Watch this appalling shit!
What a fucking moron.
The dude needs to get fired, on the spot.
As for Stuart Cove's, what can I say - really didn't like them much before and like them even less now!
Pathetic story here!
Pathetic story here!
Showing posts with label Animal Cruelty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Animal Cruelty. Show all posts
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Fix those bloody Tags!
About those SPOT tags.
This is gonna be quick&dirty - but I want to quickly follow up on yesterday's comments.
From Neil's paper about satellite tags.
Read it - it is thankfully open resource for which Neil has to be commended.
SPOT tags are usually mounted to shark fins using biocompatible materials.
The attachment process includes punching or drilling holes through the dorsal fin tissue, where after the tag is affixed using bolts or pins, and finally secured with nuts made of a corrodible material.
This design theoretically allows the tag to shed after battery exhaustion.
However, tissue degradation and infection due to a foreign body response may result. To our knowledge, there are no published reports of this condition on the dorsal fins of satellite tagged sharks, however this pattern of fin damage from tagging has been described in other predatory marine animals such as dolphins (Balmer et al., 2010).
Once deployed, the actual satellite tag becomes an extension to the shark's body.
The most obvious behavioral consequence of tagging is a change in swimming efficiency due to hydrodynamic drag incurred by the tag. Transmitters have been linked with abnormal swimming behavior and increased energetic demands in dolphins (e.g. Irvine et al., 1982) and marine birds (e.g. Wilson et al., 1986; Wilson and McMahon, 2006). Various studies have examined possible effects of electronic tags or data loggers on the swimming efficiency of sharks, but results have been variable (Holland et al., 1993; Heithaus et al., 2007; Gleiss et al., 2009).
Another factor rarely considered is satellite tag color and how this may impact shark behavior (Wilson and McMahon, 2006).
It is well documented that white sharks rely on stealth and ambush to successfully capture and subjugate seal prey (Martin et al., 2005; Hammerschlag et al., 2006). A vigilant seal may be cued into the presence of a white shark prior to an imminent attack by detecting a colored satellite tag, resulting in predator avoidance. We have been able to consistently distinguish colored electronic tags on approaching white sharks below the surface, before visualizing the actual shark (Authors, unpublished data).
Brightly colored tags should be avoided due to their potential to alter predator–prey relationships (Hawkins, 2004).
No I'm not gonna repeat myself.
Long story short: those tags suck! Long story: re-read this - and keep in mind that I wrote it before seeing yesterday's shocking pictures! Now that there ARE published reports of this condition on the dorsal fins of satellite tagged sharks, pretending that there isn't a problem will not fly anymore!
To Neil's credit, he is trying his best.
This post documents the extreme care he applies when mounting the tags, clearly in the attempt to minimize those negative effects. Plus, his Hammerhead paper elaborates as follows
To limit bio-fouling of the tag, the transmitter was coated with Propspeed, a non-toxic, nonmetallic, anti-fouling agent comprised of several different types of silicone resins that inhibit attachment of marine growth (Hammerschlag et al. 2010).
The coated SPOT tag was attached to the first dorsal fin of the shark (following Weng et al. 2005) using titanium bolts, neoprene washers, steel washers, and high carbon steel nuts following Hanson (2001).
The attachment metals were selected to ensure that the steel nuts would corrode, resulting not only in tag detachment (Hanson 2001), but also to prevent any metallic corrosion from touching the shark fin (Hammerschlag et al. 2010).
I say bravo, but this may not be good enough anymore!
Now there is new and plausible evidence that those tags may lead to deformities and until this is being dispelled, any further deployment ought to be halted. There are now plenty of Sharks out there lugging around SPOT tags and it is now incumbent on the researchers to make the effort to go and see how those Sharks are faring.
And if they are not faring well - suspend the research and FIX THE GIZMO!
Incidentally, how about this Shark from Lupe.
Apparently, he was equally tagged by Domeier. I already posted the picture here but did not catch on to it til now: does that first dorsal fin look normal to you?
Like lethal sampling, this has now become an ethical, not a technical debate.
David: hint hint!
And yes as announced: this sure aint a contender for a Pulitzer - apologies!
This is gonna be quick&dirty - but I want to quickly follow up on yesterday's comments.
From Neil's paper about satellite tags.
Read it - it is thankfully open resource for which Neil has to be commended.
SPOT tags are usually mounted to shark fins using biocompatible materials.
The attachment process includes punching or drilling holes through the dorsal fin tissue, where after the tag is affixed using bolts or pins, and finally secured with nuts made of a corrodible material.
This design theoretically allows the tag to shed after battery exhaustion.
However, tissue degradation and infection due to a foreign body response may result. To our knowledge, there are no published reports of this condition on the dorsal fins of satellite tagged sharks, however this pattern of fin damage from tagging has been described in other predatory marine animals such as dolphins (Balmer et al., 2010).
