anyway because it's not gonna be lucrative anymore and then they can recover"

 

and then there is the people that don't want sharks to be killed. I'm one of them, and we have to "counter" the argument made before. We have to make politics understand that what "killing sharks" bring to society is not as important as "not killing sharks" is.

 

In this world, we can't say "look they suffer", or "poor them they die". It just doesn't work. Politics don't care.

 

We have to come up with solid argument and data and prove to politics why, without a doubt, they should trust us more than them.

 

And doing so it happening through science.

 

Now, it does not justify bad methods, and I am not saying that we have to kill a few to save many - I wouldn't do it because we don't know if we are going to save many in the end.

 

I do not comment on the Ocearch as well, I don't know enough about them.

 

What I can say however, it that catching sharks (hooks, nets) is the only way we have to do some sort of science on them. Tagging and genetics, which are used a lot today, both needs catching sharks.

 

Because older scientist have been experienced shark catching, we learned a lot of tricks to make it easier for the sharks. I.e. circled barbless hooks, which species are the less resistants, how to handle a juvenile without hurting him, why you should not drag a heavy shark by the tail on a beach, etc....

 

All this techniques allows, if you follow the rules, to make it less stressfull for the sharks. At least for the "easy" species, you can catch and sample /tag individuals quickly enought to make sure there is no dammage, that he go back in the water just fine, and that he'll be here on his routine the next day.

 

So, I guess the original message was :

 

does Ocearch follow these rules, or do they unecesarly (i.e. for TV / to be cool or whatever) hurt sharks ?

 

rather than "is sharks science a good thing?".

 

Catching a shark can be stressfull for him, but if you do it right he'll be just fine. The only problem is, how "right" do you do it.

Edited by Autopsea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Autopsea, to further your point, one must not forget that accidents happen, that includes landing sharks for research.

 

Wahlaoeh, that lime was meant to be a private joke between Daniel and myself, but could be misconstrued by others, hence I took it out. It was not directed at you at all..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(BTW, if I remember correctly, the Quensland alone is killing on purpose over 600 tiger sharks a year just so there is less chance that an accident happen.

A illegal fishing vessel with 4 tons of sharks have been taken in new caledonia less than a month ago, and it's not the first time it happens.

and there is more example like that all around. I understand it's important to watch that no organisation is doing bad things, but these hundreeds of deaths should be more in our focus)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say,Daniel, this is the first time someone has posted Jenny McCarthy in the WP forums that I haven't had to edit out! LOL However, to correct you, it's "mommy instinct" not intuition. :)

 

Ah, yes! How could I have been so stupid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

Do you have any information on who does the peer-reviewing in a book like that? Are the articles reviewed by other authors in the book, or by unrelated third-parties? What I see is an editor publishing his own papers (along with papers written by others), but I cannot find any record of those papers being peer-reviewed or published in any respected scientific journals (such as Science, Nature, PLOS, Copeia, etc.). As a biologist, if I were to go to my advisor with this book as a reference she would disregard it.

 

 

 

Michael Domeier's recent paper, with data garnered from the TV program, is from the Guadalupe population.

 

That link references a paper published in a journal called Animal Biotelemetry. I can find no record of this journal in my university's database of scientific journals. I have an inquiry in to our science librarian to check on its legitimacy, but the school is closed this week for Thanksgiving holiday so I may not hear back until next week.

 

 

 

The original poster also questions the validity of OCEARCH using SPOT tags. This study settles the issue. As long as it's not longer than 24 months, the tags tend not to do much permanent damage at all.

 

Regarding that study, it does say "These observations suggest that SPOT tags designed to rust and fall out within 12 months are unlikely to cause permanent damage to the structure of the shark's fin as long as they detach within that time." However, it also says "Damage to the fins structure was evident from the observation after 24 months. ... This result suggests that white sharks yet to obtain full size - particularly while sub-adult and growing fast are unable to sustain SPOT tags in place much longer than 12 months without such damage occurring. ... We therefore conclude that based on the tags deployed in South Africa in 2003–2004, SPOT tags did not cause long term damage to the sharks when detached within 12–24 months, but they had the ability to cause permanent structural damage to the dorsal fin when left in place for longer periods." If Ocearch is indeed using tags that stay in place longer than 12-24 months then evidence points to their SPOT tags have "the ability to cause permanent structural damage to the dorsal fin."

 

 

I see the crux of the matter as two-fold: Is Ocearch participating in valid scientific work, and, are their methods considered cruel or harmful to the animal? If they are using long-term (>12-24 months) SPOT tags then yes, according to the Jewell, et al, study their methods can be considered harmful. Are they considered cruel? That's difficult to say. Having a hole drilled through its (cartilaginous) skeleton most likely causes the animal pain, but to what degree?

