Shark Nets in Western Australia?

Shark barrier in Old Dunsborough - source.

Read this.

And this.

Yes they are planning to install up to 20 nets.

And I cite.

The state government is now considering installing shark nets on a number of metropolitan beaches as well as others in the South West and further up the coast north of Perth. 
According to a review of the Dunsborough Beach Enclosure Trial compiled by the state government, no by-catch was recorded as part of the net trialled in Dunsborough. 

A spokeswoman for the Premier told Fairfax Media that while the net announced on Friday was not the same type of net used in Queensland and New South Wales, it was made up of a mesh type netting. The state government's review said the planned net for Busselton would be more of a "beach enclosure" deployed to create "an impenetrable barrier to sharks".

So calm down people.

Before going out and pandering to the whacks by lamenting about wildlife traps and the linke, do your bloody due diligence. This is good news as it a) keeps the Sharks out and people within the enclosures safe whilst b) not harming the Sharks and the Fishes, see links under the picture at top and below.

Capisc?

Source.

If you want to rant, rant about this! 

Rogue Sharks are as real as Megalodon, Sharknados and Godzilla. 

But if a large Shark should linger in some spot, which they certainly do, evacuate the area til, being migratory, it moves on. No need/sense to remove, let alone kill it.

That simple.

And then, there's this.

Philopatry teaches us that those Sharks, far from being distributed randomly/evenly, favor determined locations. Identify those locations (which are but a few and may be determined by telemetry and/or past sightings and/or past strikes) and tell people to stay away during the GWS season which is only relatively short anyway.

Once again, not rocket science!

Hooking Great Hammerheads?

Is this cool? Source.

Watch this.

David disapproves.

This is an old and extremely thorny debate.

GHH are protected in Florida, but catch-and-release is perfectly legal - but ever since the publication of Austin's paper, we know that the post-release mortality rate is unacceptably high, meaning that anglers should actively endeavor to avoid hooking that particular species which is obviously easier said than done.

This is also the gist of this article in the Huff Post featuring quotes by both Austin and Neil, and where Kim Holland doubles up by asserting that in many cases, we know that even a moderate amount of handling will result in death even if you don't actually see it happen immediately in front of you.

So far so good.

So what about this - posted by the very same people who have published that paper and are lecturing the recreational anglers?

To say it mildly, this is a tricky one.

Do those mortality rates also apply to GHH that are being hooked by researchers - and if so, can David's passionate defense of research really be regarded as a sufficiently convincing blanket justification for angling for this unusually fragile, protected species?
Yes of course research into philopatry is extremely important (and in some aspects, controversial) - but in this specific case, there exist other, way less invasive protocols (and here) that may well yield very similar data!

With that in mind, would it not be appropriate to sacrifice some of the higher resolution and longer battery life of SPOT tags in favor of e.g. PATs that can be set on the fly either underwater of from the boat after the GHH has been teased to the surface?

Tricky tricky - thoughts?

Comments policy.

Read this. Not everybody's opinion is equivalent, and I shall only post cogent arguments about this specific matter, not attempts at engaging in the usual frothy tirades against researchers in general and/or OCEARCH in particular, etc.

My blog my rules!

MCSI - big Revelations in the Offing!

In-water SPOT tagging of monster GWS.

Wow.

This has kinda gotten lost in the year-end hype.

And I cite.

In 2013 MCSI's white shark research program became the first to ever track mature females through 2 successive 2 year migrations, providing important information about where these sharks go to give birth! To accomplish this we tracked Annika for 4 years and Kimel for 5 years...breaking SPOT tracking records for any species of shark. 
In 2013 we also, for the first time, tracked Guadalupe Island females to both Oregon and California during the winter.

Really?

Whereas those record multiannual tracks may or may not lead to new insights, that last sentence appears to revolutionize everything I thought I had learned about that NE Pacific GWS populations! 

So far, my understanding was that at least when it comes to the females, there were two distinct populations with different coastal ranges, with one group of females mating at the the Farallones, migrating to the SOFA and then pupping in Southern California; and the other one mating at Lupe, migrating to the SOFA and then visiting pupping grounds in Mexico.

But maybe not.

Everything in nature happens along a continuum, and these may be merely stragglers confirming the general rule but indicating that philopatry is neither perfect nor absolute - or they may constitute new evidence forcing the researchers to revise the whole theoretical construct!

Very interesting - and very much looking forward to those papers!

Keep watching this space!

Lemon Shark Philopatry - Comments by Doc!

PIT tagging of juvenile Lemons, Bimini - source.

Wow.

I just found this in my inbox.

This is what it takes to produce real and like I said, simply epic research - not this amateur shit, and I cite,

We conducted the tests of potential approach preference of sharks with regard to human body orientation in the Northern Abaco Islands, Bahamas, on 8 days between July 7 and 24, 2009. Later on, several days were excluded due to the chosen criteria.

But I'm digressing as usual.

Without further ado, here are the remarks = two cents :) by Doc - needless to say that I am honored!

Reply to Da Shark’s blog on the recent publication of our lemon shark genetic research in the journal Molecular Ecology as reported in the New York Times: 

Like the EverReady bunny, we are still going….and in June 2014 it will be year 19. 

