Do you think Ocearch really love sharks?

[BottomTime 4]

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!

FS: one lightly use spider man suit. $1,000,000 OBO

 

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.

Phew, that was a close one!

 

http://unrealitymag.bcmediagroup.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/fat-spiderman3.jpg

Edited November 29, 2013 by BottomTime

[BottomTime 4]

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.

ahhh yes. Nothing quite like watching the monkeys throw poo at each other

[Autopsea 7]

I realize how glad I am that I'm mostly working with small robust sharks. Harder I've deal with so far are bull sharks that get tired pretty fast - you have to work really fast and make sure you release it is shallow waters in case he needs some help...

 

some tonic immobility before release makes a big difference, they seem to "forget" what just happened and go back very peacefully.

 

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2441/5856937157_1a5dcc4fd2_z.jpg

 

 

For the question about "do we need to catch GWS to tag them?", I guess it depend on several things including where you are (i.e. how clear is the water, can you approach GWS underwater without too much risk) which make it harder when you are elsewere than at Guadalupe...

 

I think I remember there is great job being done in south Australia / New Zealand with some really cool large boat designed for GWS which allow fast and easy catch and release.

[wahlaoeh 2]

I realize how glad I am that I'm mostly working with small robust sharks. Harder I've deal with so far are bull sharks that get tired pretty fast - you have to work really fast and make sure you release it is shallow waters in case he needs some help...

 

some tonic immobility before release makes a big difference, they seem to "forget" what just happened and go back very peacefully.

 

 

Autopsea: Thanks for sharing. I have seen many videos of the smaller shark species (including the larger Tiger sharks) going into tonic immobility but they do recover quickly. I have posted this video previously from one of the episode of the Shark Wranglers which showed that this GWS went into tonic immobility but almost didn't make it. Unfortunately, the video can only be streamed from the US now. I think I remember seeing that this GWS was caught and lifted out of the water. http://sharetv.com/watch/451994

 

For the question about "do we need to catch GWS to tag them?", I guess it depend on several things including where you are (i.e. how clear is the water, can you approach GWS underwater without too much risk) which make it harder when you are elsewere than at Guadalupe...

 

I think I remember there is great job being done in south Australia / New Zealand with some really cool large boat designed for GWS which allow fast and easy catch and release.

 

 

 

I was talking to someone from Perth on another forum and this is the website that he suggested for me to read about Australia tagged sharks. Till date, they have tagged more than 300 sharks and about 200 of these are the GWS.

http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Education-and-Partnerships/Shark-Hazard/Shark%20research/Pages/Extension-of-the-shark-monitoring-network.aspx

 

The type of tags being used are called acoustic transmitters which emit a unique signal that can be recognised by another piece of equipment called an acoustic receiver.

 

A video showing how these tags are being placed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aROU-tpoZUQ

 

Looks like this shark was in tonic immobility but without having it being lifted out of the water. What do you think?

 

ps: I'm still learning and my friend has just sent me a link to his "SMALL" collection to read up so if there is any mistake (or not up to date information) in my posts, pls pardon and correct me.

Edited November 29, 2013 by wahlaoeh

[Autopsea 7]

Acoustic tagging is not the same tool. It's very different and should be complementary when it can be used at all. The reason is that you need recievers to "record" the shark. The range is generally ~200m. You will have 0 information about where is the sharks when he is away from of the those recievers, which make it poorly informative in the case of pelagic/semi-pelagic sharks.

 

It is a great tool for resident sharks however, because it will give you information about the daily routines of sharks. But of no use to learn about long migrations, deep sea uses, etc...

 

edit : hope it don't go controversial but we did a quick recording in 2011 on a grey reef sharks - very easy sharks as they are very robusts.

This is internal accoustic tagging. One could say very invasive but we have over 12 months cool data about their roaming around healthy : )

notice how thick the skin is on females. (and the divers under us at the beginning - if I remember well it was Bill Gates. We had James Cameron the next week ^^)

 

Edited November 29, 2013 by Autopsea

[gina 9]

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

 

Drat, then wearing this suit did me no good?

 

[gina 9]

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.

 

What made me wonder about Animal Biotelemetry is not only that it didn't show up in my university's library database (which is why I put in an inquiry to the science librarian), but also the fact that they are a pay-to-publish journal. With some exceptions, authors have to pay a fee in order to be published. This put up a red flag for me--do they publish everyone who pays the fee? (Does this happen with any of the known and respected journals?) I didn't see anything that addressed this particular facet, and if it's not the case, it would be nice to see something that specifically says that does not happen. I understand that circumstantial evidence does not imply guilt, but again, I want to address the red flag.

 

And speaking of red flags, that's really what the whole Ocearch thing is about. When I heard about an organization of non-scientist fishermen who were catching sharks, invasively placing tags on them, and basing a television show around this, that didn't sound good. So I decided to look into it and found the scientific articles they cited were not actual peer-reviewed articles from legitimate journals, their not-exactly-true claims of answering to IACUCs, etc. Again, while I cannot find any concrete evidence that Ocearch is "bad" or lying or whatever you want to call it, those red flags are waving around like crazy. Personally, I do not trust Ocearch and I do wish there was a way they could be stopped.