 

What can we do about it? Since Ocearch says they "follow the standards of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC.org) of each institution" I called U.C. Davis and spoke to their IACUC administrator to get some information about how an IACUC works with a third-party tagger such as Ocearch. (Drs. Klimley, Padilla, and Hearn from UCD are listed on the Ocearch website as "collaborating scientists".) He said they currently have no open protocols calling for the use of Ocearch data as the studies are now complete. In this case they did have a protocol for the tagging work that was being done because UCD researchers were there on the boat participating in the tagging. But they don't always have protocols--it depends on the work being done, the level of researcher participation, and the type of funding. He specifically mentioned that if a researcher was going to use Ocearch data that had already been collected (Ocearch maintains all of their tagging data is available for all to use) then the IACUC is not at all involved with the project. This means that the FAQ question/answer on Ocearch's website "Q- Does Ocearch decide how sharks are handled? A- The tagging, handling and sampling procedures employed during the expedition follow the standards of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC.org) of each institution" is just some clever wording. The truth is that, in at least some cases, they answer to no one.

 

-Gina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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."

 

LMAO!!!

 

That link references a paper published in a journal called Animal Biotelemetry. I can find no record of this journal in my university's database of scientific journals. I have an inquiry in to our science librarian to check on its legitimacy, but the school is closed this week for Thanksgiving holiday so I may not hear back until next week.

Animal Biotelemetry is in my university's database of Journals.

 

 

 

The truth is that, in at least some cases, they answer to no one.

 

They answer to no one or is it possible that they answer to someone other than th IACUC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I guess the original message was :

does Ocearch follow these rules, or do they unecesarly (i.e. for TV / to be cool or whatever) hurt sharks ?

rather than "is sharks science a good thing?".

Catching a shark can be stressfull for him, but if you do it right he'll be just fine. The only problem is, how "right" do you do it.

(BTW, if I remember correctly, the Quensland alone is killing on purpose over 600 tiger sharks a year just so there is less chance that an accident happen.

A illegal fishing vessel with 4 tons of sharks have been taken in new caledonia less than a month ago, and it's not the first time it happens.

and there is more example like that all around. I understand it's important to watch that no organisation is doing bad things, but these hundreeds of deaths should be more in our focus)

 

 

 

 

Autopsea: Thanks for the clarification on my original message. I’m also in agreement on your second point about the biggest thread to the sharks but that has been known for a long time and many people are already focusing on these issues. I’m also very concern about these issues and have been actively petitioning against such practices.

 

The reason why I have started this thread is to discuss Ocearch and their tagging methods, not so much for the data but more about ethicalness; to which I have already explained on my 2nd post:

I also have my own doubts on Ocearch's work and value. For the record, I'm just an avid diver who care and love sharks so have not read any scientific c papers on their work. I've recently just got back from a great white shark expedition and have learned about their unethical tagging methods causing damage to the sharks and so that has started my interest in this subject.

 

 

 

Some not so invasive methods that I have found online: MCSI develops new methods for tagging adult white sharks - http://www.marinecsi.org/

And this video which absolutely ROCKS, IMO -

 

What I have learned so far (a month), hopefully I will not be spending one whole year, is that there are definitely newer, less invasive and more humane methods. The question remains as to why is Ocearch still using such outdated methods. Also, I believe that Ocearch operation is not new. It has been going on for a long time and I’m amazed that so far, anything invaluable from their data has yet to be seen. We can always sit around and hope that the value of the data Ocearch’s work yields outweighs the negative consequences or learn more so as to raise awareness to others on the unnecessary harm towards the sharks.

 

Having said all that, hope those who share private joke and comments not pertaining to this topic can take them somewhere else so that other members who are interested can focus on further discussion. Appreciate that!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some not so invasive methods that I have found online: MCSI develops new methods for tagging adult white sharks - http://www.marinecsi.org/

 

Oh my!!!

 

Wahlaoeh, I commend your passion, but you really need to start reading the papers. You just linked to Michael L Domeier's work. "New publication reveals the 2-year migration for adult female white sharks in the Northeastern Pacific" is the paper that Drew linked and is the same paper that your friend Mr Thomas dismissed as being "Premature". However, it does leave me a little confused about Ocearch's contribution in the collection of the data for that paper.

 

Mike

Edited by BottomTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my!!!

 

Wahlaoeh, I commend your passion, but you really need to start reading the papers. You just linked to Michael L Domeier's work. "New publication reveals the 2-year migration for adult female white sharks in the Northeastern Pacific" is the paper that Drew linked and is the same paper that your friend Mr Thomas dismissed as being "Premature". However, it does leave me a little confused about Ocearch's contribution in the collection of the data for that paper.