There is still a lot more to be learned from our continuing and longitudinal study of lemon shark genetics but here's the way this all played out according to my foggy recollection. 

In 1990 the Bimini Biological Field Station was established. 

That year we became interested in shark genetics and actually did our first "PIT project" collecting genetic samples and PIT (RFID) tagging the little lemons. We caught 90 lemon sharks that June but alas that was the last I ever heard of the samples which were sent for analysis to a black hole the UK. In addition we caught no lemon sharks in November 1990 so I figured that was that. 

In 1995, I was contacted by a young graduate student, Kevin Feldheim working in Mary Ashley's lab at University of Illinois-Chicago. 

He wanted to study our little lemon sharks but had no funds. I thought we could support Kevin at the station if Mary could deal with his laboratory work. So I went to Chicago and we got into a discussion about NSF funding. I had been relatively successful with NSF in the past but after recovering from cancer in 1989 I hated the idea of writing one of those damned proposal "books" again only to get it turned down. However working together in Chicago the three of us wrote a first-class proposal and MIRACLE! The combination of Mary's expertise and my reputation as some sort of shark maverick did the trick and NSF granted us funds to bring Kev to Bimini for a few years to do the field research. So starting in 1995 and continuing even until today we tagged sharks and collected genetic material; and for three years, funded by our NSF grant we sampled over 700 young lemon sharks at Bimini. 

Of course shark genetics did not start with our project but these earlier studies were mainly set up to determine the relationship between species---molecular taxonomy. 

In contrast, we were interested in the genetics of breeding biology which was entirely unknown for sharks as well as most other aquatic vertebrates. 

I think there were three reasons for the fantastic (to me) success of this project: 

First was Kevin Feldheim who carried out hundreds of experiments until he found the key to DNA finger printing lemon sharks....microsatellite alleles with high variability conferred by high repeat numbers (this laid the background for the research of Joey DiBattista and Demian Chapman); second, the amazing lemon shark, an animal that repeatedly lent itself to manipulation as a model species (think white rat!) allowing us to study the biology of large sharks; and three, the islands of Bimini for which the vagaries of sea level rise and fall created a small lagoon that was the perfect breeding ground for lemon sharks. Importantly unlike Florida only 42 NM to the west, our Bimini lemon sharks hung around the islands for up to 8 years and could be captured time and time again. 

Once Kevin laid the groundwork to open up questions that were previously unanswerable, we undertook a concerted effort to mine this treasure of marine biology. 

Enter Dr. Ellen Pikitch and the Pew Foundation: Already the lead author Dr. Damian Chapman had been to the Sharklab years ago and so had Ellen but now things got serious. I was nearing retirement and thinking about the future funding of the Sharklab. Ellen got the idea to fund the station with a generous 5-year PEW grant and in exchange we would share all the data with her then doctoral student Damien Chapman. This was a dream come true for all of us. Now we had another grant that would see us through the lemon shark's estimated time-to-maturity...shown by my student Craig Brown way back in the 80s to be 12-14 years after birth. 

Simultaneously we began to develop techniques to search out and wrangle the potentially dangerous adult lemon sharks that come into the lagoon for mating and parturition every April and May. 

We were eventually able to predict when they would show up, how to capture them and even learned to do a kind of mid-midwifery to assist in the birth process. This technique provided DNA from both the Mom and all her pups. It then became a matter of continuing the collections until a dozen years went by in hopes that a youngster born in Bimini in 1995 or later survived to adulthood and could be identified in Kevin and Joey's lemon shark pedigree. 

Well....incredibly our gamble our came true. 

After about a dozen years a few survivors began to appear in the lagoon and we thought this was just amazing. Talk about tenacity and collaboration! We predicted based on two decades of prior study that the lemon shark would return---and we toughed out the years and effort to do the labor-intensive but hugely enjoyable task of collecting lemon shark pups for a dozen years and beyond, braving shark bites, tropical thunder storms, dangerous lightening, swarms of mosquitoes, no real sleep for weeks on end and a myriad of other political and biological barriers including serious damage to the nursery from a ridiculously huge resort development on tiny little Bimini. 

Together in collaboration between three research institutions, the Bimini Biological Field Station Foundation, University of Illinois-Chicago and Stonybrook University the study that Da Shark so eloquently referred to was accomplished. 

If you actually have time to read this missive you will see that the influence of one group or the other to the success of this remarkable research is total....no progress could have been made without the three institution's cooperation. And even today, 19 years after the project began we are continuing the annual collection of genetic data from not one but three sites in hopes that one day the lemon shark and its vulnerable nursery habitats will receive the protection that they truly need. 

Just my two cents. doc 

Dr. Samuel H. Gruber (Emeritus) 

Division of Marine Biology and Fisheries 

Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences 

University of Miami 

and 

Bimini Biological Field Station Foundation 

9300 SW 99 St 

Miami FL 

http://www.miami.edu/sharklab 

Juvenile Bulls in the Everglades!

A juvenile Bull from one of Fiji's rivers, with a Scalloped Hammer pup in the background - click for detail.

Another nice one from the Heithaus Labs!

This is gonna be one of next year's volunteer projects.
Initially, we'll be investigating their usage of the riverine nurseries and later on, when and how they transition to the reef environment.
Interested? You know what to do!

