Ocearch - important Discovery?

Source.

Well well.

Read this.

Yes Fischer is at it again - and the rabid anti-Ocearch gang is frothing.

Obviously, all that noise by Fischer is nothing more than his usual breathy BS. If you remember this post, the nurseries have been known for years and in fact, that link [24] leads straight to this paper from 1985!

In brief, this is the most important significant discovery my ass!

This is either totally egregious or at best, totally ignorant - the sad part being that by now, I'm not even anymore surprised!

And then there are those tags, see at top.

This is important research, meaning that I can certainly live with inconveniencing a few juvenile GWS in order to learn more about their movements within the nursery and when they later disperse; but nowadays, modern fin-mounted SPOT tags for small Sharks feature single bolts, meaning that those 4-bolt tags are hopelessly outdated and will likely lead to the same injuries as recorded here, especially in those fast-growing juveniles. From countless observations, it is equally most likely that the Sharks will survive and the fins will heal - but it's unnecessarily invasive and really not good.

Oh well, so much for that.

Several of my researcher pals tell me that Fischer has evolved and become more palatable - but as long as he continues to sabotage himself, his sponsors and the science of the associated researchers, I remain highly unimpressed.

And Alisa “Harley” Newton?

I learn that she's WCS' Senior Veterinary Pathologist for WCS Zoological Health Program, or the like, and that she is joining Ocearch with a whole gaggle of other WCS folks.

Interesting.

So far, WCS' involvement in Shark research and Shark conservation has been patchy at best - but now that they've jumped on the bandwagon and managed to secure their share of muchos shekels by a group of very wealthy donors, they are busy hiring (and you'd be surprised at who is applying!) and obviously eager to be seen doing something. Not a good start as they're now associated with this utter PR fiasco = due diligence anybody?

Anyway.

Be it as it may, this remains an important undertaking, and I very much look forward to reading about the findings.

To be continued no doubt!

Fischer - the next Cousteau or a Corporate-sponsored Hype Machine?

Well done Abe Streep!

But first.

Read this piece of self promoting crap and compare it to what Michael posted back then.

• Did the Sharks choose him - or did Michael have to convince him to even consider Sharks? 
• Is he the first person to ever tag and track fully grown Great White sharks - of have others tagged them with PAT and spaghetti tags decades before? 
• Do hundreds of millions of Sharks get killed every year? 
• Do Great Whites need a plan of action for their conservation - or are they already very well protected, with many populations rebounding = meaning that at this stage, the real urgent challenge is finding ways of coexisting peacefully with those increasing populations?
• Did Fischer sell his house, put his belongings in storage, buy a boat, put together a team and set out to capture and tag sharks - or did he already have a boat, was a Billfish angler and was on the verge of losing his boat? 
• If anything is possible when you do not care who gets the credit - why is it that he continues to take credit for everything, with none going to the researchers?
• this after a cursory read -  I'm quite sure that if you bother to search, you'll find plenty more breathy BS!

See why I just can't get myself to respect the dude?

It's exactly like Michael said.

Perhaps lessons have been learned. 
But in my heart I know Fischer’s ride is about recognition…not about sharks. He didn’t know a clasper from a cloaca before I met him. I hope he does great things for the world…I hope he becomes more self-aware and learns to let his actions speak rather than his words.

And now, read this piece by Abe.

This is true journalism, not the usual crap posted by writers that owe the man a favor or that parrot his bullshit without ever engaging in even the slightest bit of due diligence. It paints a remarkably balanced picture of the man and his org, of his achievements and of the controversy surrounding what he does.  I'm of course with RickMac - yes there is science, but all that relentless showbiz is drowning it in an ocean of self-promoting BS. Meaningful real Shark conservation, not so much. And no, the science is not groundbreaking, the system is definitely not broken and Fischer is not the last great hope for Sharks!

Anyway, well worth reading!

What however does dismay me are many in the research community.

I'm seeing a lot of rather pathetic public fawning and praise of Fischer as long as he is, or could in the future be footing the bill and give away gratis tags and boat time - but I see none of that once the expeditions are over. On the contrary, all I get to hear are underhanded whispers of him being a self-important jerk!

So what is that: zero principles = total hypocrisy, as in pecunia non olet?

Me, I continue to try and be open about this.

I'm certainly never gonna side with the wailing anti-OCEARCH hyenas - but at the same time, whilst acknowledging that he is facilitating sometimes important research, I continue to dislike the person, question the antiquated unnecessary hauling out of the Sharks and profoundly dislike his MO where he continues to want to barge in on other peoples' territory, and on that of fellow Shark diving operators.

Case in point, Australia's GWS.

Once again, the WA government has told him to fuck off - and yet he continues to use the media to publicly apply pressure citing public safety concerns. But a pal in the know assures me that it aint gonna happen - thankfully!

And I cite.

The big question the public has is why the hell would the gov't say "no" to such an incredible research opportunity? 
But here's your answer: white shark research transcends science and bleeds into politics and public policy. In other words, white sharks are a hot, sensitive issue.

The involvement of OCEARCH comes with a loss of control of not only the data, but also the message.
Fischer has a very poor track record when it comes to publicly discussing/speculating the results of the work he has sponsored, and this very much to the embarrassment of the researchers. How many times have we heard him say that Shark X is going into the med to pup, or mate...or get its teeth cleaned??
There is no way that government will relinquish control over the narrative to an outsider - and at the same time, there's no way Fischer will ever keep his big mouth shut.

The white shark researchers in Australia are actually well funded right now and they already have the capacity to tag even the largest white sharks...without lifting them from the water. 
So it's a no brainer: they need to keep doing what they know how to do and keep control of the data and message!

Indeed - very astute!

And on the flip side, like I already said, there is a real risk that those idiots may abuse those publicly available tracks to go and kill the very Sharks they should be protecting! 

Same-same for New Zealand BTW.

