Junior - final Chirp!

Junior with the tag, as posted on Domeier's website. See any damage to the jaw?

Did you understand this comment?

I'm not a native English speaker and did not. Apparently, it means no one is listening and by implication no one wants to hear it. It’s a sound gag used when a comedian tells a joke that falls flat and not a sound is to be heard from the audience.
Fair enough.

So there, let's put this baby to rest.
Three independent sources have told me the following.

• The video(s) were shot by two researchers sometime between September and the end of November, 2010. I know their names but have no proof that they are the authors of the smear campaign, so the names will remain unmentioned.
• They work for TOPP under the formidable Barbara Block. This has happened on her watch and it is her job to get to the bottom of what really went down within the organization she heads.
• There was a GFNMS observer
• The research has been paid for by, and the video(s) are the property of the Monterey Bay Aquarium and Stanford.
• A copy of the video(s) was given to the GFNMS.

What then obviously happened is this.
Somebody grabbed some stills off those videos. That person was then able to peruse archives with older images of Junior and produced the before-and-after pictures that were then leaked. That is not the spontaneous action of a Shark activist who stumbled upon the information - that takes a lot of time and effort and is something only an insider could have achieved.

And who is it that leaked the pictures?
From the e-mail I received.
I’m a shark enthusiast...
After inquiring with some students that study white sharks, I became aware that this same shark was re-sighted and identified with video almost a year after it was tagged. According to my friend some of the images were submitted to the sanctuary during the public comment period for the tagging permit renewal...
My concern is that other scientists or media hounds will try to do this again, heck, who knows how many of these sharks have already been severely impaired as a result of this same researcher’s made for TV science. Since the latest information suggests that there are less than 300 individuals in this area, I am very upset over the lack of oversight these researchers have when working with these magnificent creatures. If we can’t protect these sharks inside of a sanctuary, then we are no better than the commercial interests that we routinely blame for the shark decline.
I’ve included the images that I was sent, showing the shark before and after the horrible incident.
Genuine? My intuition tells me, it is.

Big picture?
This is a smear campaign against Michael Domeier.

Forget the opinion of the inevitable expert bloviators.
Half of what they assert is just speculative BS that has been completely debunked by several pictures that show that Junior had no abrasions, nor dislocated jaws whatsoever after having been hauled aboard. And what about the general bad condition of the animal: do you really believe that it is the consequence of the brutal treatment it suffered one year earlier (!), due to some obscure reduced caloric equation and the like? C’mon…
How about invoking the much abused Occam. Is it not much more plausible that a Shark with two big bites on his back and a further nasty bite on his mouth (just to keep with Domeier's explanation - there could be heaps of others) would be in bad shape, at least temporarily? Plus, keep in mind that the tracks indicate that Junior is still migrating normally, and this 18 months after the accident!

Also, Domeier’s research is by no means redundant as some are asserting.
Yes in their present configuration, those SPOT tags are way too invasive and I also think that the procedures are way too brutal. I commend Domeier for having exhaustively documented what led him to choose those specific protocols here, but I still strongly differ with his conclusions that the research ought to continue basically unchanged. I say, the gizmos need total re-engineering and the procedures need to drastically change before any further deployment.
Still, this does not disqualify the study per se, only the methods. It would be great if the researchers would dispose of precise multi-year tracks enabling them to shed light on the life history of those GWs, especially when it comes to their breeding cycle and mating and pupping grounds. Telemetry will obviously not answer all questions, but it would give valuable pointers about where to start investigating with other means.

I say, with the exception of the damage caused by the tag, there is not one single shred of proof here.
The only possible evidence is the video – and is it not revealing how it never surfaced, and how none of Domeier’s detractors are asking that it be produced?
Anyway, my call is that Domeier has nothing whatsoever to do with those injuries and that this is a well orchestrated ignominious campaign aimed at rubbishing him. I’ve said it before, despite of the techniques he has employed where I continue to be highly critical, he is a brilliant researcher and does not deserve this.