The paper is here.
And here's the video that thankfully needs no further interpreting.

Enjoy!

Philopatry - Debate!

Source.

Remember?

Now, David has picked up the topic over there at SFS.

I understand and condivide his frustration with some of the anti-tagging fanatics, of which Dr. Schmidt's frothy circular echo chamber remains the most egregious example - but of course that's not the whole story.

Opinions?

Post them there, not here!

Census of the GWS in Gaansbai - Paper!

Really???  Source

Hah!

Looks like the Megalobomb is human after all - did I just detect a soft spot for the researchers at DICT?

Read her latest post and check out the paper!

Where is the critical analysis?

That is, apart from whinging about the dismal number of GWS! Talk about the lady being totally jaded  - where I come from, 900-odd big Sharks from one single location is actually totally awesome!

Especially considering that previous white shark population estimates suggest that white shark numbers are small relative to other apex predators which is a statement I totally support see below!

Mind you, the paper is quite nice.

I was actually impressed - especially by the meticulous data collection, and by the various programs used for the analysis that are really quite epic. Boy things sure have changed since I did my few semesters of Biology courses back then in the 70ies!

BUT - of course, there has to be a but! :)

I'm slightly underwhelmed by the conclusions and also by the infographic, and this is why.

1. Mark-recapture

And I cite

A common bias in many mark-recapture studies is capture heterogeneity.
In our study we attracted sharks by bait, thus some individuals may have become ‘trap happy’ or ‘trap shy’ over time. This may lead to bias on estimates, but the effects of baiting on individual sharks remains undetermined. To address this, future work should focus on the effects of shyness or boldness in individual white sharks and assess whether they are more or less likely to appear close to a baiting vessel over time as well as incorporating such heterogeneity in behaviour in population size estimation.

Indeed!

This is also one of the principal flaws of the controversial (= flawed) Chapple paper, ie that over time, individual Sharks may develop gradual repulsion or special affinity for the vessels - but much more than that: some Sharks may never approach the bait, decoy or vessel to start with, let alone come to the surface for a picture of their fin, and this despite of very much being in the vicinity!

I don't know about those GWS - but when it comes to our Bulls, I could tell you stories about several known individuals that have been visiting for years and not once approached the feeder. And Juerg's paper also teaches us that whilst we're feeding, there are several individuals in the vicinity that we never get to see, quite possibly because they don't like approaching humans or also, because other individuals may out-rank them and thus monopolize the feeding area.

Long story short? 

The postulated bias is highly likely, is likely to result in numbers that are too low and the effect, whilst unknown in its magnitude, could potentially be highly significant = there may be significantly more GWS than postulated!

2. Population Size and Conservation Status.

And then there is the whole rare vs endangered controversy.

Yes, globally, there are likely not a lot of GWS  - but isn't that what is to be expected simply from their position atop the trophic web? Think about the famous pyramid - the volume at the top is tiny!

Also keep in mind that albeit being temperate water Sharks with a potentially enormous range, they have not at all colonized all available habitats, likely because philopatry is largely preventing them from straying too far from their established hot spots and migration corridors. Thus there are no reliable reports about established populations around South America or in the Eastern Atlantic (and David, don't you start...), with the only exception, i.e. the the Med having likely been colonized by a possibly single Aussie female that had lost its way.

And what about the number of GWS in their known ranges?

We don't dispose of reliable population estimates about most of them, namely the Med (likely very small); the NW Atlantic (more and more sightings but no census); the NE Pacific (currently in revision when it comes to California, but with no published census for the Mexican population), the NW Pacific (where there is little literature apart from sporadic reports of sighted and killed GWS from Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam - tho in view of the status of Asian fisheries, the situation is likely to be grim); Australia that boasts two populations but no published census (tho after so many years of protection, they may well be on the upswing); and New Zealand where research is still very much in its infancy.

And finally, South Africa where the present paper smells like the start of a country-wide revision of previous assumptions.

So yes, indeed, we don't know whether globally, they are 3,000, 5,000 or 10,000 - with my money being on the latter!

And if so, what does that mean?

Does rarity automatically imply that the animals are endangered?

To a certain degree, the answer is yes, and this for the rather trivial reason that smaller populations are generally more prone to be effected by risk - which is quite possibly why the IUCN has classified them as vulnerable despite of not really disposing of much supporting data.

Further conclusions, at least at this point in time, are however problematic.

Thus, comparisons to terrestrial species whose massive population declines and partial extinctions are amply documented, or that are trapped in a population bottleneck like the Cheetah are highly questionable. 

We simply don't know, and I've also not seen any plausible guesstimates about the global rate of depletion of GWS or about the carrying capacity of their global habitats - back then and especially now that the latter are likely equally depleted, see the comments about bottom-up effects! 

There are simply not enough data allowing us to make any such assertions, let alone proffer that this already threatened species may be closer to extinction than we previously thought!

I say, be careful with such statements!

Only because one local census results in numbers that are 50% lower than previously assumed, this cannot just simply be extrapolated for global populations! Just think of the California numbers that are likely to be trebled, or think about the dramatic increase of GWS sightings on the East Coast of the US!