Like in Australia, the nurseries are well known, and the researchers have SPOT tagged those GWS for years now - but there, too, conflict is rife and adding Fischer's mouth to that explosive mix could have devastating consequences.

Long story short?

No he ain't a Cousteau and never will be! 

Yes to the hype machine - but maybe, just maybe he'll finally learn that it is up to others to judge, and maybe praise him; to stop embarrassing the researchers he works with by refraining from talking about the science; and generally, to shine through his deeds and not through his unremitting self promoting loquacity.

And if so, he's really got a chance to earn the recognition he is so obviously craving for.

We shall see shall we not!

Fischer in Australia!

Tagging Tigers in WA - good idea? Source.

Oh yes he's there.

And of course he's already giving the usual breathy interviews.

This is officially being sold as Tiger Shark research - first on the East Coast then in Northern WA. But of course, before even having touched the first Shark, Fischer is already, once again, mentioning beach safety, and making oblique references to GWS.

Because.

Some conservationists and advocacy groups blame the lack of progress on global collaboration. "Northern California, Australia, New Zealand - you have a couple of kingpins reigning over their kingdoms and they don't want anyone to come in because they might not be the king or queen anymore," said Chris Fischer of Ocearch. "They're not really into collaboration, they're not really into ocean or shark first. They're into being the man, or being the woman. So we have to disrupt this...the ocean needs our help now."

As he bloviates in this stupidity.

Right.

It's same old same old.

Fischer the next -and of course bigger and better- Cousteau, the great conservationist, tagging pioneer and protector of public safety - and of course, pinnacle of self effacing modesty, who merely does everything he does for the Sharks!

Barf.

Which of course begs the question,

Which safeguards are there in place so that the stupid government of WA will not be using the data from those newly tagged WA Tigers (and god forbid, GWS!) to go and kill them once they start lurking (yes apparently, that's what Sharks do!) off some beach?

And he's also set his eyes on New Zealand, apparently for this November - undoubtedly much to the benefit of stirring up defusing the delicate situation in Steward Island, see here, here and here!

And yes I'm being sarcastic!

To be continued!

Keeping British Waters for the British!

Lydia track. Source.

Bingo.

Lydia has taken a turn away from the UK.

Looks like for once, UKIP's ever controversial immigration spokesman Mr. Batten will have it his way and keep the infamous Cornish coast entirely uncontaminated by unwanted illegal immigrants - and undoubtedly, much safer for it!

Sorry Richard (and David!).

They may be nomadic - but philopatry rules! :) 

Story here!

Australian GWS - extremely well documented!

The shenanigans continue - as expected!

No WA did not miss out on anything!

If you read past the pro-OCEARCH propaganda and Fischer's pathetic demagoguery, you will discover that the Ozzie GWS researchers have been extremely active - and I may add that this has been going on for years (read it!) and not only since the strikes in WA. As a result, the coastal phase (including the nurseries and early life stages) of the life history of those Sharks is extremely well documented - and considering that that is precisely where their trajectories intersect with those of the aquatic recreationists,  Fischer's assertions sound particularly hollow. 

More details here, and I know of trials to link those arrays to the other early warning systems and thus e.g. complement the helicopter patrols.

Think the WA authorities are really as moronic as depicted? Check this out and think again!

The oceanic phase however warrants more investigation.

Ever since Bonfil documented Nicole's epic trip, we know that there is connectivity between WA and South Africa. As far as I know, the purpose of those voyages remains unknown - but that cannot be addressed by telemetry alone and will require additional evidence collection, very much like what has been pioneered by Domeier in the NE Pacific.

Think the Ozzie scientists are too stupid to do that if they wanted to?

Long story short?

OCEARCH - Clarification!

Source.

There appears to be a misunderstanding here.

The last two posts about Fischer have literally exploded.

They are being read by the concerned parties and by many Shark enthusiasts, which is great.

Alas they are also being read by those other folks.

So there.

We are in no way a party to, nor do we in the slightest endorse the current anti-OCEARCH campaign. 

It is being driven by the usual cabal of self indulgent Californian and South African bloviators, cheats, charlatans and screechy fanatics, and it is based on nothing more than a collection of factoids, innuendos, half truths and defamatory lies that are being cunningly woven together into yet another perfidious and equally demented anti-science conspiracy theory for which I have nothing but contempt.

Needless to say that we don't endorse OCEARCH, either.

Remember Loose Change? 

Same MO - fodder for retards and pure poison.

So beware and do not engage!

Enough said.

And no, I will not let you post breathy comments and links.

You know who you are.

Fischer - going for broke!

The savior of Australia - or is he? Source.

Bingo - again!

Yup the dude is certainly crafty.

Whereas he was only hinting before, he's now said it: he's the only one that can make the beaches in Western Australia safe - and fuck the Aussie researchers that obviously don't know what they're doing, and the stupid Aussie governments that refuse to acknowledge him as their only pathway to salvation.

Breathy interview here.

Of course it's all bollocks.

That research was pioneering 1-2 years ago. 

But now, there are better alternatives: less invasive protocols, and excellent local and international researchers that have worked with those Sharks for years and can certainly do the very same job without having to contend with all that self promoting noise, that inflated ego, those omnipresent cameras and the incessant media circus.

There's no middle ground here.

Tell him to get lost - and warn your friends in New Zealand!

Fischer - Australia next?

Best pals, all smiles in Cape Cod - for now! Source.

Bingo.

And I cite.

You also have a history of secretly obtaining research permits without proper public consultation and awareness, and of then barging in on commercial GWS diving sites whilst disregarding the concerns of the local shark diving operators - and from what I hear, you are attempting to do the same right now in Australia. 

As a fellow Shark diving operator I cannot but disapprove of that MO. 
If you're so convinced of the validity of what you do, you should at least be willing to engage with all stakeholders, defend your POV and adapt your procedures in order to address any valid concerns.

And now - watch this.

Crafty crafty Mr. Fischer.