Which brings me straight back to the TOPP labs and the role they have played in this latest fiasco. All the leads converge there.
The videos were shot by them, in fact, those two guys saw the Shark and know whether it had other shark bites - which means that if Domeier's explanation is correct, the "evidence" is fabricated! Somebody was then given access to that video and even more telling, to archives of further images of GWs from the Farallones. The person who leaked the pictures speaks of students that study white sharks and of images that I was sent. What I find particularly disturbing is that those researchers have not only possibly fabricated the evidence and not posted the video that could exonerate Domeier, but that they continue to snipe from the safety of anonymity on top of it – or how are we to interpret A source close to the photographers who saw Junior last October!
I say, this is underhanded, unprofessional and cowardly, and in total breach of basic ethical tenets and collegiality. Disgusting.
Barbara Block as the person in charge sure has a lot to answer for.

This is happening on the money of the Monterey Bay Aquarium and Stanford and I must also say that I’m starting to be concerned about their oh so politically correct silence. Like it or not, they are parties to this - how long can this continue without an unmistakable statement from their side before they do become accomplices!

Sean Van Sommeran?
In a twisted way, I must say that I’m rather impressed by his passionate stance and his total lack of political correctness. Normally, donors don't like controversy and having been intrigued by how he could afford to speak up like he does, I went snooping for his sponsors: talk about an eclectic and anarchic combo with among others, Sea Shepherd - and a gun training outfit! If that doesn’t say it all - and being a combat shooter myself, I can confirm that we always shoot to kill! :)
Anyway, yes the ramblings, self promotion, innuendos and outright insults are at times terribly irritating - but he's sure got chops and his latest exchanges with Greg Barron on SFS (bottom of thread) and on Alastair Bland’s second article reveal the whole extent of the shenanigans, from heaps of history, infighting, food fights, territoriality and xenophobia to his utter frustration with the authorities who are seemingly totally failing to do their job.
Very interesting and very revealing indeed!

Indeed, the GFNMS role in this has been highly questionable to say the least.
Read the Barron/Sommeran exchanges and you can clearly discern the extent of the rot, from the anti-public and anti-industry agendas to the favoring of certain groups at the expense of others, and how in this specific case, they spectacularly failed to discern the basic fact that a fishing show and experimental and highly invasive research had simply no place in a marine sanctuary. Plus, what’s that about the excuse that images and video footage of the injured shark were received too late - what was the purpose of the observer if not observe and report?
This has happened on the watch of the current boss, Maria Brown. It is she who ultimately bears the responsibility for it.

There you have it.
I’m done with this, the more as I’ve noticed that Greg Barron, a local with plenty of insight who is obviously both principled and objective has decided to look into it – bottom of this thread. Much much better this way.
I sure wish him not to get some nasty infection by wading into this toxic quagmire!

Long story short?
I have been asked to post "evidence" that Domeier has caused permanent damage to Junior - meaning that the emaciated status and injury on the mouth were alleged to be the direct consequence of the brutal treatment the Shark had been subjected to one year earlier.
Having looked, I now believe that the evidence is fabricated, and that this is a smear campaign against Michael Domeier that has been orchestrated by circles associated with the TOPP labs - but as always, I shall be happy to be proven (!) wrong!

Over & out!

PS - excellent article here - kudos!

PPS - as of December, 2013, it has been revealed that the trolling Mr. van Sommeran is one of the perpetrators of this scam.

Is Sean van Sommeran a Coward and a Liar?

Would this man ever lie? Source.

You be the judge of that!

Remember the Junior controversy?

If not and if you want to waste a lot of time, you can re-read plenty of posts on the subject and above all, a lot of breathy comments by Sean van Sommeran here, starting from the oldest post.
In brief, an anonymous whistle-blower called ecoshark leaked a few pictures of a mutilated GWS claiming that the wounds were the result of the research by Michael Domeier. It was later revealed that the injuries had been inflicted by other Sharks and that this was a smear campaign by competing researchers against Michael Domeier aimed at evicting him from their research site at the Farallones.

The following is from the comments thread of a then post on SFS

Michael Domeier says:
May 6, 2011 at 12:57 pm 
I think Greg asks a reasonable question, Sean. Are you the source of the original Junior photos?

