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.

Fischer Reality Check - Comments by Dr. Michael Domeier!

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

Sorry for the protracted silence.

We've been extremely busy.

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

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

Well, I don't believe much in Karma.

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

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

Unabridged - although the formatting is mine.

Enjoy!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) I do not hoard data. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Michael Domeier

PS: simply brilliant post by Patric here - kudos!

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

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

PS2: Megalobomb unleashes!

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

Is Sean Van Sommeran a Liar and a Cheat?

Marine debris - this is apparently SVS' tag

Who knows!

You may want to read this brilliant post by Patric.
It concerns this alarming report by Dr. Michael Domeier on the Marine CSI Facebook page.

I must say, I have a grudging admiration for SVS.
They guy is clearly passionate about Sharks and Shark conservation, and contrary to the petitioning Facebook warriors, he's actually out there doing stuff for which I totally respect him! But on the other hand, I totally dislike most of his opinions and especially, the way he has chosen to present them - and no I'm not gonna engage in some debate, Socratic or otherwise!

And Domeier?
I've certainly not been kind to him in the past, something I now regret. No not really in terms of the issues I have raised - but because even during the Junior controversy, the man has always come across as a true gent and because his research is just simply stellar.
Incidentally, if you ever want to talk with any authority about GWs, you simply must read the book he has edited! It contains all of the relevant peer reviewed science, and Domeier's revision of the life history of the Eastern Pacific GWs will simply blow your socks off, promise!

But this is not about those two people.
They are who they are, there is obviously a long and complicated history and they certainly appear not to like each other - so forget the stories, from the dipshit page no less, about stolen tags, Junior and Architheutis etc, they are just a symptom of that wonderful Californian GW research community and got zero incidence here.

This is about this story, and I cite.

After the massive shark was brought ashore, someone spotted the algae-covered white tag near the base of the female shark's dorsal fin. She saw Van Sommeran's contact information on the tag, then called and emailed him...
The wife of one of the fishermen - Paulina Leon - asked him about a possible reward. In the past, anglers in the area have returned transmitter tags to researchers for reward money....
After a few brief communications with the woman, Van Sommeran is still trying to get more pictures and information about the shark.

This is apparently that e-mail, posted here, c/p.

Pelagic Shark Research Foundation

White Shark Landed off Mexico, a Rare Catch for Panga Fisherman; it may have carried ID tag from California according to reports:

2012/4/9 Paulina L.

Hi
This is Paulina, I just called you because we found one of your shark
detector, haha how do you name it?
How can I send it to you?...
you can call me back at --- --- 17 02

Note the date of that e-mail.
But the Shark was only caught one week later???

As I said, who knows.
But my money is certainly on MD!

PS: further comments by MD here.
150-odd comments on that dipshit Facebook page later, everyone is till waiting for an explanation of how a mysterious Paulina Leon could write an e-mail on April 9 about an event that happened on April 15...

Junior - in California!

Turns out that Junior has been visiting the Farallones.
The tag is failing so this is likely the last we'll hear of him - unless some of the local residents out there have recorded his presence.
Story here.

Is Junior back in Town?

Howz Junior gonna look: still like this?
...or again like this?

Quite possibly!
The sat tag got connectivity issues but according to Michael Domeier, the Sea Surface Temperatures indicate that two years after the foul hooking and one year after the re-sighting and a second loop through the SOFA, the literally and figuratively much abused Junior may indeed be back in central California!
Not bad for a Shark suffering from a, what was it again, compromised caloric equation - and yes, I’ve re-read the various threads and lemme tell ’ya, it has been painful!

Will he be re-sighted?
Maybe even by the same Scot Anderson and Sal Jorgensen from the TOPP labs who filmed him the last time and whose video was then shared? And if so, will they and/or Stanford and Monterey Bay Aquarium and/or the GFNMS share any ensuing evidence, and this regardless of its nature?
Or may he be spotted by one of the two operators in the Farallones?

And what about the, and I cite
ruptured and infected tumorous trauma that is necrotizing the musculature of the upper right (starboard) mandibular/palatal quadrate, this according to the undoubtedly infallible verdict by somebody who has a fair bit (no pun) of experience regarding both white shark predation and scarification and markings diagnostics and predatory forensics?
Has the injury tumorized and necrotized further - or may it now look like any other painfully trivial healed Shark bite on a painfully trivial healthy looking Great White?

Bruce before and after

And, may we be headed straight towards a new round of accusations, name-calling and ad hominem attacks, first against Domeier and the methods he uses to tag sharks, and (then) between commenters?

Questions questions! :)

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 - the Video!

FACE IT! - Fabulous pic by Marty (yes this is a link!).

Bingo!

David has finally obtained the video.
Here it is.



As I said, I'm done with this.
The video fully confirms my suspicions that this has been an ignominious smear campaign against Michael Domeier.
It also very much confirms my opinion about the many self congratulatory so-called Shark experts who saw it fit to engage in gratuitous pseudo-scientific pseudo-forensic speculation, sniping and finger pointing in the comments section of David's first post. Remember their names as they will undoubtedly be completely unfazed and continue to rant, speculate and bloviate about other Shark related matters, this with equally zero knowledge let alone credibility.

I'm not gonna repeat my final take on this fiasco.
I fully stand by what I wrote there, including the need for holding the perpetrators, enablers and accomplices accountable. But fear not, Greg Barron is already very much starting to ask the right questions.

Just this.
Congratulations to Michael Domeier who finds himself fully vindicated in the matter of whether he caused permanent damage to the Shark.
Huge kudos to David for having doggedly persevered in this matter.

Comments policy.
This is David's blog post, and I invite everybody to post their comments there and not here. Comments parroting what has already been posted on the various Junior threads here or on Southern Fried Science will be deleted.

PS excellent op ed by Patric here.
Totally agree, albeit with one small exception: if the right people stay on the ball, there can be positive consequences. The various people who played a role in this need to be held accountable and if necessary, removed. Also, I continue to maintain that present tagging procedures (by close to all researchers everywhere) are generally too invasive and that the gizmos can, and need to be fixed. I know that changes are already being implemented - and if this utter fiasco has helped trigger some reflection and a new trend, then it will ultimately result in a positive outcome both for the animals and for the researchers studying them.
Fingers crossed!

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.

Junior - the Narrative is changing!

Another pic of Junior on the boat - see any evidence of a permanently dislocated jaw?

Well well.

I've given an interview and here is the article.
Once I told them about the interview, some people have warned me not to trust Alastair Bland and predicted that he might make me look like a crazy person. Well, he has not - or has he? :)
Just two minor corrections: we do not employ cages, and I said the specific procedures were brutal, not SPOT tagging in general. The tags are invasive and I shall post about that at a later stage.

This is a follow up to his first article in the Bohemian and I must commend Alastair for not having blindly accepted the prima facie evidence but continued to investigate instead.
This, I think, is much more balanced.

So, where is that video.
Anonymous posting to Vimeo (better quality than YouTube) with a few comments will suffice. Again, this is not gonna just simply go away - I still intend to post a final wrap-up and post mortem. What I will say then will largely depend on developments in the next couple of days.

PS you may also want to go and read Andrew the Southern Fried Scientist's comment on the spectacular thread there. It's towards the bottom, with a yellow background. Although I don't agree with all he says (yes individuals may not count for much, but how we treat them does), this is as good as it gets.
Kudos.

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.

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!