Once deployed, the actual satellite tag becomes an extension to the shark's body.
The most obvious behavioral consequence of tagging is a change in swimming efficiency due to hydrodynamic drag incurred by the tag. Transmitters have been linked with abnormal swimming behavior and increased energetic demands in dolphins (e.g. Irvine et al., 1982) and marine birds (e.g. Wilson et al., 1986; Wilson and McMahon, 2006). Various studies have examined possible effects of electronic tags or data loggers on the swimming efficiency of sharks, but results have been variable (Holland et al., 1993; Heithaus et al., 2007; Gleiss et al., 2009).
Another factor rarely considered is satellite tag color and how this may impact shark behavior (Wilson and McMahon, 2006).
It is well documented that white sharks rely on stealth and ambush to successfully capture and subjugate seal prey (Martin et al., 2005; Hammerschlag et al., 2006). A vigilant seal may be cued into the presence of a white shark prior to an imminent attack by detecting a colored satellite tag, resulting in predator avoidance. We have been able to consistently distinguish colored electronic tags on approaching white sharks below the surface, before visualizing the actual shark (Authors, unpublished data).
Brightly colored tags should be avoided due to their potential to alter predator–prey relationships (Hawkins, 2004).
No I'm not gonna repeat myself.
Long story short: those tags suck! Long story: re-read this - and keep in mind that I wrote it before seeing yesterday's shocking pictures! Now that there ARE published reports of this condition on the dorsal fins of satellite tagged sharks, pretending that there isn't a problem will not fly anymore!
To Neil's credit, he is trying his best.
This post documents the extreme care he applies when mounting the tags, clearly in the attempt to minimize those negative effects. Plus, his Hammerhead paper elaborates as follows
To limit bio-fouling of the tag, the transmitter was coated with Propspeed, a non-toxic, nonmetallic, anti-fouling agent comprised of several different types of silicone resins that inhibit attachment of marine growth (Hammerschlag et al. 2010).
The coated SPOT tag was attached to the first dorsal fin of the shark (following Weng et al. 2005) using titanium bolts, neoprene washers, steel washers, and high carbon steel nuts following Hanson (2001).
The attachment metals were selected to ensure that the steel nuts would corrode, resulting not only in tag detachment (Hanson 2001), but also to prevent any metallic corrosion from touching the shark fin (Hammerschlag et al. 2010).
I say bravo, but this may not be good enough anymore!
Now there is new and plausible evidence that those tags may lead to deformities and until this is being dispelled, any further deployment ought to be halted. There are now plenty of Sharks out there lugging around SPOT tags and it is now incumbent on the researchers to make the effort to go and see how those Sharks are faring.
And if they are not faring well - suspend the research and FIX THE GIZMO!
Incidentally, how about this Shark from Lupe.
Apparently, he was equally tagged by Domeier. I already posted the picture here but did not catch on to it til now: does that first dorsal fin look normal to you?
Like lethal sampling, this has now become an ethical, not a technical debate.
David: hint hint!
And yes as announced: this sure aint a contender for a Pulitzer - apologies!
Friday, March 18, 2011
Is this Domeier's Great White?
Like obviously Patric, I got these pics in an e-mail message.
The message purports that it is this Shark.
From the message
The shark is emaciated, with a brutally damaged jaw that will no longer close.
The shark has a tumor-like lesion where it had been man-handled by the team and it appears as if the shark can no longer feed as it is only a fraction of its original size. The shark’s dorsal fin still has the researcher’s tag in place, but unlike the original description, which claimed that the tags would last for 6 years, the tag is fully overgrown with algae and the fin has already begun to deform.
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.
The message continues, I was made aware that Maria Brown the Superintendent of the Farallones (a minor dental procedure - right?) saw these same images months ago and has been sitting on them.
I have no way of verifying any of this - but somebody got some xplaining to do!
How about comparing the sightings to Domeier's tracks. If they don't match, then a grave suspicion can be assuaged - if they do, this has to be stopped at once.
To be continued!
PS: Answers here!
PPS - as of December, 2013, it has been revealed that the trolling Sean van Sommeran is one of the perpetrators of this scam.
The message purports that it is this Shark.
From the message
The shark is emaciated, with a brutally damaged jaw that will no longer close.
The shark has a tumor-like lesion where it had been man-handled by the team and it appears as if the shark can no longer feed as it is only a fraction of its original size. The shark’s dorsal fin still has the researcher’s tag in place, but unlike the original description, which claimed that the tags would last for 6 years, the tag is fully overgrown with algae and the fin has already begun to deform.
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.