Sean R. Van Sommeran says:
May 6, 2011 at 4:24
I did not leak the footage, footage like that is made available as a matter of course anyway…. so why is it being characterized as a malicious leak anyway? …
I havent the vaguest idea whose ecoshark link that is and have no comments on that.

Michael Domeier says:
May 6, 2011 at 5:16 pm
OK Sean. Fair question and fair answer. Thanks for answering.

Now, times have apparently changed.
What was then (and still is) a grave and cowardly breach of fair play and collegiality may now confer hero status, at least among a particular frothy subsection of the Shark movement.
Be it as it may: the rabid anti-OCEARCH dipshits with an opinion and a keyboard are busy cobbling together a film, no less - and SvS has now found it fit to post the following on one of their circular echo chambers.

Sean R. van Sommeran --
We stopped Ocearch at the Farallones ( Pelagic Shark Research Foundation), the resulting scandal that we exposed and documented (shared documentation/videos, stills, etc) fractured the Ocearch and Domeier cartel's incursion into California and its well known 'Sanctuary' Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary) that granted the permits for the hook and line method.

It was PSRF conservation workers, working discretely with fellow TOPP field researchers (only 3 out of the whole lot) that leaked images and video stills and background story (shark named Junior) during the disastrous Ocearch/Domeier expedition into California and the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary in 2009/10. 

We Pelagic Shark Research Foundation) were the only TOPP members (field researcher) who disobeyed orders and publicly commented on the matter, we were of course sanctioned thereafter... Duty before dogma ~ 

Bingo

As I said, you be the judge of that.

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!

Junior - smell Test!

For those who are still engaging in idle speculation - this is Junior after hooking. No lesions whatsoever.

Talking about accountability.
I was about to write an elaborate post but this will suffice.
From my correspondence with a friend who asked why I had "changed my mind" about Michael Domeier's research, marginally abridged.

No my views on invasive research have not changed and I shall be posting about them soon.
The SPOT tags are an abomination, permanent bling that cripples the animals and they need to be totally re-engineered. The argument of individuals vs population etc are rather disgusting as well. And I’m totally against invasive research and ad hoc experimenting on endangered species in a marine reserve, and condemn the authorities for having enabled it.

But that’s not what I’m talking about here.
I fully believe MD's well supported arguments that the video, if watched in its entirety, will prove that the wound on the head is a shark bite. And yet, somebody sent the video grabs purporting those were tumors/lesions attributable to MD's research. The people who shot the video are competing researchers who also sent the full video to the park authorities, where MD was able to review it.

What are the chances that those competing researchers did not know it was a shark bite.
Why did they then make those allegations, why did they not mention that the shark had further shark bites aft of the head.

Lemme tell u why: Domeier has had the audacity to intrude on s’body else’s turf, an this with NAT GEO (!) - and this is the backlash.
Timing is interesting. They sat on it for 4 months but now that Sharkmen2 is imminent and the research permits are being evaluated, here comes the “public outcry”.

Domeier is being framed and I shall not be an accessory to that.
Despite of all my reservations against the techniques he employs and the ethical framework justifying that, he is a brilliant researcher doing important stuff where I say ”yes great - but you must radically fix the gizmos and change your protocols before proceeding further”. Nothing less, nothing more.
He does not deserve this, the more as I’m convinced that he got nothing whatsoever to do with the injuries.

The emaciated state of Junior: no idea.
There are plausible hypotheses out there but they are untestable – and as a lawyer and also as a scientific mind, I cannot engage in gratuitous speculation at the expense of somebody’s excellent scientific credentials and track record.

Does it explain my stance?

To put things into perspective for first-time readers.
I received an e-mail about the terrible state of a GW that had been tagged by Michael Domeier and wrote this post. I then followed up on the particular thread about the injuries to Junior's head (there are other threads but they have no bearing on this specific topic) with this.
In it, I stated that it was incumbent upon the people who unleashed the controversy by leaking the pictures to make the video available for verification. To date, this has not happened, at least not publicly.

David aka WhySharksMatter has since weighed in here.
This has generated a fabulous thread (61 comments, and counting!) where many passionate and intelligent people have contributed to the debate. One of them is thankfully Michael Domeier himself who has inter alia posted this (the comment has a yellow background and you need to scroll way down).

