Monday, April 04, 2011

Junior - follow up!


The silence after my last post about Junior has been deafening.

But fear not.
I've been around for a long time and know alot of people.
I've started to do some digging and lemme tell you, the terrain has quickly become treacherous! I never intended to ever wade back into the arcane politics of GW research and conservation in California, the more as I don't understand (does anybody?) half of what's going on there - but I am persevering because I'm starting to get pissed off and am thus highly motivated.

Did I hear, what's the agenda?
To shed light on what increasingly appears to be a smear campaign against Michael Domeier.
Period. I don't personally know any of the actors and have no vested interests there whatsoever. But having been dragged into it and having publicly asked questions, I now want to get answers.

So there.
What I'm starting to discern, is a faint buzz of vague innuendos and speculation: but if one weeds out the most preposterous allegations (= this is viral marketing for Sharkmen2 instigated by MD and Nat Geo) and aggregates the most plausible bits and pieces, the picture that is starting to emerge is this.

I hear about nasty politics. I hear that the research community was once highly fractured and the scene of fierce internecine warfare. I hear that a big 500lb gorilla wielding a big schtick in the form of lavish research grants and with a determined (some say nasty) disposition managed to browbeat everybody into submission, pacified the various factions and created an uneasy alliance of researchers. I hear that for quite a while, there has been a small group of researchers, advisers and bureaucrats overseeing that place and making a living of it. A little incestuous it seems. A bit of conflict of interest too perhaps? I hear that for years, that group has been trying to get everyone else, and I do mean everyone including the general public, excluded from the islands, see the above link. I sense that as a consequence, everybody with any connection to that place is highly concerned about possible retribution and accordingly paranoiac about not wanting to get involved.
I hear that Domeier is an outsider who had the audacity to intrude. I hear that he was told to back off, or else. I hear that there is history, including anecdotes about tagged Guadalupe GWs traveling on the coastal highway all the way to Sta Cruz – hilarious, you really can’t make these things up. I get messages predicting that they will cannibalize him in an orgy of scientific frothiness that would put even the best 1930's piranha movie to shame. It's how academia rolls. If you thought internecine fighting between operators was bad, you ain't seen nuthin' until you have seen a knife fight between two scientists. Nice.
Get the gist?

Is this PROOF?
Hell, no! Much is anecdotal and circumstantial - it is merely a plausible backdrop that may however help frame the issue at hand.

Names?
Not quite yet - but I know about that research and having Googled Great White Sharks Philopatry, I've come up with a possible lineup of characters.
Interesting.

Open questions.
  • There is a video: who has taken it, who owns it, who has copies
  • Does the video clearly prove that the wound on Junior's head is a Shark bite. Release the video - regardless of whether it’s a yes or a no.
  • Who did grab those stills and leak them, and why
  • Did anybody sanction the leak
This ain't going away - and that's a promise.
At stake, the reputation of Michael Domeier.
But equally at stake, the reputation of some researchers, that of the people and institutions they work for and who fund their research, that of the GFNMS.

Whoever is behind this - it's time for some reflection and soul searching.

I shall be writing one more post in this matter after this.
After that, we can then hopefully concentrate on the real issue at hand, i.e. the tagging of Sharks.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

"lavish" research grants? that sounds like an oxymoron.

DaShark said...

Wow that was fast!

Well, yes, in relative terms! :)

Anonymous said...

Mike, I appreciate your honest and non-biased view point on this. I am not involved with either group of researchers but your right, this issue is a combination of legitimate critisisms and a shady witch hunt. I look forward to reading what you find.

Anonymous said...

Interesting dynamics at play here for sure.

How is it that a genuine concern for a protected species that is apparently worse for wear after an invasive 'study' procedure that involved the shark being hooked in the throat is turned around to be a case of 'poor $cientist$' being picked on?


That the big game fishing expedition was allowed to target protected species within a marine sanctuary (the one place where they are supposed to be safe) is just absurd.

Meanwhile the sharks being fished for are already a protected species in California and there are already ongoing studies in place at the sanctuaries.

There exists enough data already protect the species throughout its range.

The Domeier study is redundant, needlessly injurious (sport) invasive.

The pretension is that Domeier is entering a new site and gathering new data in order to protect sharks...

Fact is they are already protected, already being studied and his methods offer nothing more than a chance to subdue the 'Great White Shark' which has become a trophy in some camps.

The Domeier methods injure the sharks, affect their behaviors and cause the sharks to flee the study site; this also affects the long term study that is already in place and using superior methods.

Domeier has stated that he sees the white shark as no different than a striped bass so far as he is concerned; there in lays the problem here.

White sharks are a protected species and the sanctuaries are not the place where these sharks should be targeted with such methods.