 

Mike

 

 

 

Mike: You're so quick to jump in! I'm only referring to this: MCSI develops new methods for tagging adult white sharks. Yes, MCSI is still using SPOT tags (which I don’t think is necessary) but I commend him for NOT landing sharks using haul-hooking methods. See the difference. ;)

 

http://www.marinecsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/DSC1684b.jpg

 

Scientists at MCSI have been working to improve methods for SPOT tagging adult great white sharks. New methods developed, tested and implemented by MCSI involve a device to prevent gut hooking, soft fishing gear to prevent skin abrasions and constant forward movement to fully irrigate the gills. Sharks tagged in this manner, including the largest white shark to ever be SPOT tagged, were far more vigorous upon release than our previous method that lifted the sharks from the water. We strive to constantly improve our methods to do what is best for the sharks and the scientific community.

 

ps: I do read papers but not research papers but I think I read somewhere that Dr. Michael Domeier and Chris Fischer are no longer working together. Maybe that's just a rumour.

 

Edited by wahlaoeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree. I'd much rather see this kind of SPOT tagging going on that the large production that I have seen from Ocearch. But, I am a little confused as to whether or not this was the technique used for Mr Domeier's work in Guadalupe or if his work being presented on their web site is a sign that Mr Domeier

is distancing himself from Ocearch. Maybe I'm reading too much into this though.

 

PS. I just realized that my comment to Daniel's comment may have come across as a barb directed at you. That was not my intention and there was no inside joke that I know. I was only laughing at a sharp, witty and intelligent statement that I hope I will on day be able to use with the 50year old childern that I manage at work. I appologize if it offended.

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree. I'd much rather see this kind of SPOT tagging going on that the large production that I have seen from Ocearch. But, I am a little confused as to whether or not this was the technique used for Mr Domeier's work in Guadalupe or if his work being presented on their web site is a sign that Mr Domeier

is distancing himself from Ocearch. Maybe I'm reading too much into this though.

 

PS. I just realized that my comment to Daniel's comment may have come across as a barb directed at you. That was not my intention and there was no inside joke that I know. I was only laughing at a sharp, witty and intelligent statement that I hope I will on day be able to use with the 50year old childern that I manage at work. I appologize if it offended.

 

Mike

 

 

 

Mike: I'm not sure about that but at least Dr D is distancing himself away from Ocearch, which is good IMO.

 

It's all cool!! I saw the private joke comment (before it was deleted) that Drew posted yesterday so I'm :mellow: for a Mod to post that.

Edited by wahlaoeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They answer to no one or is it possible that they answer to someone other than th IACUC?

 

According to Ocearch's own website they only mention the IACUCs of the institutions they are associated with. So, if an IACUC is not involved then no, they mention no one else overseeing them.

 

If they were actively working in conjunction with an American institution (I don't know how rules work outside the U.S.) and anyone had a complaint with how the research was being done then you could file a formal complaint with that institute's IACUC--that's one of the reasons they exist. But if the project is complete (so far as that institution's involvement is concerned) then you can only complain to Ocearch themselves. Since the white shark is only currently listed as Vulnerable with the IUCN there are no international regulations governing their use/abuse. If they ever get listed as Endangered, or better, if they get listed on an appropriate CITES appendix, then there may be regulations prohibiting catching the animals.

 

What I suggest is finding out if there are any researchers who are currently working with Ocearch and have open protocols. If so, then you can contact their IACUCs and talk with someone there about the procedures being used, and file a complaint if necessary.

 

-Gina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel: I'll leave the research papers to Gina. ;) but here's an article a little piece of tabloid news on World renowned shark researcher Pete Klimley:

http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2011/05/controversial-shark-researcher-wants-4-year-permit.html

 

Quote:

Klimley tells me the first thing he worked on with the producers was an animal care protocol, an in-depth consideration of the health of the sharks, how the research would affect them, and techniques to minimize harm. Klimley say Domeier did not have an animal care protocol in place when he came to the Farallon Islands in November 2009, and gut-hooked Junior. The Great White was spotted late last year in terrible condition. Several researchers I spoke with say Domeier’s invasive techniques – most of all, leaving most of a 13-inch hook in Junior’s throat, made it weak and susceptible to attack by other sharks.

 

Klimley says he demanded the production crew build a sling to hoist the sharks and a live well on the ship, in which to place them. Klimley will not work with Great Whites in these expeditions – he says their enormous size is a challenge. He’s working with smaller Tiger and Hammerhead Sharks.

 

Edited by wahlaoeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes well, I prefer to liken it to Michelle Bachman, in that bad information was made worse by being given legs for reasons other than reason! At least Jenny is happy to be in ignorant bliss and even signed a book deal now. )

 

Ah, yes! How could I have been so stupid?