If I could post the video I would, but I don’t have a copy.
When/if it become public everyone will see two huge shark bites dorsal of the gill region. Furthermore, the corner of the mouth has been peeled back like the lid of a can; the “tumor” is a bulge of tissue that has been peeled off the corner of the mouth. The portion of the hook we left in the fish was posterior to the gills…literally feet aft of the new wound. The wound is probably only 1-2 weeks old.

This is unequivocal and highly plausible.

So lemme tell you this.
I have a big nose and after years of survival in the investment banking jungle, it has become very finely attuned to smelling out shenanigans - and right now, my nose is telling me, something stinks.

I repeat: where is the video from which the pictures were taken and circulated.
As I commented on David's post,
I remain highly concerned about the lack of response by the GFNMS. I remain equally concerned by the lack of response by the people who have started this debate by sending the original e-mail and pictures. Laying low and hoping that this matter will go away will not work – for both parties!

Whoever started this controversy: time to come out, own up and face the music!

Needless to say that despite of those grave reservations, I will always remain open for evidence (!) that my suspicions are unfounded!

Disaster - as expected!

Domeier apparently thinks that showing off this meat hook is somehow cool - well, it aint!

Bingo!

I've just come back from an epic DEMA Show, only to find out that Domeier has managed to grieviously injure a Great White.
This is what has happened (transcript here).



It's all very very bad but having said it all before, there's no need for me to post any more opines on the matter. Others have taken up the issue, foremost of which Underwater Thrills, Sharky (welcome back buddy), Sea Stewards, RTSea and even the mainstream media like the ABC Blog and undoubtedly, many others.

Just this.

I'm particularly appalled by the reaction of the people involved, be it that woman who gave the permit, Domeier, NatGeo who remained silent and above all, that guy Fisher who chose to act as the spokesperson and greenwasher of the whole fiasco.
Their statements populate the comments sections of the various blogs and articles and are a glaring example of their arrogance, lack of ethical imperatives and pure and simple hubris. Where they should have been eating humble pie, admitted their error, apologized and stopped their stupid undertaking in view of developing better and more respectful procedures, they chose out to lash out against the critics and to point their finger at similar (and equally unethical) experiments by their peers.
Shame on them and shame on NatGeo for not having pulled them back and taken better control of what amounts to a substantial blunder and according tarnishing of their brand.

Secondly, this has come at no surprise.
I chose to chastise it in unequivocal and abrasive terms, partly because of, I hate to admit, my Germanic genes coupled with a sometimes poor understanding of the foreign language I write in - and partly because being literally in the thick of it, I vehemently and passionately oppose unethical and gratuitous science, a recurrent thread of this blog.
Turns out that on top of being unnecessarily brutal, the whole exercise was largely redundant as TOPP and others had already collected a vast sample of identical data. Yes the new tags stay on longer but that's no excuse whatsoever for harming the animals and yes, I'm repeating myself.

Thing is, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this was wrong and that it did harbor an unacceptably high risk of harming the animals. If this comment is true, it appears that they hadn't even figured out the need for using proper circle hooks, something every game fisherman has known for years.
Anyway, what I wanted to say is that I had wished for a more unequivocal condemnation of the way things were being handled - and this from the outset and not only after disaster struck.

Guys, in so many ways, we are the gatekeepers.
So let's be a little less politically correct, a little less timid, a little less oblique, a little less calculating and let's say it as it is - and yes, I'll leave it at that, the more as I'm sure you understand.

Luckily, within the scientific community, many concur that this unethical shit must stop.
I had the honor and great personal pleasure of finally meeting one of the world's foremost authorities on Sharks. We had a fantastic dinner where we exchanged views and lined up some exciting stuff for the future. And I was touched when he said that he started by killing many Sharks, a fact he now regretted as he was seeing what was happening and wanted to devote his efforts to getting the animals protected. What a great thing to witness!

Hopefully, the many new scientists he coaches and mentors will take up this modern view of what science needs to be: committed to conservation and always respectful of the animals.
Hopefully, the likes of Domeier who apparently sold his soul to the gratuitous fame of a stupid reality show will be adequately reprimanded by their peers at the next meeting of the AES or whenever he will try to hawk the data he has gathered. Hopefully, in the future, we will never again enable nor condone this kind of attitude, irrespective of the media dollars and the scientific veneer and according brownie points it may come with.