I don't believe for a picosecond that Michelle Wcisel has stated that it was possible that the great white could be one of the most endangered species in the world - but the ingress to the infographic is certainly highly misleading, to the point that the sharktivists are already sharing it as the latest fact, see the image at the top!

It is not!

Anyway, just my 2 cents as usual.

But read the paper and make up your own mind!

PS: Michael Domeier's take here.
In all fairness and at the risk of committing sacrilege by posting a dissenting opinion, the paper does not claim to be anything else than a census for Gansbaai - hence if there are principally subadults, than that's what has been counted.
The question about the numbers of YOY, juveniles and adults becomes only relevant once somebody will publish a paper about the entire GWS population of SA.. Incidentally, that's another major flaw of the Chapple paper where the only animals that were actually recorded, and this in only two of the known aggregation sites were adult GWS.

PS2: more lousy journalism here!

Shark Conservation and Research in Fiji - new Volunteer Program!

Our new partners in crime! :)

And now, to some really great news!

Behold!

Projects Abroad has just unveiled their latest, and I may add, greatest program and I invite you to check it out here.

I say, awesome!

This has been quite a process.

We've been pondering and negotiating about this for a very long time indeed as we wanted to make absolutely certain that our involvement would result in good science enabling us to further expand on our ongoing conservation projects.

In practice, that meant 

• obtaining the cooperation and oversight of reputable researchers, along with adequate funding
• formulating relevant research projects instead of the all-too-common volunteer fluff
• putting into place a stable local long-term project management structure where we would retain an important role in terms of project oversight and leadership
• ensuring adequate accountability in terms of progress, timeliness, budgetary discipline, communication etc, the lack of which has so often fatally crippled similar ventures, especially in the SoPac
• and last but by no means last, avoiding any undue interference by any of the usual outside interests!

All of which I'm happy to say has been achieved!

Projects Abroad have been nothing short of stellar.

This is largely due to the Project Manager who brings to the table the rarest of combinations, i.e. a profound knowledge and passion for marine conservation paired with rock-solid project management skills, business sense and pragmatism. And, she's a dive instructor and highly experienced Shark diver with years of experience working in our industry! How much better than that can it get!

She will be in Fiji supervising the logistical setup and initial implementation of the various projects, and we could really not have asked for a better partner!

And the projects?

More will be revealed in due course - but in general terms, here's what we will be focusing on, this in parallel with the GFSC and in view of eventually helping to formulate robust data-based Shark conservation plans

• Bull Sharks: nurseries, early life stages from riverine to reef-dwelling, reproductive and possibly natal philopatry, parentage analysis, population assessments, etc

• MPAs: long term effects on Elasmobranch abundance and species composition

In addition, notable activities will consist in

• Mangroves: continuation and expansion of MFF - where incidentally, excellent new developments are looming!

• Shark and marine conservation outreach

• eventually, cooperation with selected tertiary education institutions, NGOs and even government entities - when and where appropriate and mutually beneficial

Long story short?

If you're interested in making a hands-on contribution to cutting-edge and important Shark research and marine conservation projects under the guidance of some of the word's leading experts (!), this is the program for you - and this pretty much regardless of your previous experience as there will be a useful role for everybody, from total newbie to fully fledged university graduate!

Incidentally, this is not an alternative to the High School and College summer programs with our long-term partner Broadreach where activities are centered around attending Shark courses and diving within the SRMR, and vice versa!
Where theirs is education within the framework a summer camp, this is about partaking in ongoing research and conservation projects where activities are not centered around the SRMR - but don't worry, you will be given the opportunity to do a bit of epic Shark diving as well! :)

So, what are you waiting for!

Reef Sharks - new Papers!

Grey Reef aggregation - likely in Apataki's Trou aux Requins - stellar pic by Chip!

Great stuff!

This first paper is about Grey Reefies.

It's by the authors of the Fiji Shark tourism paper and really a nice piece of research - and kudos to Gabe on the first authorship!

Rather surprisingly, it caused quite a kerfuffle on Patric's blog - but as I said there, Patric's comments are a tad harsh, the more as that particular species is not a frequent target of the long liners. 

But the general gist, i.e. that publishing data about philopatry carries some inherent risks is of course correct. I did blog about it here and came to the conclusion that such data should be used for conservation and management purposes and only be shared widely if there is robust and above all, fully enforced local protection - something that certainly pertains to Palau, especially for the popular and highly visited stretch between Siae's and New Dropoff!

Nice re-cap here

And yes Patric - Palau lays east of the Philippines (not north, south or west)! 

And... ? :)

This paper is about Blacktip Reef Sharks.

Inter alia, this one is by the authors of that Lemon Shark paper who continue their observations and in-depth analysis of the Shark Population of French Polynesia as part of the ORP and CRIOBE.

It investigates the genetic makeup of the Blacktip population in several of those islands and describes that it is highly fragmented, meaning that gene flow (= Sharks traveling between populations) is low. The conclusion it draws is that in order to protect Sharks, it is better to establish Shark Sanctuaries rather than to try and protect them via MPAs.

Well, yes, that is certainly true in general - the bigger the better!