Playing to the fears of Shark attacks by claiming that he's there to make the beaches safer, and trying to use that to put pressure on the Ozzie federal and state governments by using the Australian media to harness public support. And playing the teary Shark savior card (oh how he suffers for the Sharks!) by suggesting that those GWS are about to go extinct, a fact that is not at all supported by the data - not in California, very likely not in Australia and especially not in Cape Cod!

Will the ploy work?

For now, neither the governments nor any reputable local researchers let alone the local Shark diving operators that ply their trade in the Neptunes want anything to do with him - and rightly so. By today's standards, the protocols are too invasive meaning that if so wanted, the same data can now be collected equally successfully but with far less stress on the animals and less damage to their fins - and without having to suffer through all that media circus and the bombastic self promotion, let alone the inevitable shit storm by the frothy anti-OCEARCH brigades!

But this is certainly not he last we will hear of it.

Fischer is an accomplished manipulator and not likely to give up anytime soon, the more as he disposes of some impressive assets and always manages to find some researcher to lend him credibility and support, at least temporarily - and then, they start believing the whole marketing spiel, get enamored with the media exposure and one's perceived importance and get badly burned in the process. Once the ego gets stoked, brain cells appear to wither, and now that Skomal is the new darling of Discovery, the path towards self destruction by implosion is all but guaranteed.

Seen it before many a time.

We now know the truth about Domeier, but it would be really interesting to hear what Fischer's other various past scientific collaborators from the back-stabbing Klimley to Johnson and Kock have to say now that the media circus has moved on!

Still happy and proud about the association? 

Is Fischer continuing to fund years of Shark research in SA as promised?

And where are those dozens upon dozens of announced seminal papers?

Questions questions!

To be continued no doubt!

Fischer Reality Check - Comments by Dr. Michael Domeier!

In-water SPOT-tagging of an enormous GWS - source.

Sorry for the protracted silence.

We've been extremely busy.

Plus, I've found myself embroiled in a rather unexpected and increasingly pointless debate with Chris Fischer of Ocearch.

Chris should have followed the advice of Domeier's publicist, see below.
Now the exchange has piqued the interest of the man himself who has sent me a vigorous rebuttal of Fischer's assertions, initially however with the request not to publicize it as he wanted to keep to the high road and instead let Karma take its course.

Well, I don't believe much in Karma.

It is unpredictable and takes much, much too long to eventuate.

So upon much cajoling by yours truly, here are Michael Domeier's comments - and from what I recall and have been able to observe from the sidelines, I for one have no doubt that they are a truthful representation of the facts - tho still way too karmically polite!

Unabridged - although the formatting is mine.

Enjoy!

Any PR expert will tell you to never get dragged into a public, negative pissing match… excellent advice that I try to follow. 
But once every few years I’m forced to slide down the slippery slope to correct serious misinformation that affects me, or my organization… misinformation that only I am capable of correcting. 

Some people are so comfortable stretching the truth that they actually begin to believe the lie themselves. 

Remind you of anyone/anything?? A popup tag removed from a shark at Guadalupe Island? A tag presumably recovered from another shark off El Choyudo? Pictures of Junior circulated with wounds falsely attributed to my tagging of the same shark a year earlier? For each of these things I finally made a concise statement that set the record(s) straight. Here we go again, but perhaps not as concise due to the complex situation. 

Chris Fischer, at every opportunity, proclaims 1) that he spent $5 million to fund my research; 2) that he enabled me to become a great researcher; 3) that I greedily hoard the data and don’t share with the public; and 4) that he developed the equipment and methods to capture and tag large adult white sharks. 

1) There is no way Chris Fischer ever spent $5 million of his (or anyone else’s) money on my research. 

We joined forces to conduct 2 expeditions before he got a TV deal. My last Guadalupe Island expedition (Fall 2012) cost about $40K… and that was with the boat making a profit. So do the math. Also, there was never going to be a second expedition (2008). Chris had a big sponsorship from Red Lobster and was departing for a ‘round the world expedition. I even flew to Ft. Lauderdale to attend his big send-off party at the IGFA Hall of Fame. I flew on my own dime, wished him well and said goodbye. When Red Lobster dropped him, ending the voyage before it even began, we got together to do another expedition in 2008. He did not put his life on hold, bet his savings, etc., to provide me two boat rides to Guadalupe Island. I was the one who spent months and months in preparation for each trip… he just showed up at the dock. 

Yes, he paid for 2 trips to Guadalupe, but then struck a TV deal that allowed him to recoup those costs as he was getting $400K/episode. 

We were able to make multiple episodes from a single trip. Furthermore, I tapped two other private foundations to help pay for the tags and research; financial support that he never acknowledges. Fischer was fairly paid for all of the work we did together… this was not a huge philanthropic venture. On the contrary, he made it clear: “no cameras no trips.” The huge $$ figure he throws around must be for the entire operating cost of his ship and production company for each year he was making these television shows. But that’s not a fair way to account for the actual cost of the research (a fraction of the yearly operating budgets were due to the handful of research trips)… and he never discusses the INCOME. Any real accountant would tally just the costs of the specific trips… or think like this: what would it cost to charter a vessel for each research trip, and then subtract the income! Perhaps he took a loss, I don’t know; my organization took a financial loss… but no way did either of us wrack up losses in the millions. 

2) None of my recent white shark papers would have been possible without the 10 years I put in the field before I met Fischer. 

Fischer just happened to be in the picture as I began to really put all the pieces together. I knew SPOT tags were the only way to push the science forward. I also knew the sharks would be easy to catch, but I wanted to lift them from the water to safely remove the hook and do extra sampling (sperm, blood etc). I was developing a stand-alone pneumatic lift to accomplish the task. When Fischer showed me a picture of his new boat at a Billfish Foundation Board Meeting, I instantly recognized that the lift designed to pick up a yacht could shortcut my lift building plan. I asked if I could use the boat. The answer was “yes,” but only if I allowed cameras. I had never cooperated with a film maker in all my years at Guadalupe (well… Guy Harvey is an exception… but he’s an exceptional guy), and I had requests on a monthly basis, but this seemed like a good trade. 