And hopefully, the poor Shark will survive - and guess who now carries the onus of proving it!

Enough said.

PS The Dorsal Fin has weighed in on this one and if one follows the links, one ends up on Mr. Fisher's website. Pretty revealing huh? So, maybe, this was primarily about reeling in some monster Fish that would have otherwise been protected?
Honi soit qui mal y pense...

He's baaaaaaaaack!!!

Guadalupe GW with permanent bling - click for detail.

Domeier wants to go and fish for more Great Whites – story here.

Before commenting, let me try and put things into perspective.
Generally speaking, we are very much in favor of research as we deem it essential for providing the data enabling us to devise effective conservation measures. Consequently, as you know, we have always always sponsored research on our Bull Sharks that are the principal attraction of the Fiji Shark Dive. But research is expensive as we devote a lot of resources to this undertaking and depending on what we do, it may also be disruptive to our business as some happens during our regular Shark dives with paying customers. We consequently don’t just blindly embark into new ventures, but have instead developed the following process whereby every project gets thoroughly screened before being implemented – and incidentally, we do something very similar when deciding about the countless film productions that get proposed to us.

The lead researcher is Dr. Juerg Brunnschweiler.
Juerg is one of, if not the foremost expert on this species and everything we do and every request by any other researcher is subject to his vetting and approval. We will also consult with Gary Adkison who brings to the table a lifetime of experience in diving with Sharks, and with Rusi whose understanding of the individual Sharks on Shark Reef is simply unparalleled, and define the framework for a research project. From the very beginning, we have had the understanding that all projects need to be checked against the following two prerequisites:

• There must be a direct link between the project and Shark conservation. Like I’ve said many times before, funding for research (and conservation) is scarce and the inevitable consequence is that it must be prioritized. We believe that the most urgent biological challenges that need to be tackled are habitat degradation and species extinction, and that “nice to know”, let alone blatantly frivolous queries must wait, respectively have no place in our research.
• The method we use must be the least invasive possible, this in order to conform to what we deem ethical (no lethal sampling, ever!), to safeguard the animals but also, to ensure that the Sharks we have worked so hard to attract and befriend are not being spooked by unnecessary rough handling.

With that in mind, here is what has happened lately.
After completing the satellite tagging project that was aimed at identifying the nursery areas but was fraught with technical challenges, we started a new project aimed at exploring the short-range movement patterns of the Sharks with the aim of better defining the area required to ensure their effective protection. For that, we positioned a multitude of receivers on the adjacent reefs and proceeded to equip the Sharks with acoustic transmitters. In line with our beliefs about having to use non-invasive methods, all tags were fed rather than attached, meaning that they would be expelled within only 3 to 7 days. Despite of this impediment, we were able to indentify the likely scope of their range and this has resulted in the establishment of a Shark protected Shark Corridor in 2006.

Our next query was to try and pinpoint the mating areas.
As the Bulls do not feed during the mating period, we had no choice but to attach the acoustic tags externally – and back came the old technical challenges. Our first choice of pole spears proved inadequate as most of the time, the anchors would not penetrate properly and the tags would detach in no time. Using a spear gun was more successful but resulted in veritable hunting expeditions where some of us got the impression that the Sharks quickly caught on to the activity and would split as soon as the hunter would ascend in the water column, to the point that after a few days of spearing, Shark numbers would be noticeably diminished and only recover after several weeks of normal diving.
Long story short – despite of obtaining several stellar results, we have realized that our protocols are sub-optimal and need urgent improvement.

As a consequence, we have not tagged a single Shark in 2010.
Instead, we have sent back all surplus tags that are now being deployed elsewhere and after the last tag had detached itself, we have retrieved all receivers and have instead concentrated on obtaining as many tissue samples as possible for Mahmood’s research on genetic fingerprinting. At the same time, we are scouting the rivers in order to set up a series of research projects there in 2011 where we will re-deploy the receivers.