On the other hand, as a staunch lumper, I cringe at the recent trend of splitting everything. There are several ignominious examples from Avian, Amphibian and freshwater Fish taxonomy where the designation of many sub-species hast resulted in a plethora of tiny local populations, and subsequently, in the squandering of scarce public resources in the quest of preserving every single one of them - and this fatally reminds me of those occurrences. 

With Shark conservation being as difficult as it is, I'd be quite happy to see progress at the species-complex level - the more as otherwise, most of those tiny populations would succumb to the requirement of prioritizing one's resources by applying conservation triage!

But yes those Sanctuaries are great - at least for as long as Shark fishing remains so poorly managed!

And what about the implications for us here in Fiji?

The first one is that with such high residency levels, the Shark Corridor offers a substantial degree of protection much like in the case of our Bulls.

Other than that, we don't know - yet!

In Juerg's research, we've so far concentrated almost exclusively on the Bulls. But we have also recorded many observations about the other species, and our data base undoubtedly contains the answers to several of the same questions - that is, if somebody had the time to analyze them! But fear not, Juerg's next paper is already in the works, and it will contain much more info about the other species!

Of interest and contrary to all other Grey Reef aggregation sites I have visited, the SRMR harbors more males than females who however also appear more transient much like the Bulls and also leave for what we believe is the mating season in mid year. 

The Blacktips on the other hand appear to be very much resident, and it will be interesting to explore whether the females go walkabout to some nursery area like those in Moorea - which is highly likely as contrary to the Whitetips that appear to give birth in situ, we see zero small juveniles!

Anyway, I'm digressing as always.

Read the papers - it's great stuff, and kudos to the authors on a job well done!

Guadalupe Great Whites - Paper!

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

Epic!

Read the paper!

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

And, there is this.

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

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

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

Bingo!

I really had to laugh out loud - remember?

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

Eat that, Sal!

Anyway.

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

And I repeat: read it!

And now, watch this.

Right.

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

All so pathetically SvS.

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

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

Anyway.

Does that mean that I now endorse SPOT tags?

It depends!

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

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

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

Example?

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

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

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

And how would one go about in gathering that info?

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

But not Fischer's wandering circus!

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

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

Is that perfect?

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

But I'm digressing as always.

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

Read the paper!

Feeding Bull Sharks in Fiji - the Paper!

This pic by Doug is so good that I catch myself using it time after time again - click for detail!

Finally!

Stating that I'm mighty proud would clearly be the understatement of the year!

Opportunistic Visitors: Long-Term Behavioural Response of Bull Sharks to Food Provisioning in Fiji
Juerg M. Brunnschweiler, Adam Barnett

Abstract

Shark-based tourism that uses bait to reliably attract certain species to specific sites so that divers can view them is a growing industry globally, but remains a controversial issue. 
We evaluate multi-year (2004–2011) underwater visual (n = 48 individuals) and acoustic tracking data (n = 82 transmitters; array of up to 16 receivers) of bull sharks Carcharhinus leucas from a long-term shark feeding site at the Shark Reef Marine Reserve and reefs along the Beqa Channel on the southern coast of Viti Levu, Fiji. 

Individual C. leucas showed varying degrees of site fidelity.
Determined from acoustic tagging, the majority of C. leucas had site fidelity indexes greater than 0.5 for the marine reserve (including the feeding site) and neighbouring reefs. However, during the time of the day (09:00–12:00) when feeding takes place, sharks mainly had site fidelity indexes smaller than 0.5 for the feeding site, regardless of feeding or non-feeding days
Site fidelity indexes determined by direct diver observation of sharks at the feeding site were lower compared to such values determined by acoustic tagging. 

The overall pattern for C. leucas is that, if present in the area, they are attracted to the feeding site regardless of whether feeding or non-feeding days, but they remain for longer periods of time (consecutive hours) on feeding days. The overall diel patterns in movement are for C. leucas to use the area around the feeding site in the morning before spreading out over Shark Reef throughout the day and dispersing over the entire array at night. Both focal observation and acoustic monitoring show that C. leucas intermittently leave the area for a few consecutive days throughout the year, and for longer time periods (weeks to months) at the end of the calendar year before returning to the feeding site.

So this is it.

Like we never tire to say, BAD has essentially been established in order to manage a Shark research and conservation project and consequently, everything we do is geared towards those aims whilst generating just enough income to compensate the various stakeholders and ensure our long term survival.

So far so good - touch wood!

But of course the beginning was everything but easy.

I had reached out to Gary Adkison when formulating the Fiji Shark Project, and when Juerg lost his Bull Shark research site in the Bahamas, Gary suggested that he go check out the crazy dude who was trying to set up a Shark MPA in Fiji. I desperately needed to find a conservation-oriented researcher, something that in those times was far from common; and Juerg desperately needed to find a new and and above all, reliable Bull Shark research site for his Bull Shark Tagging Programme. We met, took each other's measure, liked what we saw and decided to give it a try.

Gesagt getan and the rest, as they say, is history.

That was in 2003.

Ten years and countless adventures, discussions and heated debates (!) later, I must really say that it was a match made in heaven. I really, really like and respect Juerg and the feeling is likely reciprocal, the more as we really completely see eye to eye on conservation matters (sometimes less so on research techniques), are completely result-driven and despise  bullshit - and we even share the same degree of incisive humor!

But I'm digressing as always.