When it comes to enabling, I think one needs to look at who really benefited from this collaboration. 

I brought Fischer into my world… he took my idea and crafted an entirely new career/image for himself. He even used the experience to gain his coveted Explorer Club status. Brett’s a good guy, but even he will tell you he (Brett) had no interest in catching sharks… even as we were heading to Guadalupe for the first time. If it wasn’t for my bringing Fischer into the marine science world, and consequently primetime television… he would be sitting in his home in Park City without a big boat waiting at the dock. Yes, he was about to lose the boat. If I had stayed true to my original course I would have accomplished the same work, it just would have taken me longer 

3) I do not hoard data. 

Like any professional researcher, I gather data until there is enough to analyze, allowing me to write an excellent publication. Then I publish and share with the world, just like every other working researcher that I know. In fact, I was careful to publish our latest findings in an open access journal, so the entire world could read the paper for free. 

I also disseminate results on our Facebook page. And yes, I have an app that costs a whopping $3.99… that helps me fund the research (actually… it brought in enough to do a nice upgrade (soon)… but not much more). I don’t have huge tv deals and corporate sponsors. So what’s the problem? Fischer slammed my app (and me personally) when it debuted and encouraged people not to purchase it. No, I don’t give the data to Fischer… why should I… it’s my data? He got all the TV shows and celebrity status he wanted… I got data. Furthermore, releasing research results prior to publishing can be problematic when the time comes to publish. Ask any researcher about that. I’ve been sharing more data lately simply to try to keep my organization afloat. But the last person I want running around the world, interpreting my unpublished data, is Chris Fischer. But that hasn’t stopped him from doing so. His brand building (photo shoots and interviews with big hooks draped around his neck, the hyped fishing template for the show) really hurt my reputation as a legitimate researcher. 

4) For our initial expedition I told Fischer he didn’t need to bring anything, just bait…I would do the rest.

I did the rest… and he forgot the bait (thus the infamous bait arguments on TV program). I conceived of the idea to use his yacht-lift to tag sharks, I designed the cradle, I designed the hook, the buoys, the line… everything. When the cradle didn’t work the way I had hoped, I was the one that tore it all down and fenced in the entire platform… Chris wanted to use the crane to pull the sharks onto the platform (yikes). Yes, my home-made hooks were prone to bending and breaking, but there was no place to buy such big circle hooks and we caught a few sharks that first year. And yes, the crew helped refine my concept for safely catching and handling the sharks. 

The SPOT tags used by all now, were built specifically to my design specs. 

I tried the off-the-shelf version and it failed. My version worked, and continues for me and for those who have followed. Lately I’ve made significant changes to the attachment of those tags… but that’s another story. 

Every single place we went with the ship was under my specific direction. 

I was in the wheelhouse each time we dropped anchor, putting the ship on my numbers… and we caught and tagged sharks every place we went. Our success was not due to the exceptional fishing prowess of Fischer; it was due to years and years of observation, study and note taking.

I  hate this sort of thing, and hopefully it will be years before I have to put myself out there like this again. 

But sometimes it’s a necessary evil. There are moments of clarity when you have to act, today was one such moment. Let me share a similar moment from years ago: while doing a big promotional push before the debut of our first TV episode, Fischer and I were both doing nonstop interviews in NYC. During a short break, my wife and I watched one of Fischer’s interviews, on FOX News, from the lobby of the hotel. We sat in stunned silence as he proclaimed that the entire research program was his idea and that he had pulled together the boat, crew and research. Just weeks prior he had proclaimed that I was nothing more than “a passenger with permits.” Suddenly it was clear this was not a good situation for me. The science message was being lost by the growing ego. In the end, I could not bear to watch the series that was based upon my own hard work. I tried to watch an episode during the season when Peter Klimley took my place… I was sickened at how Peter was made to look so foolish… turned it off again. 

There have been a huge number of people on-and-off the Fischer bandwagon, many of whom can confirm my statements if you care to track them down. Brett was a good friend… he knows the truth… unfortunately our friendship could not endure the awkwardness to keep in touch. 

I will be the first to say that I’ve noted a different tack from the Fischer camp lately… less fishing hype and more attention to the fish being studied. 

Perhaps lessons have been learned. But in my heart I know Fischer’s ride is about recognition… not about sharks. He didn’t know a clasper from a cloaca before I met him. I hope he does great things for the world… I hope he becomes more self-aware and learns to let his actions speak rather than his words. This whole thing started because he could not stand the fact he was not getting all the credit for a paper Nicole and I invested nearly 15 years to produce. 

Dr. Michael Domeier

PS: simply brilliant post by Patric here - kudos!

“I once thought (call it an evolution) that science and tv could be married together to deliver the best and brightest to waiting audiences. Then the major cable players started cutting doco budgets, slashing and burning them in an almost Visigothic manner until a 60 minute show was left with a budget of $150,000 and that included post production.

What do you get for $150,000 or less? You get Gurney Productions and sharks. There will always be someone who is willing to drop their pants and chain wrap a Tiger shark, and film it, (yes ABC that's you buddy) for a few film credits and the chance to film the next piece of shit that comes down the chute.”

PS2: Megalobomb unleashes!

The most challenging experience one will face during a career in white shark research is being suckered into working with someone that is a dick. Like a one-night stand, they/their projects may look attractive and say all the right things, but then you wake up and realize that you’re some wrinkly married man’s mid-life crisis.

Fischer on CNN!

I still don't like the guy.

But the science is brilliant.

With plenty of caveats mind you!

And the picture above, i.e. a deformed and possibly shredded tip of the fin that does not impinge on the animal's chances of survival? Fodder for the usual frothy Sharktivist rants - but from a conservation POV, it is really pretty much irrelevant!

South Africa - Great White Research and other Stuff!

No this time I'm not going to rant.
But I could!

