Blog about "The World's best Shark Dive" by Beqa Adventure Divers.
Featuring up to eight regular species of Sharks and over 400 different species of fish, Shark diving doesn't get any better!
Story here.
The other news are not good (check out the video!) as nothing positive has been decided and the overfishing will continue, largely because the WCPFC rules requires consensus, meaning that anybody with an agenda can boycott any decision.
But the tide is clearly turning. Congratulatory reports like this one are thankfully disappearing. Instead, the media are increasingly adopting a much more critical view by focusing on the ethical implications of those feats, or whatever and the plight of the animals that are being targeted. This is specially apparent in the case of those horrible Shark kill tournaments.
And then, there is this post by the Consortium for Ocean Leadership. Very unfortunately, it provides a platform for once again highly problematic statements by a Shark researcher, this time by one Lisa Natanson who appears to be a habitual groupie of the East Coast's kill tournaments.
Yes, taking samples from Sharks that have already been landed by fishermen is vastly preferable to lethal sampling. But to then go as far as to become a vocal public apologist for the kill tournament format is totally unacceptable. Will those people ever learn to just keep a low profile, do their job and keep their mouth shut? Thankfully, other more enlightened colleagues raise their voice in dissent
While acknowledging the scientific benefits that can accrue from tournaments, Dr. Robert Hueter of the Mote Marine Laboratory in Florida nevertheless believes that the pressures on sharks are too great for tournaments to continue. “I’m not saying that we aren’t gaining useful data from this sort of sampling,” he says. “But scientists have been taking these sorts of samples at tournaments for nearly 50 years. It’s questionable that the research benefits gained at this point justify the cost to shark conservation.”
Exactly! How many more vertebrae does Ms. Natanson need to collect before waking up to the reality that Sharks are endangered and require protection and advocacy - especially by the people who research them? Will people like her ever overcome that apparent pervasive fatal disconnect between their research and the required ethical sensibility? Yes, what may have been OK in the past is not OK anymore - how about some adaptive evolution!
Once again, kudos to Bob Heuter for having spoken up. Having very much been part and parcel of the Guy Harvey Ultimate Shark Challenge, he knows what he's talking about and represents the future of Shark research, as do Neil and of course Juerg! Well said!
There are about 5,000 Tigers left in the wild.
What would you say if some Tiger researcher published a paper claiming that it was OK for scientists to go kill a few in order to collect data that would be essential for their management and conservation. How about Giant Pandas, population 2,000 - OK to go shoot a couple? No way? Thought so!
Or take a species with a reasonably robust population size.
Orcas, population approx. 50,000: would it be OK for scientists to go kill a few in order to collate better data?
Still not convinced?
Abstract: General consensus among scientists, commercial interests, and the public regarding the status of shark populations is leading to an increasing need for the scientific community to provide information to help guide effective management and conservation actions. Experience from other marine vertebrate taxa suggests that public, political, and media pressures will play an increasingly important part in setting research, management, and conservation priorities.
We examined the potential implications of nonscientific influences on shark research. In particular, we considered whether lethal research sampling of sharks is justified. Although lethal sampling comes at a cost to a population, especially for threatened species, the conservation benefits from well-designed studies provide essential data that cannot be collected currently in any other way. Methods that enable nonlethal collection of life-history data on sharks are being developed (e.g., use of blood samples to detect maturity), but in the near future they will not provide widespread or significant benefits. Development of these techniques needs to continue, as does the way in which scientists coordinate their use of material collected during lethal sampling.
For almost half of the known shark species there are insufficient data to determine their population status; thus, there is an ongoing need for further collection of scientific data to ensure all shark populations have a future. Shark populations will benefit most when decisions about the use of lethal sampling are made on the basis of scientific evidence that is free from individual, political, public, and media pressures.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing the need for Shark autopsies, or whatever - though I sure am amazed at the apparent lack of data: what were those fisheries biologists doing during all those past decades of research and data collection, notabene paid for by public funds - huh???
People who lethally sample (a euphemism for going fishing with the intent of killing) Sharks are generally called fishermen.
There must be hundreds of millions of fishermen andlast time I looked, 50-odd million Sharks were being lethally sampled each year: are Heupel and Simpfendorfer really suggesting that scientists must go and kill more Sharks on top of that?
That 50 Million dead Sharks are not providing for enough specimen for them to collate their oh-so-important data??? On top of the many Sharks that die by accident during non-lethal sampling by researchers?