And what about the tagging?
The current problem we are facing is threefold:

• We know the range of the Bulls and have expanded the protected area accordingly, and we also know where the mating areas are (up to Juerg to explain that in an upcoming paper): thus, in order to invest more resources, we will need to come up with a new, conservation-oriented query. As I said, mere nice to know does not cut it.
• Tagging the Bulls externally is invasive and changes their behavior, albeit only temporarily. On a personal note, it is also profoundly disturbing for both me and Rusi to witness somebody shooting animals to whom we have developed a personal attachment.
• The gizmos are faulty and continuing with the present techniques is going to lead to more frustration.

With that in mind, we will resume tagging only once we have a new, worthwhile conservation-oriented project and above all, only once we have developed a new, secure and non invasive technique for deploying them.
But fear not: we have already agreed upon such a project and have also already successfully deployed a completely new prototype gizmo! Preliminary results look highly promising and we may soon be able to reveal it to the public – after securing it against moochers like the always industrious and formidable BB!

Which brings me straight over to Domeier.
He wants to fish and then tag 13 more GWs, a highly endangered and strictly protected species, and that within a protected marine sanctuary. That fact alone requires a very much heightened level of vigilance and due diligence when determining whether he should be allowed to do so.
It may not surprise you that I believe he should not, and here is why.

I’ve read the draft proposal.
Quite frankly, it is a great piece – in fact, it is so exhaustive and compelling that being my usual skeptical self, I already harbor the suspicion that this is already a done deal and that the public consultation is merely a ploy aimed at preempting any subsequent critique once things will again go pear shaped.
But as I said, it is extremely well written and addresses many grievances head on and with plausible explanations – so good that in fact, I’m stumped that Domeier never deigned to use the same compelling arguments and deflect much of the criticism when the proverbial hit the fan!

What it however does not address are the two prerequisites we postulate here in Fiji.

Cui bono?
Is there really a need to tag more Pacific Great Whites?
I sure hope this is not again a fishing show for Nat Geo! And if not: thanks to TOPP and others, Pacific GWs are without a doubt the most researched and best documented local population of this species: we basically already know where they give birth, where the juveniles migrate, where the adults roam. Also, those GWs are already protected in the USA and in Mexico, however with the caveat that quite a few juveniles perish as they are caught accidentally by small Mexican fishermen when they migrate south to Baja.
What possible new data will Domeier’s project gather for better preserving the species?

And with that in mind, would those resources not be better invested elsewhere?
Just as some examples: could those funds not be better invested in trying to stop the accidental catches by the small Mexican fishermen? Could those tags not be deployed to study the little documented GW in the Mediterranean, or the newly found population in Vietnam?

But much more importantly, those SPOT tags suck!
First, there are notorious connectivity problems that need not be addressed here.
But secondly, the present attachment technique is just simply unacceptable. The tag is supposed to uplink to a satellite and transmit is position whenever the Shark comes to the surface and for that, in its present configuration, it needs to be rigidly attached to the first dorsal fin. This implies catching and immobilizing the Shark in order to drill some holes and attach the tag with bolts and nuts, a fact that condemns the Shark to henceforth carry around some ugly bling that will never ever fall off anymore. Check out the above picture from Lawrence’s blog, and I can only agree with his comment : WTF?

The whole procedure is highly invasive, if not outright cruel.
That alone should be grounds enough for not giving the permit.
In fact, the procedure is so bad that Domeier himself has recognized the problem and apparently (and unsuccessfully) tried to develop a clamp very much in line with what is already being deployed on Whale Sharks. Having failed, he now wants to resort to the old, “proven” (and granted, slightly improved) technique of catching the Sharks with rod and reel, subduing them by having them fight against some buoys and then hoisting them onto a vessel.
That’s just not good enough!

I say: wait til the gizmo is fixed!
Collecting those data is probably neither really necessary, nor urgent. Why not take the time to develop a better tag with a better attachment instead of having the Sharks pay the price for his incapacity to devise a better attachment.
Solutions? Surely, if one can produce a space-age satellite tag, one can also devise something equally sophisticated instead of continuing to resort to those jury-rigged implements? Maybe indeed a clamp that snaps shut and can be applied on the fly? Maybe re-design the tag so that it can be attached anywhere (and thus, on the fly) and equip it with a short line to just a small floating and self-righting antenna? And if everything fails: how about a cool contest among the students of some technical university!