 

 

 

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.

 

I did read it, and it's pretty much just a general book review. They say these papers came from an international white shark symposium in Honolulu in 2010, but there is no information on any peer-review that may have happened.

 

 

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.

 

An article is only as good as its science, and sometimes even good science goes out of date as new information comes around. But unfortunately, there is at least some bad science out there (not necessarily to deceive, although I'm sure that happens, but done using bad methods) and peer-reviewed journals are one sort of protection against that sort of thing. When you have a panel of scientists critiquing the work of others it helps eliminate some of the bad studies. Which is why I (and many/most scientists) are such sticklers for legitimate peer-review. I (and many/most scientists)

am willing to change my mind in light of quality evidence to the contrary.

 

-Gina

[BottomTime 4]

 

What made me wonder about Animal Biotelemetry is not only that it didn't show up in my university's library database (which is why I put in an inquiry to the science librarian), but also the fact that they are a pay-to-publish journal. With some exceptions, authors have to pay a fee in order to be published. This put up a red flag for me--do they publish everyone who pays the fee? (Does this happen with any of the known and respected journals?) I didn't see anything that addressed this particular facet, and if it's not the case, it would be nice to see something that specifically says that does not happen. I understand that circumstantial evidence does not imply guilt, but again, I want to address the red flag.

I have been out of academia for a long time now but my memory was that most of the journals were "pay to publish" and the more prestigious the Journal, the more it was going to cost you to publish.

Edited November 29, 2013 by BottomTime

[wahlaoeh 2]

Acoustic tagging is not the same tool. It's very different and should be complementary when it can be used at all. The reason is that you need recievers to "record" the shark. The range is generally ~200m. You will have 0 information about where is the sharks when he is away from of the those recievers, which make it poorly informative in the case of pelagic/semi-pelagic sharks.

 

It is a great tool for resident sharks however, because it will give you information about the daily routines of sharks. But of no use to learn about long migrations, deep sea uses, etc...

 

 

Autopsea: Thanks but I'm aware of that. The reason why I mentioned WA is because of the recent shark attack fatality and Ocearch (CF) is AGAIN mongering FEAR to the public by pressuring the WA government with a deadline to take up his offer. How convenient!!! IMHO, it's DESPERATE!!!!

 

State government given seven weeks to take up shark offer

 

http://m.watoday.com.au/wa-news/state-government-given-seven-weeks-to-take-up-shark-offer-20131122-2y16o.html

 

 

Onto the acoustic tags: When shark attack like that happened, people are relying on fishermen and jumping into conclusions that there is an increase in GWS in WA in the recent years. Of course it's just an increase in sharks and not human invasion!!! I think what WA fisheries is trying to find out is: will the same GWS be "loitering" around or is there indeed a congregation of GWS in their region. Hopefully, with these data, they are able to convince otherwise as the GWS are highly migratory and travel vast distances in a short period of time. So, trying to catch the "culprit" shark is a never a clever solution or worst culling them. But, with FEAR, will these people listen to Science?

Edited November 30, 2013 by wahlaoeh

[BottomTime 4]

 

What made me wonder about Animal Biotelemetry is not only that it didn't show up in my university's library database (which is why I put in an inquiry to the science librarian), but also the fact that they are a pay-to-publish journal. With some exceptions, authors have to pay a fee in order to be published. This put up a red flag for me--do they publish everyone who pays the fee? (Does this happen with any of the known and respected journals?) I didn't see anything that addressed this particular facet, and if it's not the case, it would be nice to see something that specifically says that does not happen. I understand that circumstantial evidence does not imply guilt, but again, I want to address the red flag.

This is a good read - Open access: The true cost of science publishing

The author mentioned the rejection rate for a couple of different journals in the body of the article. I dont know if most of the journals advertise their acceptance/rejection rate, but I would love it if they did.

 

However, for me, it doesnt really matter. At the end, I think it is the responsibility of the reader to critically evaluate any material they read. Just because its published doesnt mean it is right. I read Dr. Domeier most recent paper and I would say that there are some holes. But my criticisms revolve around the statistically insignificant dataset of 4 individuals and would argue that he needs more data to support his theory. This means more tagging. I would also argue that it means SPOT tags as positional quality from PAT tags is inadequate and the tags dont stay put long enough.

 

However, the kind of data that Dr. Domeier needs also raises concerns around the potential damage the methods may inflict on the shark. I read the paper in PLOS ONE and agree with Drew. There is real evidence that suggests damage is being done if tags stay in place long term. Fortunately/unfortunately we are generating a lot more new data on this subject. I only hope that someone is collecting this data and that it will be presented in a SCIENTIFIC fashion. Indeed, Dr Domeier now has 3 new subjects (F6, F77 & F100) from his study that have carried SPOT tags for 2 years (F98 is presumed dead).