Happy to debate the matter,
Sean

S.R. Van Sommeran
Pelagic Shark Research Foundation
Santa Cruz California Since 1990

Support California Assembly Bill 376 --(shut down finning industry/fisheries in CA)!

Anonymous said...

note: the article below pretty much admits this is a fishing trip for Great White Sharks... it is redundant and sundry to the genuine studies already underway and the conservation effort that has a history going back 2 decades.


National Geographic Channel's Shark Fishermen Hit the Water this April--

By National Geographic Channel/Newswire - April 2011


http://www.sportfishingmag.com/news/news/national-geographic-channels-shark-men-hits-the-water-this-april-1000087761.html

DaShark said...

Sean,

I totally agree with you that this was a fishing show, for which I principally hold Chris Fisher accountable. It is he who scripted this and then went boasting about having caught the largest fish on rod & reel, etc.
Domeier probably found himself caught in the events once he agreed to take part in the program, and probably regrets that now.

I also fully agree that the procedures were particularly brutal.

I also fully agree that the sanctuary administration should not have sanctioned that, the more as much of what was done was experimental.

Search for Domeier on this blog and you will see that I've been saying (to put it mildly :) this for a long time.

I also agree that in their present configuration, SPOT tags are particularly invasive. But so are ALL tags, albeit to a higher or lesser degree.
I shall post about this later, about ALL bling and ALL procedures currently employed when tagging many different species, and this by many researchers.
Much to debate there!

Where I totally disagree is with your repeated assertion that Domeier's research is redundant.
There is a need for precise multi-year tracks. Some Sharks leave for several years and there is plausible speculation that the range may actually extend all the way to Japan, or think of the sightings of GWs in Vietnam.
What is also presently unknown is where they mate and pup.
Telemetry will not answer all those questions but it will give valuable information about where to go and look with other means.

Conservation?
Once those locations are known, one must then not only protect GWs but also curtail fishing during critical time windows etc.

But that is not the issue at hand in this specific post.
What you call "picking" has become highly personal, irrational and defamatory.

It was precipitated by yours truly and Underwater Thrills when we posted a set of highly disturbing pictures.

Those were video grabs.
That video originated with the TOPP labs as surely as day follows night.
Somebody then invested a lot of time to peruse archives and create a collage of before-and-after images that were subsequently leaked to us.

Furthermore, Domeier asserts that the full video will clearly show that the injury is a fresh Shark bite, meaning that there is no "tumor" as asserted and that Domeier cannot be blamed.
If so, what are the chances that the researchers who saw and filmed the Shark didn't know.

All of this is highly questionable, the more as it increasingly looks like an orchestrated smear campaign.
I want to get to the bottom of this before touching on the other aspects of this debate.

Anonymous said...

Dear DaShark,
You at once agree with the obvious and then admonish and disavow the outcome... what is your point?


DaShark said:
'Sean, I totally agree with you that this was a fishing show, for which I principally hold Chris Fisher accountable. It is he who scripted this and then went boasting about having caught the largest fish on rod & reel, etc.'


and then closes with:


DaShark said:
'All of this is highly questionable, the more as it increasingly looks like an orchestrated smear campaign.
I want to get to the bottom of this before touching on the other aspects of this debate.'

---

You seem to be agreeing that the effort is ham-fisted, fishy and suspect but at the same time trying to distance yourself from those who brought this to the surface for the public to have a look see.

There also appears to be an odd wobble to your logic that accuses the researchers who have documented the evidence of being 'snitches' for leaking the previously 'unknown facts' and associated evidences.

Cordially,
Sean


S.R. Van Sommeran
Pelagic Shark Research Foundation
Santa Cruz California Since 1990

Support California Assembly Bill 376 --(shut down finning industry/fisheries in CA)!

DaShark said...

Sean

If the "evidence" is doctored, i.e. it was clearly a shark bite, would you approve of that?

Anonymous said...

Not to speak for Mike, but what i think he is trying to say is that the evidence does need to be presented from both sides. Just crucifying Dolmire because you say he caused this sharks condition doesnt cut it. You make a valid point, that maybe the benefits from the SPOT tagging dont make up for the costs. I actually think Ramon Bonfils technique for tagging white sharks was much better than Dolmires. That may well be so, but you follow that up with inaccurate statements. PAT tags DO NOT provide the high resolution geolocations of SPOTS, thats simply not true. There are at least 10's of km of error on geolocation estimates, with the best of filters.
I too want to see a balanced and fair discussion of the topic. Asking to see the evidence from those claiming the shark has been badly hurt from the tagging is a very reasonable request.

DaShark said...

His name is Michael Domeier.

Yes I'm saying that whoever started this is now beholden to produce the evidence, i.e. the entire video.

What I'm also saying is that the allegation that MD permanently injured Junior is highly suspect, see my various posts.