So, there you have it.
It is once again about what’s ethical and whether the need for data warrants mistreating the animals. We believe it does not and consequently, we don’t do it in Fiji - and neither is it OK to do so anywhere else! Yes, improving faulty protocols may be tedious and even expensive - but it needs to be done.

Mind you, just my 2 ¢ - and as I said, I fear that in practical terms, nobody cares anyway.
As always, we shall watch how this venture unfolds.

Guadalupe Great Whites - Paper!

Location data for the four satellite-linked radio-telemetry-tagged female white sharks during the pupping phase.

Epic!

Read the paper!

No I'm not going to write a synopsis as it is open access, short, incredibly interesting and informative, and crystal clear insofar as it does not contain any obscure scientific lingo - and anybody ever wanting to talk about Great Whites needs to have read it!
Yes, female GWS follow a two-year breeding and migration cycle, something no PAT tag has ever been able to document!

And, there is this.

Jorgensen et al. have proposed an alternative life-history hypothesis that is contradictory to the hypothesis proposed by Domeier. The major difference between these hypotheses pertains to the timing and location of mating. Jorgensen et al. speculated that white sharks are mating during their offshore phase, whereas Domeier proposed that mating occurs during seasonal, near-shore, adult aggregations...

The offshore-mating hypothesis is based upon the conjecture that a described vertical-diving pattern (rapid oscillatory diving (ROD)) is a result of a lek-like mating behavior in the core of the SOFA. This interpretation is problematic from several perspectives. Lek-like mating systems involve the gathering of males at a traditional site for the purpose of ritualized courtship display. The males compete for the attention of females, and in turn, the females select a specific male for mating. Although the peak in ROD behavior, and thus presumed offshore mating, occurs during June/July in a period when the distribution of males temporarily constricts, even the constricted offshore space is vast (estimated to be about 64,000 km²). Lek-like mating would require the males to be in a very small space to allow females to observe the courtship of several males at once. No electronic-tag data have ever indicated that sharks are densely populating a small, traditional offshore site. Lek-like mating systems have been described for some species of fish, but leks have never been seen among elasmobranchs. Females that mate in lek systems select a single male deemed superior to other males, thus the fact that white-shark pups from a single litter tested positive for multiple paternity argues against lek-like mating for this species. 

It is challenging to ascribe any behavior to vertical movement data in the absence of visual observations. The seasonal constriction of the SOFA and the ROD-type diving pattern could be due to the pursuit of a seasonally available prey. An expedition to this region during the constriction identified the presence of three species of spawning squid and sperm whales, but again, the absence of behavioral observations deems it impractical to assign any cause to the ROD diving pattern. Diving patterns and mating systems aside, there are other strong arguments against the hypothesis that white sharks are mating during the offshore phase of their migratory pattern. First, electronic-tag data indicate that males and females are largely segregated during the offshore period, and second, the proposed mating during June/July would equate to December/January pupping (accepting the 18-month gestation estimate). Females arrive at adult aggregation sites approximately in September, and depart in December to end of February. No YOY have been seen at the adult aggregation sites, no obviously pregnant females have been sighted at GI, and pupping is known to occur approximately April through July.

Bingo!

I really had to laugh out loud - remember?

Basically exactly what i said - which begs the question, does the man read my posts? What I did not know was the fact about multiple paternity - the exact opposite of what would be expected in lek mating!

Eat that, Sal!

Anyway.

Bravo Michael Domeier and Nicole Nasby-Lucas - this is truly seminal stuff. And, thank you for the chapter about conservation concerns! 

And I repeat: read it!

And now, watch this.

Right.

Looks like the bunch of dipshits with an opinion and a keyboard has spawned a dipshit with an opinion and a camera who is now publicly spouting the usual moronic rubbish all the way to having the audacity to post that picture of Junior! 

All so pathetically SvS.

But fear not, I'm not gonna dwell on the latter. 

As per Patric's update and after now many weeks of him having produced zero, zilch, nana da nada evidence for his assertions, I'm done with the man and his verbose excretions!