Back then, Shark conservation was very much in its infancy and the exclusive domain of a handful of idealistic and rather clueless loons (and probably still is!), we were both essentially rookies, and progress only happened in baby steps and with plenty of setbacks. This also on the research side where the first generation of PAT tags was rather temperamental and where for ethical reasons, we had burdened ourselves with the challenge of trying to tag the animals underwater, first intra-gastrically and then externally.

But Juerg and Gary did persevere and eventually got it done - and this very much despite the vocal objections of your truly who developed an increasing distaste for the invasive techniques.

Love you guys! :)

At the same time, we started our long term monitoring.

This is a first (and by no means last!) look at our enormous data base where we have so far meticulously recorded close to 10 years, or approx. 4,000 individual baited Shark dives in the Shark Reef Marine Reserve. Over those years, we have named and monitored more and more individual Sharks and have been keeping particularly detailed records of presently approx 150 individual Bulls.

The paper is the comprehensive analysis of only one subset of those observations, i.e. simple presence/absence data, this in comparison to several years' worth of acoustic tagging data of the same 48 individual Sharks.

Thankfully it is open access - read it!

The take-away message as I see it is this.

This particular Shark dive has been operating continuously since 1998 and it is fair to state that if there has ever been a population of conditioned Sharks, it would be the Bull Sharks of Shark Reef.

And yet,

• Our Bulls remain wild animals.
  Once they have discovered Shark Reef, they do come back; but at the same time, it is quite obvious that they continue to roam the area and undoubtedly fulfill their ecological function like any other non-provisioned Bull Shark, much in line with what we postulated years ago - and now we have the peer-reviewed science to back it up!

• Effects at large spatial and temporal scales appear minimal.
  This is consistent with all research into provisioned Sharks, i.e. that there may well be conditioning on site but that typically, the long term migrations and life history in general remain largely unaffected.

• Feeding does not appear to significantly effect the Sharks' diel patterns, this with the only exception that they will spend more time at the feeding site on feeding days - however only to depart and continue their usual daily roaming patterns. Note the observation about night-time foraging at and possibly even within the Navua River - very interesting and eminently testable!

• Same-same for their propensity, or lack of, to approach humans.
  There are obviously pronounced differences at the individual level, something I experience on a daily basis - but despite of the fact that there are Sharks that are decidedly more friendly (or bold), it is equally true that none of them comes begging for food when there is no bait in the water. In fact, the observation that during the time of the day (09:00–12:00) when feeding takes place, sharks mainly had site fidelity indexes smaller than 0.5 for the feeding site, regardless of feeding or non-feeding days may be an indication for the fact that the presence of bait barely compensates for the notorious shyness of this species!

• Long-term exposure to feeding does not appear to cause any conditioning in terms of dependence on that food source.
  One could stipulate such conditioning if the data showed increased presence over the years - but the fact is that the data appear to absolutely negate that hypothesis, as e.g. illustrated by the site fidelity indexes for 2004-2011 of Crook, a friendly old-timer and voracious hand feeder., to wit 0.48, 0.20, 0.16, 0.24, 0.23, 0.22, 0.14 and 0.47  (Table S1), an observation that is consistent for all monitored Sharks.

• The Shark Corridor appears to confer a solid degree of protection.
  Yes the animals do regularly leave that area - but site fidelity indexes that are larger than 0.50 indicate that the protected area is apparently large enough to have a positive effect.

Long story short?

Granted, strictly speaking, this only applies to Fiji Bull Sharks that are being fed in Fiji and not to "Sharks" in general - but after Aleks' paper on Caribbean Reefs and Neil's Tiger Shark paper, we now have one more indication that one cannot simply draw conclusions from other research showing conditioning, and possibly negative consequences for other species: not from those Lemons in Moorea, not from the Southern Stingrays in Cayman - and certainly not from teleost Fishes that appear to have a higher propensity for being conditioned, let alone the proverbial bloody Bears!

On the contrary and with the caveat that this may well be species- but possibly also situation-specific (see the Moorea Lemons where there may be procedural issues), it appears that those larger Sharks may just be a tad too smart for the simplistic cause-effect bullshit spouted by our detractors.

In fact when it comes to the risk they pose to humans, I'm of the strong opinion that provided that those baited dives are conducted responsibly, those "tame" Sharks pose less and not more of a threat! Yes I'm obviously speculating - but after thousands of Shark dives, I've earned myself the right to do so!

And their long term life history?
If there there is one constant observation among all papers analyzing Shark provisioning, it is that over the longer term, the animals keep their normal migration and mating/birthing patterns - e.g. think of the GWS in Lupe, the Playa Bulls and the Bimini GHH that are all seasonal irrespective of the fact that they are being fed! This is once again a strong indication that feeding causes no harm, at least not to the Sharks that are being fed.

Anyway - is this cool, or what!

Keep watching this space.

As I said, this is only the beginning, meaning that our data base contains the answers to many more questions. And, we're already conducting and are about to roll out several more new large multi-year projects that will hopefully lead to new important insights - especially about reproductive and possibly even natal philopatry that would greatly assist us in refining local Shark conservation measures.

In the meantime, enjoy Juerg and Adam's paper!

PS thanks Patric!
PS2: thanks Georgina!