I could rant about some disgruntled GW cage operators.
I could state that they didn't quite have the guts to openly take on Mr. Fischer & Mr. Boyd and that they have instead enlisted the help of some local Kraut who has quickly morphed into a monster, true to the meaning that Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim. I could also speculate that apart from having the usual inflated opinion of self, the guy may suffer from a medical condition called, obviously only in German, Querulantenwahn.

Be it as it may, several open letters and public warnings later, the genie is now out of the bag.
Prompted by the dire warnings of the Querulant and by a totally unrelated Shark strike, the surfers and water recreationists have latched on to the issue of chumming (debunked here) and I wish the cage operators the best of luck. Were I so inclined, I could state that they they will now reap what they have sown, that justifying baited Shark dives smack in front of a major town was always a stretch and that the delicate balance has now been irrevocably upset. Talk about having shot themselves in the foot!
But fear not, I shall not do that!

I could also rant about the couch farting fireman.
I could tell you he has been described to me as somebody who has done a Shark dive and now thinks he knows something about something, that his two brain dead petitions have achieved precisely zero as anticipated, and that he has gone as far as to accuse Fischer of having caused the death of several Sharks 1,500 miles away. Wow!
And I could mention the proud rolling out of his ludicrous Hartzell tag, to be placed with a pole into the center of the dorsal fin that will be inevitably shredded as soon as the gizmo will start collecting flotsam like any other trolling lure.
And it got a GPS antenna no less - I mean, seriously!
But I shall not - tho I'm still holding my sides!

And what about that Facebook group.
I could tell you how several of us blue bloggers were initially intrigued, only to be quickly dismayed by the rubbish posted there, and have stopped bothering. I could also elaborate why I believe that it represents the very worst of social media and that I consider it to be nothing more than the appalling circular echo chamber of, to cite a friend, a bunch of dipshits with an opinion and a keyboard, among which even a barlafüs da Milan who vocally demonstrates his utter scientific ignorance and lack of decorum by publicly rubbishing his peers. Soci, ma indova ta l'é truvad al tó dottor: alla Pavesi?
Notable exception: Michelle Wcisel who has taken it onto herself to gleefully, and charmingly deconstruct the deluge of stupidities posted there. Were I so inclined, I would tell her not to waste her time by engaging with morons and instead devote her energy to further researching and protecting Sharks, that Einstein was correct and that stupidity cannot be cured. PS: it sure looks like she has come to the same conclusions - kudos! :)
But as I said, I shall not do that.

Fischer?
I really got nothing to add there - maybe apart from the fact that I could wonder about the exact relationship between the non-for-profit OCEARCH and the for-profit Fischer Productions, and about possible US tax implications of that synergy. And I could state that I don't believe for a minute that OCEARCH will fund the next five years of GW research in SA.
But again, I shall not - and we shall see!

Leaves the local research community, and the authorities.
I could talk about the utter fiasco in terms of outreach, this by the authorities but especially, by Alison Kock and Shark Spotters. They had obviously known about the project for months and were ideally suited for engaging and informing the public about the unequivocal advantages of researching the philopatry of the South African GWs, for conservation but especially in terms of improving public safety. I could add that enlightened opinion pieces are great - but that it is more important to walk one's talk!

But I shall do none of that.
All I shall do is to invite you to read this interview with the concerned researchers. Without in any way wanting to approve of the way this has been handled, it addresses and convincingly rebuts many of the raised arguments and it finally sheds a light on the research aims.

Still, for my liking, this remains too vague.
Scientific research does not consist in slapping on some tags in order to then "see what happens". Especially in this specific case where the protocols, albeit substantially improved, are still highly invasive, it behooves the researchers to be much more specific and to explain which previously formulated hypotheses are being tested, and why the chosen invasive methods are best for achieving those specific aims.

Concerning the posting of the tracks.
There is clearly a downside to publicizing that information without simultaneously enacting supporting conservation measures. This is part of a larger ethical debate I shall be posting about soon. *Doch doch Dirk, auch ein blindes Huhn... :)

And here endeth the non-rant!

Comments policy.
This is not a chatroom.
But everybody is welcome to post a comment - this once and within the length limits dictated by Blogger, after which I shall feel free to delete whatever I wish.

* PS: post about philopatry, tracks etc here.

Chris Fischer in South Africa!

One of Klimley's Tiger Sharks?
Remember? 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. Right.

I certainly don't like Fischer.

Larger than life persona?
Indeed, a loud-mouthed self promoter who has barged into the North American GW scene, severely tarnished Michael Domeier's reputation and to top it of, is now brazenly claiming all of Domeier's research achievements as his own.

Now, it appears, he has set his eyes on South Africa.
I fully expect yet another epic fiasco, the more as he's found yet another naive bunch of helpers in Ryan Johnson and Enrico Gennari of Oceans Research.
Johnson is of course none other than Nat Geo Wild's token Scientific Expert of Shark Experiment LIVE infamy and as such, probably not a great loss, not for academia nor otherwise. Like every single researcher before him that has pursued delusions of grandeur by serving as anchor of those pathetic shows, he will slide into academic irrelevance and be quickly forgotten.

But we shall see, shall we not!

About those Tags!

Junior on the boat after capture - see any evidence whatsoever of a broken jaw?

Looks like Michael Domeier has run into a brick wall.

ABC News 7's Chief Investigative Reporter Dan Noyes has authored an atrocious piece where far from doing his job and investigating, he has instead decided to spearhead a witch hunt aimed at blocking the renewal of Domeier's research permit at the Farallones; and some dude has started a petition with the same aim.

No I'm not gonna post the links.
Noyes has seen it fit to provide a forum to the usual strident suspects all the way to the token Sesselfurzer who is once again invited to bloviate about Shark behavior about which he has no clue whatsoever. This is nothing but a prime example of the usual sensationalist one-sided mainstream rubbish, only this time about a Shark-centric subject.
The petition, although well intentioned, is marred by the ramblings of yet another self appointed expert who continues to harp on about the non existent tumor and the jaw that was broken during capture - the latter against unequivocal photographic evidence to the contrary, see on top.