 

 

And speaking of red flags, that's really what the whole Ocearch thing is about. When I heard about an organization of non-scientist fishermen who were catching sharks, invasively placing tags on them, and basing a television show around this, that didn't sound good. So I decided to look into it and found the scientific articles they cited were not actual peer-reviewed articles from legitimate journals, their not-exactly-true claims of answering to IACUCs, etc. Again, while I cannot find any concrete evidence that Ocearch is "bad" or lying or whatever you want to call it, those red flags are waving around like crazy. Personally, I do not trust Ocearch and I do wish there was a way they could be stopped.

I agree with everything you said but I disagree if your conclusion is that they should be stopped. My mistrust isnt evidence and not liking them isnt a reason to shut them down. Because CF has such an affinity for the limelight, there are a lot of people watching and every slip, real or perceived, is going to be caught. So, if you can not find evidence to prove a theory (That Ocearch is all/mostly bad), at what point do you accept that the theory might not be correct?

 

I would love to see Ocearch change their ways. To my eye, the outward appearances of the methods that Dr. Domeier outlines on his website are more appealing. But this is a personal bias of mine as Ive always aspired to the alpinist philosophy of light, lean, fast and efficient. Ive never been a fan of the brute force; mass over might philosophy (even the words I use illustrate my bias). But, there is no evidence at this point to suggest that it is in fact better. I could also argue that Dr Domeier doesnt have full control of that shark (in the picture on his website), which puts him, his staff and that shark at risk. Until we have data, we only have philosophies, feelings and theories. Im a data guy.

 

Mike

 

PS. Spider woman suit underwater... you win.

Edited November 30, 2013 by BottomTime

[wahlaoeh 2]

Mike: The font size on your last post is so small that I have to put on Costa sunglasses to read.

 

Mike

PS. Spider woman suit underwater... you win.

 

I absolutely agree with you on this one.

Edited December 1, 2013 by wahlaoeh

[gina 9]

This is a good read - Open access: The true cost of science publishing

The author mentioned the rejection rate for a couple of different journals in the body of the article. I dont know if most of the journals advertise their acceptance/rejection rate, but I would love it if they did.

 

Thanks for posting this. I've never submitted an article for publication so I had no idea this was a growing sector of the industry. (And yeah, it would be nice to have more articles available for free to the general public, but that's a whole other topic.)

 

 

PS. Spider woman suit underwater... you win.

 

Thanks I've also been Santa for Christmas, complete with beard over my full-face mask.

 

-Gina

[wahlaoeh 2]

I would love to see Ocearch change their ways.

 

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

 

 

Am glad to see this news:

 

WA Fisheries will let West Australians track sharks in real-time without O$$earch

 

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/wa-fisheries-will-let-west-australians-track-sharks-in-realtime/story-fnhocxo3-1226772041752

 

Quote:

WA Fisheries research executive director Rick Fletcher said the website, which is understood to have been in the pipeline for some time, would be ready soon but would not give a definite date.

 

He said the real-time detections will come from the satellite receivers along our coast which already alerts Surf Lifesaving WA and beach authorities when a tagged shark passes by.

 

"Our research program is focused on investigating the longer term movement and behavioural patterns."

 

Fisheries Minister Troy Buswell yesterday told The Sunday Times he had rejected OCEARCH's offer to use its vessel saying the group's proposal did not add to WA's own "robust" program.

 

He said WA's Shark Monitoring Network had already tagged more sharks than OCEARCH and did not require the use of a specialised boat.

 

"Naturally no system can tell you where untagged sharks are. Our job continues to be to provide the most robust information we can, to replace belief and speculation with scientifically defensible information and advice.

 

ps: Am excited to see these new information

Edited December 1, 2013 by wahlaoeh

[danielandrewclem 3]

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.

[wahlaoeh 2]

 

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

Daniel: Thanks for saying that out loud for me. This is just a sad situation about need and greed involving Bad Science, IMHO. Bluntly put, the vultures of greed!!!

 

ps: i can only hope.

Edited December 2, 2013 by wahlaoeh

[wahlaoeh 2]

Sharing some news on WA fisheries tagged sharks: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/how-great-whites-trawl-our-coastlines-for-7000km/story-fnhocxo3-1226772406903

[danielandrewclem 3]

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?

[Drew 0]

More interesting is that they think there is no pattern. I mean SOFA sorta proves the pacific sharks go to an area, albeit a huge area. The other way to think about it is that they haven't got a big enough sample section to see a pattern. "Mommy instinct" can only go so far in discovering patterns.

[wahlaoeh 2]

“There’s no frickin’ pattern at all,” $komal said.

 

Shhh!!! Don't tell CF that as it might burst his 400 million year old puzzle bubble .. LOL!!!

 

 

[BottomTime 4]

More interesting is that they think there is no pattern. I mean SOFA sorta proves the pacific sharks go to an area, albeit a huge area. The other way to think about it is that they haven't got a big enough sample section to see a pattern. "Mommy instinct" can only go so far in discovering patterns.

 

What are you saying? Are you suggesting that a sample size of 2 is insufficient? BLASPHEMY!!!! Though I do admit, "Mommy Instincts" are a powerful force to be reckoned with, every good psuedoscientist knows that all you need is one piece of inferential evidence and a bag of magic chicken bones or a good Ouija board to crack the code.