Shark tagging - Progress!

I was happy to read this, and I cite.

MCSI's Dr. MICHAEL DOMEIER AND DR. OSCAR SOSA-NISHIZAKI (Director of CICESE) PERFORM THE WORLD'S FIRST IN-WATER SPOT TAGGING OF AN ADULT WHITE SHARK.

New methods developed, tested and implemented by MCSI involve a device to prevent gut hooking, soft fishing gear to prevent skin abrasions and constant forward movement to fully irrigate the gills.

Sharks tagged in this manner, including the largest white shark to ever be SPOT tagged, were far more vigorous upon release than our previous method that lifted the sharks from the water. We strive to constantly improve our methods to do what is best for the sharks and the scientific community. We have many to thank, but those who deserve special mention include veterinarian Dr. Erik Madison, Mr. Keith Poe and Davidson Boats.

Stay tuned for updates...and apologies for the long FB absence during our expedition.

Cool!

I ignore the details but will just blindly speculate that this is happening somewhere in Baja and aimed at unraveling the mysteries of what those adult GWS females may be doing there - and incidentally, whatever happened to the van Sommeran tag saga? Dead and forgotten, and buried under a mound of evasive verbal diarrhea? Much like the larmoyant and equally totally pulled-from-the-arse fable of Spots?

But I'm digressing as always - sorry!

The fact is that it appears that Shark tagging is advancing in leaps and bounds, and this in the right direction! I was already quite impressed by the better protocols and hardware adopted by the OCEARCH team - and this, i.e. keeping the Shark submerged clearly eliminates one of my biggest grievances. And there might be more: having been alerted to this page and noticed the name of the developer, may we be witnessing the deployment of SPOT tags (click on Finmount) via one single bolt = much less invasive and much more likely to fall off cleanly? Dunno - but sure hope that's the case!
And there's also a preventer against gut hooking!

And my harebrained suggestion that receivers may follow the tags?

Maybe not so harebrained after all - and here!

Leaves the question about the risk of publicly posting those tracks.

A prominent researcher who very graciously decided to address my concerns writes

Fishers already know where and when to find the fish they want to catch, commercial fishers wouldn’t make a living and sport fishers would take up golf if they didn’t.

The reality is that the scientific community and fisheries managers are constantly playing catch-up when it comes to knowledge about exploited species and their overlap with fisheries. It is the fishers that spend the most time on the water and generally have the most intimate knowledge of the behaviour of the fish in their patch. If this information is ever voluntarily shared with management agencies or fishery scientists its generally only in retirement.

 The beauty of satellite tags is that they allow us to connect the dots, those scraps of information contained in CPUE data, biological samples and conventional tag returns, and making this information widely available in a way that engages a broad cross section of society certainly appears to generate a much deeper appreciation of the animals and how strongly biologically connected even distant seascapes are.

Absolutely true - and yet I remain concerned! 

I totally subscribe to the notion that the research about philopatry is vital. But by publishing the tracks, especially when they reveal the oceanic highways and hotspots of a whole population like e.g. here on the TOPP pages that display location and time frame - aren't we inviting the fishermen to also concentrate their efforts in those locations and at those times?

Probably it's species- and situation-specific. 

E.g. I'm not really concerned about those GWS tracks as those Sharks are simply too few to warrant a specific targeted fishery, especially considering the distances and vast territories that would need to be covered - but those Salmon Sharks and Makos may be another matter altogether, the more as they appear to be much more coastal! Like in the case of Fish spawning aggregations where we've learned to keep the locations secret, maybe the risk/reward analysis of outreach vs fishing is too much skewed towards the risk of further depleting already highly fragile populations.

Just saying - opinions?

Paper: Philopatry in Blacktip Reef Sharks!

Blacktip Reef Shark, by Johann Mourier.

Excellent job!

I must say, this paper is as good as it gets.

And totally fascinating and unexpected as well!

Turns out that contrary to being strictly confined within rather limited reef habitats, (some) Blacktip Reefs in Moorea are embarking on a rather perilous inter-island crossing to Brando's Tetiaroa in order to give birth in the nursery there - and vice versa!  Is that because they were born there? Very possibly, the more as it appears that the females always visit the same nursery!

I'm literally off to DEMA so this will have to be short.

But once again, the paper demonstrates the importance of investigating philopatry for formulating good Shark conservation measures.

Bravo Johann!

PS no more posts for the next two weeks!

Deciphering Philopatry - good or bad Science?

Great HH with one of Neil's new tags.

Want to go and catch yourself some Salmon Sharks?
Nothing could be easier: go fishing in the Northern Gulf of Alaska in November - and bingo! And if you believe that the fishermen have not long discovered the TOPP tracks - think again!

As Juerg writes in his correspondence to Nature.

Two faces of marine ecology research

The ecology of animal movement is one field that would benefit from sound evaluation of the risks, benefits and ethics of its important research findings (Nature 484, 415 and Nature 484, 432–434; 2012 read it!).

Scientists can now track the complex horizontal and vertical movements of a wide range of marine species, including tuna, sharks and turtles. These results reveal biodiversity hotspots and inform conservation policies by providing insight into animal behaviour and ecology. However, they also guide fishing operations towards resource-rich locations — putting further strain on both target and by-catch species.