Anyway.

Does that mean that I now endorse SPOT tags?

It depends!

Research does not consist in slapping on some tags in order to then look at what happens - the scientific method demands that one formulate a (plausible - see the lekking fiasco!) hypothesis and then test it, for which one needs to employ the adequate tools.

So IF the hypothesis requires gathering multi-year data about a species that conducts large migrations and IF the animal comes to the surface frequently which is necessary for up-linking to the satellite, and IF the questions being asked are important, then I absolutely support deploying SPOT tags!

As I said here, research about philopatry is vitally important for conservation purposes!

Example?

The GWS that aggregate and regale the cage divers at the Neptunes are likely to be among the very same animals that munch on unsuspecting aquatic recreationists in Western Australia, quite possibly in tandem with GWS that travel there from SA.

Both hypotheses have already been validated by PAT tagging tracks, and possibly even via acoustic tagging - but we still don't have the full picture insofar as we don't know where they mate, where they pup (or do we?) and why, exactly, they and some of the SA GWS travel to WA.

That is simply vital information if we ever want to understand and then address and manage the mess in WA and protect those Sharks - and of course the people!

And how would one go about in gathering that info?

Assuming (which is not a given!) that the females of that Australian population follow the same 2-year cycle as those from Guadalupe, then SPOT tags would be the ideal tool, vastly superior to PAT tags that do not have that longevity! The ideal tagging location would be the Neptunes where the Sharks aggregate, and the operators there should really consider inviting a knowledgeable GWS researcher - out of intellectual curiosity but also very much in order to safeguard their assets!

But not Fischer's wandering circus!

I dislike the man but that's obviously not the issue.

The issue is that by today's standards, his methods are unnecessarily invasive. Domeier has proven that very large GWS can be caught and then tagged whist submerged; and he has also developed a cradle for the tags whereby there is only one single attachment bolt, thus greatly reducing the risk of fin damage. 

Is that perfect?

Certainly not - but it's a great improvement and in view of the importance of finally gathering the necessary information about that population, I for one could personally live with some possibly warped or shredded fins. But I would not publish any tracks - at least not at this time of public pressure and according political brinkmanship in WA. Imagine the fiasco of showcasing the Sharks' real-time location, only to have one executed by some overly zealous government bureaucrat - highly unlikely but why take that risk!

But I'm digressing as always.

All I really wanted to say is, epic and congrats!

Read the paper!

Junior - have I been set up?

We got ourselves a debate!

I must commend Michael Domeier.
After those pictures were published, he did not try and dodge the issue but instead, he has vigorously addressed the various controversies on the website of Marine CSI. It is a toothy piece and I like it. As expected, much of what he writes touches on ethical issues and whereas I agree with some and do not at all agree with some other statements, that is not the topic of this post.

The topic is this.

Recently, another research group working at the Farallones has released images of Junior from the fall of 2010.
These images have been posted on the internet to incite negative publicity about our white shark research. The images clearly show a rather nasty wound on the corner of Junior’s mouth, but what is not explained is that when the entire video is viewed it can be determined that this injury was clearly inflicted by another white shark; it is not a result of the capture and release during tagging.

Very interesting!
My first thought is has somebody tried to set me up? - which in view of the legendary internecine fights in the GW research community is certainly a plausible (and in this specific case, eminently testable!) hypothesis!

Over to the injury.
Prima vista, I remain unconvinced. Those bites by other Sharks are generally "clean" and as Domeier confirms, they heal amazingly fast, this very much in line with what we see on our Bulls here in Fiji; the pictures of Junior however appear to depict a festering inflammation that looks very different. But then again, they are rather fuzzy video grabs and it is entirely possible that they are misleading.

How about some verification then.
Domeier asserts rather confidently that if one watches the entire video, it becomes apparent that Junior's injury is due to a Shark bite. With that in mind, I believe that at this stage, it is incumbent upon the other group to produce that video for independent verification. Either the wound has been clearly inflicted by another white shark, or it has not.
Yes or No - easy!

• will that video be made available?
• who will analyze it?
• what will be the results?
  

Questions, questions...