BUT - whereas I totally despise the means, I do concur with the aim.
Domeier's research goals are highly interesting and would provide for vital data that PAT tags are simply not designed to collect. But as outlined in his draft application, the procedures (and the SPOT tags, see below) remain highly invasive and it is my belief that both the protocols and the hardware need to be reformed and re-engineered before being allowed to be deployed in a Marine Sanctuary featuring some of the planet's most restrictive Shark interaction protocols.
But more of that below.

As to Domeier. what can I say.
Did he bring this upon himself? Yes he did, nobody dragged him, kicking and screaming, in front of the cameras. Does he deserve what is happening to him now? Certainly not!
My prediction is that the continued shit storm will lead the GFNMS honchos to refuse the permit.
My advice to Domeier would be to take his losses, leave behind this unholy alliance of hostile media, back-stabbing researchers, inept authorities, moronic experts and screeching activists and look for new worthwhile projects elsewhere.
Some wars are just not worth fighting.

At the same time, however, other questions need to be asked.
Firstly, what has been Maria Brown's role in this fiasco, starting from her original approval of invasive and highly experimental research all the way to her obvious inability to properly deal with the situation once things started to turn for the worse, to her continued lack of leadership now. I say, she should take her hat and leave, or be asked to do so.
That's what accountability is all about.

Secondly, what about the "long term resident researchers".
I'm confident that they are positively gloating. I'm however equally convinced that their status needs to be re-examined, both in terms of their research which makes them equally interact with the animals but which is increasingly becoming irrelevant, outdated and redundant - but also, in terms of whether one should confer exclusive territorial rights to people who have displayed such an extraordinary lack of ethics.
Personally, I would tell them to own up and reform or get lost - but that's me; as a minimum, one should ask them to wait till the PAT tags have popped up and relayed all the data before allowing them to stick any further Sharks.

Anyway, check out this further piece by Noyes.
Yes it's the same rubbish, but it features an interesting picture, see below and the equally interesting statements by another researcher.

Would that by any chance be the same guy who publicly condemned Domeier's research protocols one year earlier?
Remember?

“There is an emphasis on sensation,” he said. “I think of it like ‘King Kong,’ the movie — going out and getting Kong, getting the white shark, in bondage."

Would he now be doing the exact same thing, i.e. hauling large and I would say, terminally pregnant Tiger Sharks out of the water, for TV, maybe even onto the very same wooden platform, and this under the auspices of the very same Chris Fisher who turned Domeier's research project into a joke by boasting (and here!) that he had caught the largest ever Shark blahblahrahrah - and continues to do so now?

Don't remember Fischer?
Here he is, proudly posing with one of his gigantic made-for-TV prop barbed hooks!


Which begs the question, who, exactly is the avid billfish angler and TV outdoor fishing adventurer ( and next Jacque (sic) Cousteau no less!), a self-professed fishing expert, who completely stuffed it up and left the Shark with 3/4 of the prop lodged in his throat?
Yes, you probably guessed who!

But contrary to Domeier who has valiantly played the fall guy by assuming full responsibility, Fisher is of course a media pro, knows how to play the game and has come out of this fiasco completely unscathed. Does this disqualify all hybrid productions as Patric asserts? No, it does only disqualify Fisher - there are heaps of other examples of productions featuring the work of researchers that are simply stellar!
But I'm digressing as usual.

Back to Fisher's new sidekick, did I hear animal care protocol?
Really? As in this stuff that is addressing the well being of lab rats and the like? Gotta see it to believe it! And on top of spouting this obvious baloney, was there really a need for him to mention that Domeier did not have any such protocols and thus infer that Domeier did not care about the health of the Sharks?
Talk about a shining example of gravitas and collegiate solidarity! Which begs the question, did the 187k (yes this is again about pecunia non olet!) come with the requirement to play attack dog for his master?

But back to that protocol.
The fact is that nowadays, everybody, his dog and the dog of his dog is tagging Tiger Sharks without hauling them out of the water, and I spare you the dozens upon dozens of links.
Using a sling to hoist the sharks and a live well on the ship, in which to place them is once again made-for-TV showbiz bullshit which has nothing whatsoever to do with caring for the Shark!
And the purpose of this exercise in animal welfare, or whatever? May it be, to reel in and subdue a (pregnant) Shark in order to drill and bolt some SPOT tag to its dorsal fin?
Honi soit qui mal y pense - but we shall all see, shall we not!
Totally underhanded and hypocritical? You betcha!

But this is not about those researchers, or Fisher.
It is about those satellite tags (please read this paper!) and about the protocols that are required in order to deploy them.
In essence, the researchers have to face several challenges.

• Developing a tag (a transmitter) that collects (and sometimes stores) data and then relays those data to a receiver from where the researchers can download them.
• Attaching the tags to the Sharks.
• Approaching/attracting/catching and/or possibly immobilizing the Sharks in order to attach the tags.

and the short- and long term implications this has on the animals' well being.

The tags

Those satellite tags are essentially produced by only a few companies, among which Wildlife Computers and Microwave Telemetry. Whereas the overall technology for the acoustic tags is well developed and highly reliable, this is not yet the case for the sat tags.

PAT tags try to calculate the position of the animal by using mathematical models that however feature a margin of error that can be very large indeed.
Also, to-date, the requirement that the tag be small coupled with the need to archive the collected data means that the life span of PAT tags is limited to little over one year, something that will conceivably change with the advent of longer lasting power sources etc. Finally, the PAT tags merely reveal a picture of the past as the data are only accessible once the tag pops up and uploads them to the satellite.

The manufacturers have tried to address these issues by developing SPOT tags that last multiples longer and that are able to provide for accurate real-time positions.
Whereas in theory this is clearly the way forward for some species of surface-oriented Sharks, there still remain notorious connectivity issues whereby the tags are not able to adequately uplink to the satellite during the short time frames when the antenna breaches the surface, etc. Plus, there are many Sharks that are not surface oriented and where deploying those SPOT tags will never make any sense at all.