The message continues, I was made aware that Maria Brown the Superintendent of the Farallones (a minor dental procedure - right?) saw these same images months ago and has been sitting on them.
I have no way of verifying any of this - but somebody got some xplaining to do!
How about comparing the sightings to Domeier's tracks. If they don't match, then a grave suspicion can be assuaged - if they do, this has to be stopped at once.
To be continued!
PS: Answers here!
PPS - as of December, 2013, it has been revealed that the trolling Sean van Sommeran is one of the perpetrators of this scam.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Appalling!
Check out these incompetent morons.
Nothing to add to what I said the last time.
Plus, there's the usual excellent coverage by Underwater Thrills and The Dorsal Fin.
Still anxiously awaiting news of the GW you tortured Mr. Domeier!
PS important news from Shark Diver here in the comments section: once again, well done for having walked the walk and achieved something tangible!
I hope!
Nothing to add to what I said the last time.
Plus, there's the usual excellent coverage by Underwater Thrills and The Dorsal Fin.
Still anxiously awaiting news of the GW you tortured Mr. Domeier!
PS important news from Shark Diver here in the comments section: once again, well done for having walked the walk and achieved something tangible!
I hope!
Friday, December 18, 2009
Actions speak louder than Words
Fisher and the hook - and still proud of it!The San Diego Reader has just published this story.
It's a great and well researched piece about the Sharkfishing tagging disaster in the Farallones and the outrage it sparked among scientists, divers and the public alike. Kudos to all of them for having spoken up and said it as it is.
Alas, the perpetrators remain completely unfazed.
Not that I would have expected anything else from Fisher.
As amply documented by his public boasting, all he really cared about was to hook and subdue (if that doesn't say it all) a couple of giant Sharks - and the scientific research was just a pretext to do so within two marine sanctuaries, and to subsequently sell the show to Nat Geo. Very savvy indeed, and pretty cynic on top of that - but again, hardly surprising considering his track record.
What however baffles and quite frankly saddens me is that Domeier just doesn't seem to get it.
What is being criticized is the brutal handling of the Sharks, not the fact that this or that tag was deployed. In fact, everybody seems to agree that SPOT tags are the current cat's meow and that the long-term observational data collected would provide valuable and unique information about the GWs life history - but apart from Fisher's obvious requirements: was hooking and subduing really the only possible procedure?
Really?
I may be repeating myself, but just imagine the outcry if anybody dared to state that the level of temporary stress we subject these animals to is unfortunate, but the scientific advancements are well worth the effort, and then proceeded to go and hook and subdue, say, an Orca! And then released it with a huge hook embedded in its throat!
Are we really to believe that Domeier could not have adapted the proven non-invasive techniques for capturing and handling large Cetaceans? That he could not have tagged the Shark by keeping it in a cradle next to a skiff, like everybody else seems to do? That he could not have built some tool like the grabber this guy has invented, or used nets instead of rod and reel? Or re-designed the anchors so that the tags could have been deployed by using pole spears? Or developed some other non-invasive technique?
Did he even try?
Thing is, he just doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about the animals, does he.
Eagerly awaiting news of the Shark you tortured and injured!
It's a great and well researched piece about the Shark
Alas, the perpetrators remain completely unfazed.
Not that I would have expected anything else from Fisher.
As amply documented by his public boasting, all he really cared about was to hook and subdue (if that doesn't say it all) a couple of giant Sharks - and the scientific research was just a pretext to do so within two marine sanctuaries, and to subsequently sell the show to Nat Geo. Very savvy indeed, and pretty cynic on top of that - but again, hardly surprising considering his track record.
What however baffles and quite frankly saddens me is that Domeier just doesn't seem to get it.
What is being criticized is the brutal handling of the Sharks, not the fact that this or that tag was deployed. In fact, everybody seems to agree that SPOT tags are the current cat's meow and that the long-term observational data collected would provide valuable and unique information about the GWs life history - but apart from Fisher's obvious requirements: was hooking and subduing really the only possible procedure?
Really?
I may be repeating myself, but just imagine the outcry if anybody dared to state that the level of temporary stress we subject these animals to is unfortunate, but the scientific advancements are well worth the effort, and then proceeded to go and hook and subdue, say, an Orca! And then released it with a huge hook embedded in its throat!
Are we really to believe that Domeier could not have adapted the proven non-invasive techniques for capturing and handling large Cetaceans? That he could not have tagged the Shark by keeping it in a cradle next to a skiff, like everybody else seems to do? That he could not have built some tool like the grabber this guy has invented, or used nets instead of rod and reel? Or re-designed the anchors so that the tags could have been deployed by using pole spears? Or developed some other non-invasive technique?
Did he even try?
Thing is, he just doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about the animals, does he.
Eagerly awaiting news of the Shark you tortured and injured!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