Too many species face severe stock depletion because of intense fishing, pollution and other anthropogenic pressures. The detrimental implications of marine ecological research results must be acknowledged.

Juerg Brunnschweiler
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich), Zurich, Switzerland.
But there is of course also this.

It is possible, by marrying electronic tag data with oceanography, to gain a sufficient understanding of ecosystem function to enable more effective management of ocean resources.
Specifically, this study shows that when bluefin tuna enter the Gulf of Mexico, they are going to specific locations, where cool, productive water in “cyclonic eddies” makes its way along the continental slope. So during April and May, when they are spawning, bluefin tuna are relatively concentrated – whereas yellowfin tuna remain disbursed broadly throughout the Gulf.

This suggests that it would be possible to protect the bluefin, which are accidentally caught on longlines intended for yellowfin, by restricting fishing in those specific areas where the bluefin are spawning; but that such restrictions need not reduce yellowfin catch rates since they are more uniformly distributed.

Or this.

Great white sharks are found in waters all around New Zealand. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), and Department of Conservation (DOC) scientists are investigating the long distance movements of great white sharks inside and outside New Zealand’s territorial waters to improve our understanding of their species’s migratory patterns.
It will assist with designing management measures to reduce shark bycatch in fisheries.

Niwa principal scientist Malcolm Francis said despite the process sounding rough, the safety of the sharks was at the heart of the project.
As part of a wider study which began in 2005, it is hoped the research would return population figures and migratory behaviour of the protected species to assess how many sharks were being killed in fishing nets and lines.

Yes it looks like we got ourselves an ethical debate!
But maybe not so much - and whilst you're pondering, here's a rather epic video about that GW tagging in New Zealand.
Enjoy!



So what about those tracks.
As Bob Hueter already stated in 1998,

I consider the issue of philopatry and natal homing in sharks to be the most important issue in shark biology today, and I challenge all shark researchers to test this hypothesis rigorously in their respective research areas.

Nearly every type of shark research can play a role in this, for the ramifications of philopatry, if true for most shark species, would be profound. It certainly would affect our views of shark evolution and genetics, and it would shape new perspectives on the physiology and ecology of shark species. It would fundamentally affect studies of shark population dynamics, and perhaps most importantly, it would drastically change conventional views of shark fisheries science for the management and conservation of shark populations.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of tags later, we now know this.
Sharks and Fishes are not randomly distributed throughout the oceans. Instead, they frequent well determined seasonal, behavior-, gender- and age-related hotspots and travel between these focal points on well determined marine highways.
Or as Hueter and Heupel write in 2004 (read it, this is seminal stuff!)

Many shark species are highly migratory, some covering thousands of miles of ocean in a single year.
However, with the emerging evidence of philopatry in various shark species, it would be wise from a conservation and management perspective to not view this group of marine fishes as oceanic nomads, but rather as more sophisticated, long-distance travelers with a number of discrete homes in the sea. How precise those homes are will need to be established with further research and analysis.

For us Shark conservationists, those data about philopatry are absolutely vital.
As I've tried to show here, many Sharks continue to fall victim to incidental catches despite of being protected, something that can be countered by establishing seasonal localized fishing bans; and like in the case of Playa or, say Vietnam, those localized and seasonal measures may be easier to achieve than trying to enact blanket protection of a species year-round and country wide.

This I believe is also the next step after having established those Shark sanctuaries.
With the big announcement hopefully looming, we're consequently already mulling the next big project that is hopefully going to lead to the full protection of the Shark nurseries, and thus of the valuable big pregnant females during the birthing period.
Keep watching this space!

But what about those published tracks?
Are those publications, maps, interactive websites and apps not simply showing the way for anybody wanting to go and kill the animals? And there is of course also the Anthropogenic Allele Effect, specifically the possible impact of poorly regulated tourism on the animals once newly discovered hotspots are being publicized - like e.g. here!
Like Juerg appears to assert, I fear that this is very much the risk!

Solutions?
Like I said, maybe it's not that difficult.

• Research and data per se are neither bad nor good; and if the track record is any indication, nobody is going to ever be able to stop scientific progress whatever the associated risks. That's just how things roll in science.


• But the risks are real - re-read the examples in Nature.


• Hence the inevitable conclusion, that whoever conducts the research cannot just disassociate himself from the possible consequences. Instead, it behooves the researchers to be fully accountable for their actions, and to be instrumental in mitigating the potentially negative implications of their queries. Obviously, this is easier said then done - but shying away from one's ultimate responsibility won't do, either!

But to come back to the topic of this post.
The data derived from telemetry studies (nice synopsis here!) are vital - but posting those tracks can only happen, if at all, with the utmost of circumspection.
It's exactly like in the case of Fish spawning aggregations where the ichthyologists have learned the hard way that it is better not to publish the exact locations: I say, unless there is unequivocal, robust and above all, fully enforced local management and/or protection, those data should be withheld and only shared with the relevant authorities and like-minded researchers, and this only in the aim of enacting adequate conservation and management measures.
And even once those measures have been enacted, it should be amply sufficient to publish large scale maps and keep the fine scale and exact GPS coordinates a secret.

Or am I missing something here?