 

Gina

Further to Daniels infor, Mike's book has been used in other research papers as a reference including Kevin Weng etc. So I doubt your advisor will disregard it. There's plenty of good data and research in the book. As for dorsal fin damage, there is evidence that SPOT/PET tags damage fins. How serious this damage affects a shark needs further analysis as well. Point is there is real data to support damage caused, which goes a long way more. Then again, all this is for nought since Michael has stopped using SPOT tags since in 2011 (EDIT:) after the difficulties of the initial methodlology on Sharkmen. :)

As a biologist, if I were to go to my advisor with this book as a reference she would disregard it.

 

Mike, the data for those books were gathered on the Sharkmen series. Like most things pioneering, landing a GWS was a work in progress back then and the methodology has improved over time. Michael's ( and other scientists) techniques had to be honed.

 

However, it does leave me a little confused about Ocearch's contribution in the collection of the data for that paper.

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then again, all this is for nought since Michael has stopped using SPOT tags since 2011. :)

 

Drew, why do my spidee senses tell me that you know a lot more than your telling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, to be really precise, my question should be: Is the OUTDATED and INVASIVE methods used by Chris Fischer and the current Ocearch team really neccessary for the Great White Shark research?

 

Yes, I agree. I'd much rather see this kind of SPOT tagging going on that the large production that I have seen from Ocearch. But, I am a little confused as to whether or not this was the technique used for Mr Domeier's work in Guadalupe or if his work being presented on their web site is a sign that Mr Domeier

is distancing himself from Ocearch. Maybe I'm reading too much into this though.

 

 

 

http://fijisharkdiving.blogspot.sg/2013/04/fischer-reality-check-comments-by-dr.html

 

Mike: not sure if you have read this. Very interesting! But be warned that it's just another piece of tabloid. ;)

 

ps: I just re-read this cos it humour me too much on a dull work day and I really like this bit: No, I don’t give the data to Fischer…why should I…it’s my data? LOL!!! Make me wonder will Ocearch or CF ever be publishing some invaluable data, ever ..

Edited by wahlaoeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much, Mike. I believe it's public information that is easily found if anyone cared to look for it. That new adage that people using internet searches only look for content that supports their thoughts rather than actual facts is unfortunately quite true. The uproar on the GWS "Junior" back in 2011 was quite interesting. Unfortunately, in science, it's evolutionary in process refinement.

And no, having a spider man costume or wetsuit doesn't give one spidey sense! :)

Drew, why do my spidee senses tell me that you know a lot more than your telling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then again, all this is for nought since Michael has stopped using SPOT tags since 2011. :)

 

I believe it's public information that is easily found if anyone cared to look for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drew: Where did you find the information that Dr. Domeier has stopped using SPOT tag? The information that I found from his website say that he is using less invasive method but still SPOT tagged. Maybe that website is not up to date. Pray share.

 

I have read somewhere that some scientists, can't rememebr now if that includes Dr. Domeier are trying to use single bolt instead of the standard 4 bolts.

 

"Scientists at MCSI have been working to improve methods for SPOT tagging adult great white sharks. New methods developed, tested and implemented by MCSI involve a device to prevent gut hooking, soft fishing gear to prevent skin abrasions and constant forward movement to fully irrigate the gills. Sharks tagged in this manner, including the largest white shark to ever be SPOT tagged, were far more vigorous upon release than our previous method that lifted the sharks from the water. We strive to constantly improve our methods to do what is best for the sharks and the scientific community."

 

ps: This does not concern Ocearch or CF now but I'm still interested.

Edited by wahlaoeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drew, why do my spidee senses tell me that you know a lot more than your telling?

Mike et al, my apologies. I wasn't thorough and detailed enough in my statement, since it's been at least 2-3 years since the GWS controversy on Sharkmen. Domeier stopped using SPOT tags on GWS after the big backlash from Sharkmen, until he improved on the methodology. I guess he felt the improved methodology warranted the use of the SPOT tags again.

Thanks to a little dauphin for reminding me to recheck my sources instead of working off memory. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike et al, my apologies. I wasn't thorough and detailed enough in my statement, since it's been at least 2-3 years since the GWS controversy on Sharkmen. Domeier stopped using SPOT tags on GWS after the big backlash from Sharkmen, until he improved on the methodology. I guess he felt the improved methodology warranted the use of the SPOT tags again.

Thanks to a little dauphin for reminding me to recheck my sources instead of working off memory. :)

 

Drew: Thanks for taking your time to check and for the clarification. :) I'm glad to know that some of these scientists who have worked with Ocearch before are distancing from them and are evolving in new minimally invasive techniques.

 

ps1: I love dolphins too ;)

ps2: I also know that you are actively involved in shark finning etc. issues so lets all work together for the sharks who have no voice. :)

ps3: I wanna to like your last post but am not able to. :drink:

Edited by wahlaoeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...