Tag attachment

The above companies are essentially operated by electronic engineers whose principal concern is to develop electronic components that are able to communicate with receivers.
Consequently, both the shape of the tag and the way it is being attached to the Sharks appears very much to be little more than an afterthought. From my observation, the tags are produced in some shape with some attachment and the researchers are then being asked to somehow deploy (= experimentally field test) them and to come back with suggestions for improvement. In essence, electronic engineers are asking biologists for input about a mechanical engineering issue.
Sound like the best way to proceed to you?

All attachments are invasive, albeit to a different degree.
We have once tried to circumnavigate this issue by feeding acoustic tags to the bulls but were penalized by only being able to collect short data sets. The attachments I know of (there may be more) are positioning of the (so far: acoustic) tags inside the body via small incisions that get sewn shut, a procedure that apparently does not unduly cause long term damage to the animal; tag attachment via a ring around the caudal peduncle, so far for acoustic tags only, again something that appears to be non-debilitating as long as those rings don't chafe and are attached for rather short periods of time.

Tethers and anchors for acoustic and PAT tags?
Now, this is more problematic. Depending on the situation but also, the species, there are different anchors that are inserted (i.e. sewn, punched, slammed or shot) into the Sharks' muscle tissue. Bull Shark skin is particularly tough and covered with large dense denticles and we had to deploy the probably most invasive model that consists in a razor-blade-like implement that needs to be slammed in with force. That anchor will remain lodged in the animal forever and even if it does not cause infections, it will continue to be an irritant that will cut into the muscle at every contraction. Other anchors appear less problematic.
Case in point, our Bull Shark Hook - click for detail.

The depicted tether was fouled and finally fell off after two years - but to this day, the Shark still features a discoloration where the anchor continues to irritate the surrounding tissue.
Needless to say that we've stopped all tagging pending the development of a better attachment.

And what about the current SPOT Tags?
In the present configuration: absolutely shocking!
The tag needs to be bolted on, requiring that one catches and immobilizes the Shark, see below. Once secured with multiple bolts, that tag will interfere with the Sharks' growth and lead to permanently warped first dorsal fins especially in juveniles and subadults featuring high growth rates.

Plus, the bolts are supposed to somehow corrode and fall off after a period of 4-6 years.
Chances that anybody has tested that assertion? My gut feeling: those bolts will completely foul and never fall off at all!
But assuming that the bolts will corrode: chances that multiple bolts will corrode and fall off simultaneously? Yes, that would be a big fat Zero, and if so we'll end up with one last bolt holding a flapping tag, with the consequence that the bolt will likely completely shred or even amputate the dorsal fin.
What's Neil gonna say when his Hammerheads will turn up with their spectacular dorsal fin warped, shredded and/or possibly amputated.

One of Neil's Hammerheads carrying a SPOT tag with four bolts - article here.

What is Jimmy gonna tell his clients when Tiger Beach will start to feature maimed Tiger Sharks.
And before anybody starts screeching and launching yet another petition or the like: this is not about individual people and projects - the list obviously goes on and on and on and on!

And then, there is the issue of fouling, one of the major problems plaguing vessel owners around the globe. It's a big issue that is costing billions in incremental expenses for fuel etc - and anybody developing a remedy would likely make billions as a result!
We operate vessels and lemme tell 'ya, anti-fouling that lasts for 4-6 years does not exist - let alone a concoction that would not poison and kill the surrounding living tissue! Chances that after a few years, those tags and the antenna will not be completely overgrown with barnacles and algae, totally interfering with the transmission in the process?
Right.

Approaching and immobilizing the Sharks

Acoustic and PAT tags can be applied on the fly and thus, one can use bows or pole spears when approaching some surface oriented species like Whale Sharks, and other Sharks like GWS' that can be lured to the boats.
But this does not work with the vast majority of species that never come to the surface. Some species can be tagged underwater by using pole spears and spear guns, like we have done with our Bulls. But this is difficult to impossible with shy, fast swimming or deep water species, and it does not work at all with the present generation of SPOT tags that require bolting on.

In all of those cases, the Sharks need to be caught and/or immobilized.
Capture involves setting nets and long lines that however carry the risk of the Sharks asphyxiating if they are not regularly inspected; and using rod and reel, or hand lines like e.g. Guy has chosen to do.
Check out this picture of our Mrs. Jaws.


The Ocean is full of baited hooks and this is but one particularly brutal example of many, many Sharks we encounter that have contracted permanent disfigurement when escaping death by fishermen. Here are two more such examples and yes, Junior who obviously takes baited hooks may have experienced the same fate - but clearly not when he was hooked by Fisher's men!
Where I'm going with this is that hooking Sharks inherently carries the risk of permanent injury.

And what about immobilizing the Shark?
It appears that small species can indeed be hauled aboard without any permanent injury. Bigger animals cannot and/or should not, and the widely adapted procedure is to secure them alongside preferably a small skiff with catch poles, ropes, slings or cradles, and to then perform whatever needs performing whilst the Sharks are partially submerged and whilst the skiff is motoring ahead very gently in order to aerate their gills.
Apparently, this has also been done with GWs.

Of countless examples - Mahmood SPOT-tagging a Tiger, article here.

But although this is certainly much less invasive than trying to haul them aboard, trying to restrain large and immensely powerful struggling Sharks remains dangerous both for the animals but also for the researchers.

Still think that these issues are confined to Domeier alone?
Well, if so, think again - those tags are currently being deployed by everybody everywhere!
Hypocritical animal care protocol anybody, see above?

Long story short?
SPOT tagging is brutally invasive and needs to be halted pending the development of better attachments and procedures.
PAT tags are much less invasive but plagued by technical limitations restricting the scope of their deployment.

Solutions?