What I'm also saying is that what I see happening is in breach of what I believe are the basic standards of common decency, collegiality and academic debate.

Anonymous said...

note: the article below pretty much admits this is a fishing trip for Great White Sharks... it is redundant and sundry to the genuine studies already underway and the conservation effort that has a history going back 2 decades.


National Geographic Channel's Shark Fishermen Hit the Water this April--

By National Geographic Channel/Newswire
Fri, Apr 01, 2011


http://www.sportfishingmag.com/news/news/national-geographic-channels-shark-men-hits-the-water-this-april-1000087761.html

DaShark said...

Twice the exact same comment?
That you Sean?

Anonymous said...

Well, Brandi surely could not have read the article and then make the comment she did, I figured she hadnt seen it, didnt read it and so reposted it for her convenience and consideration.

One who does not read has little advantage over one who cannot read.

Nice blog by the way, thank you for your altruistic endulgances.

Mahalo,
Sean
PSRF
Since 1990

Anonymous said...

We consider the hook and line method to be needlessly injurious while producing largely redundant data.

White sharks are already a protected species in California and its ostensible National Marine Sanctuaries and more recently established MPAs; there already exists enough data regarding the white shark's central eastern pacific range to establish protected status throughout that range; the need for additional data is not what is holding up the show in that regard.

Likewise the 'Okinawa connection' and western pacific's apparent and anomalous presence of large adult, late term gravid female white sharks is already established and being explored via photo ID and DNA analysis.

On site long term monitoring, together with low impact tracking studies is the way to go at this.

Long term monitoring studies involving digital still/video identification, behavioral documentation and genetic analysis is far better than the one off TV expeditionary approach.

Almost all of the late term gravid specimens of female white sharks ever documented in Pacific ocean have come from western pacific, Okinawa in particular.

We see the juvenile white sharks off Southern California/Mexico, but the big pregnant females have thus far all come from other-side of Pacific.

As conservation researchers and environmental activists we are not at liberty to disclose all that we know.

Large adult female white sharks documented off of Okinawa 2010 by Taketomo Shiratori:
http://youtu.be/FpuhjBYrtsQ

It may take slightly longer to attach the PAT tags and acoustic tags but the data is robust and reliable and more than sufficient to track these animals and document their range and seasonality.

The sharks mostly return on a yearly basis anyway and patience is a virtue and a skill set.

If the data collection takes just a bit longer in gathering we think that is preferable to gambling with the animals well being and behaviors in hopes of some sort of ostensible ‘academic-corporate’ coup.

My passion in responding is partly due to Domeier’s lashing out at the local resident long term researchers at Farallones. I think his responses to their having documented the sharks failing condition is ruthless, he's angry because we know better.

In closing I would suggest that Domeier’s SPOT tags (as rigged) are injurious to the fins they are bolted onto. The devices diminish the sharks efficiency for locomotion.

Cordially,
Sean

S.R. Van Sommeran
Executive Director
Pelagic Shark Research Foundation
http://www.pelagic.org
~Now of facebook~
Since 1990

Support California Assembly Bill 376 --(shut down finning industry/fisheries in CA)!

DaShark said...

PS Brandi re NAT GEO !!!!! was on another thread! :)

DaShark said...

Ya know Sean, I have a grudging admiration for you, especially after what u posted on SFS.
That, in its essence, was actually darn impressive, kudos.

But the mudslinging... my finger is always creeping towards the "delete" button but you always add enough interesting info that I decide to let it stand.

Plus, I must say that it IS interesting to hear it from the horse's mouth in all of its facets.
Wish the Farallones folks were as forthcoming. Call it PC, shame, cowardice or hubris, they are just keeping silent and hoping this is gonna go away and leave them untainted.
Not gonna happen I fea

Anonymous said...

I do have a question about those SPOT tags MD used on his research on GW….
Fantastic, those new tags are better in collecting more data then previous tags deployed and will transmit data for the next 6 years.
Though what will happen with those tags after the 6 years?! Are they gone to stay attached to the sharks for as long as they live?
I read that this post its not about the tags, though anybody knows more? I’m sure in Shark Men TV show was nothing mentioned about this matter.
I noticed that they use some plastic ties to secure those tags on the shark dorsal fin with some screws or they just melt the ends.

Are they have another "GW fishing contest" in 6 years to remove the obsolete tags?!
Thank you .

Regards,
TC

DaShark said...

Good question!

NOBODY knows what's gonna happen to those tags!
It's all highly experimental & I doubt that anybody has conducted a proper 6-year simulation.

My gut feeling is that by then, the tags will be fully overgrown with algae and barnacles and possibly even host crabs, small fishes and what-have-you, and that the shark will be condemned to schlepp around that stuff forever.

Not nice!