Let's look at the ideal specs for a data collecting implement.

• The tags should be as small as possible; collect a maximum of data (position, temperature, depth, possibly data about neighboring equally tagged animals, etc), ideally at short time intervals; have a maximum operating longevity; be able to reliably transmit (ideally, in real time) the data to a receiver; possibly feature a data storage capacity for periods when the connection is being interrupted. Clearly, this is an issue for the electronics engineers and the solutions will improve with improvements in communications technology, battery longevity, miniaturization of components, etc.


• They should be constructed of ideal materials (e.g. to minimize fouling through novel surface coatings and shapes; to withstand crushing when at depth, etc) and be ideally shaped (e.g. to minimize drag, to best conform to the shape of the animal, etc). This is a mechanical engineering issue.


• The attachments should be non invasive and the tags should detach without any residue. Could the bulk of the tag (and thus, the bulk of the fouling) be detached from the animal and held by a tether, like in the case of the PAT tags? Could the tether be attached by a completely non invasive method like a dab of fast setting adhesive that would degrade within a determined period of time? Or what about a non chafing (!), elastic sleeve around the caudal peduncle? A small clamp around the posterior edge of the first dorsal fin that is secured by small barbs but also adhesive? Once again, this is an issue for mechanical engineers, and a matter of developing the adequate materials that would degrade and detach in time.

Or, how about a radical re-think?
What if the receiver would be following the transmitter? As in a autonomous self-propelling robot that would stay at the surface (or at times, even operate underwater) and pick up the transmissions of what would essentially be an improved acoustic tag, and relay them to a satellite? With the advantage that the tag could even be positioned inside the Shark and that the bulk of the electronics would be on the ROV that could also be located, serviced, even re-deployed from a vessel, including the possibility of downloading large data sets that would exceed the bandwidth of satellite transmissions?

Am I completely out of my mind?
Maybe not so much, check out this article about research on Penguins! Yes the hardware looks shocking (let's start a petition!) - but could it be improved and adapted to Sharks?

Prohibitively expensive? How about pooling the resources (yes I know I know...)?

But of course those are just a few suggestions by a non-engineer.
How about spending some real time and money on R&D. How about a contest among, say, MIT students with a grand prize of 10,000 bucks - think that you would not be literally inundated with possible solutions?
I've said it before: I simply refuse to believe that given the necessary attention including adequate funding but also adequate testing (!), the technical issues cannot be addressed - but until then, tagging needs to be halted, especially when it comes to those SPOT tags!

Leaves the issue of approaching the Shark.
Some Sharks can be tagged on the fly either from the surface or by divers and free divers, and the hardware should reflect that application.
Others however will always require some form of catching and immobilizing and no, I don't have a completely satisfactory answer to the issue that any such procedure will carry the inherent risk of injury. My gut is that I would not do it myself but instead rely on experienced fishermen whilst always striving to develop better and less invasive protocols.
But from what I know, that's precisely what all respectable researchers do already - including Domeier who however had the misfortune of stumbling across Fisher and his inept crew.

Ethical considerations?

Remains the issue of why the fuss.
Does it really matter whether we brutally manhandle, maim and even kill a couple of Sharks whilst engaging in research aimed at collecting data about their life history that could lead to better management and conservation measures?
After all, we would only be affecting a few individual animals that are irrelevant to the survival of the whole of the population and of the species, both of which are in continuous flux anyway - the more as the real damage to stocks is being perpetrated by the fishermen and indirectly, by the many other issues affecting the well being of oceanic habitats!
Right?

Wrong!
This is not about conservation - this is about who we are.
Do I really need to elaborate on the point that we who strive to protect Sharks must always respect the animals and always be on the lookout for the best possible alternatives - and this inclusive of any researcher who wants to maintain his credibility?

Does that mean that I'm anti-science and anti progress?
No, far from it, how could I. Just two months ago, I have personally lethally sampled a small Filefish because it is probably a new species. So far, Taxonomy requires the collecting (= killing and pickling) of at least one holotype (and ideally, several more paratypes) and lacking any alternatives, that's what I've decided to do.

Equally, I do not all all suggest that Sharks are special and that they should be treated differently than any other Fishes or animals in general, whether they be higher or lower as pointed out somewhere in this fascinating thread. Ethically speaking, a life is a life.
Invasive research is being conducted everywhere on a multitude of animals - but Sharks is what I'm interested in, and that's why I'm addressing Shark research in particular.

Let there be no doubt that tagging has been one of the major recent positive developments in Shark research.
The results are simply stellar (with the caveat that I remain concerned about publishing tracks that could lead the fishermen to the hot spots) and have given us fascinating and highly important insights into the life history of Sharks that other techniques could simply not have provided. Let there also be no doubt that I am intimately convinced that the vast majority of Shark researchers (yes including Domeier!) care deeply about the animals and are always trying to improve on their protocols in order to minimize any negative side effects.

But having said this, I equally advocate a temporary halt.
The technology has obvious flaws that can, and should be fixed before proceeding further.
Also and contrary to Heupel and Simpfendorfer who seem to advocate that research should remain in the ivory tower and disregard public opinion, there is an urgent need for outreach. The good news is that Shark research and conservation are thankfully becoming increasingly popular, with the positive result that this has certainly led to better pro-Shark policies and to a wider base for funding. But, this has also led to the necessity of open (and robust!) public debate, especially in view of the ever increasing number of strident, and often totally ignorant Shark activists - see the onslaught that has befallen Domeier.
One cannot profit from the benefits of the former without addressing the inconvenience of the latter!

Anyway, just my two cents - as always highly subjective!
Sorry for the lengthy rant - but as so often, the post has taken on a life of its own, and I just had to get it off my chest!

Comments policy.
Please, do not attempt to post comments that further defame Michael Domeier and his research. This has already been done ad nauseam (meaning that I am totally nauseated) on other posts on this blog and on this and this post on SFS, and anything even remotely parroting those allegations will be deleted.
Vinaka!