Really???
How pathetic is that!
Two years ago, I blogged about some moron who was squandering scarce research funds by going ice fishing for Greenland Sharks instead of analyzing the thousands of Sharks caught by the fishermen. More recently, I've blogged about an arrogant research dude torturing Great Whites (read this - how true!) for a horrible fishing show - which just happens to be on air at this very moment!
They are but two examples of a particularly disturbing breed of researchers who display a fatal disconnect between the quest for scientific insights and the most basic sense of what is right and what is not.
I've since had countless conversations with scientists and especially, providers of research grants about the need to stop squandering resources and to apply stringent ethical imperatives when bankrolling any further scientific research.
Everybody seems to agree, and I'm being told that the the Shark killers tend to be the older researchers and that the majority of the newcomers oppose those methods - which is a good thing!
This shit must stop, period.
It just so happens that in a few days, the very same Heupel and Simpfendorfer will be hosting Sharks International in Cairns. Will somebody there finally speak up against those intolerable shenanigans and the according display of heartlessness and hubris?
Several months after the fact, there's still no news about that Shark. Or is there? And if so, why is it not being released, the more considering the fact that this was one of last year's major, and I may add: self inflicted media disasters? Fishy business - or just the same old hubris?
Just as a reminder of what this is all about.
This is not about the professional qualifications of Michael Domeier as a scientist - in fact, I find his research interesting and I mostly like his interviews and the fact that he always tries to weave in a pro-Shark message. And his White Shark Symposium in Hawaii has been stellar.
This is also not about whether SPOT tags are generally useful or whether the data collected are valuable, or not.
This is about the self serving and unethical mindset of the researcher who partook in it and the agency who gave the according permits, and the arrogance they displayed once it became clear that one of the animals had been grievously injured.
This is about about the brutal procedures employed, where an endangered animal was hooked and subdued and then hoisted upon a naked wooden platform where it was left to fight for its life whilst somebody drilled holes into it. Specifically
Tagging procedures and gear must be chosen in order to limit any possible harm to the animal. Like RTSea said at the time, if the tag required bolting on, it needed to be improved, or new attachment techniques needed to be devised. Others have invested the time and have come up with viable alternatives where stationary tags can be firmly attached "on the fly". Instead, in this instance, the animal's welfare was disregarded in favor of filming a fishing show aimed at providing the public with a maximum of thrills watching intrepid anglers subdue monster Fish.
Likewise, there was no need whatsoever to brutally manhandle the Shark onto the platform, let alone to hoist her aboard and torture her for 20 minutes. It is well established procedure to bring big Sharks to the vessel and to keep them submerged, often even in a soft cradle whenever applying tags - yes, including tags that need bolting on, as amply demonstrated here by Richard Fitzpatrick!
This is about the need to finally abandon the antiquated view that research data are all-important and that they warrant treating animals as mere objects regardless of the consequences to them.
And finally, this is about accountability. Domeier was not dragged, kicking and screaming, into the public domain - he himself chose to go there in the first place. Pity it didn't turn out as planned and that instead of the expected accolades, he got heaped with scorn once he botched it.
It's high time to stop pouting, to man up and to accept the consequences of one's doing. If the Shark is alive and well - prove it. And if the Shark has died as the result of the injuries it has sustained, own up to your responsibility, apologize and learn the lessons that have to be learned.
In case you have forgotten, this is what Accountability is all about.
Well said!
Like in the case of Domeier, Campana just doesn't get it. The times where it was somehow OK to kill or torture an animal provided that this was being done in the name of "science" are long gone. I do hear where Campana is coming from - but to go as far as to publicly whinge against a great victory for Conservation is just self serving and unethical, full stop.
And incredibly stupid on top of that!
Unfortunately, I fear that those two guys are still rather typical and by no means an exception. I've said it before, it's up to the scientific community, and to those funding them, to take a stand against those shenanigans.
Heartless scientists engaging in frivolous research need to be ostracized and peer reviews need to include an examination for adequate ethical conduct. And I sure hope that the new batch of Biologists are finally being told that the only justification for spending those scarce research resources is to try and halt the anthropogenic habitat degradation and extinction!
PS important news from Shark Diverhere in the comments section: once again, well done for having walked the walk and achieved something tangible! I hope!
The San Diego Reader has just published this story.
It's a great and well researched piece about the Shark fishing tagging disaster in the Farallones and the outrage it sparked among scientists, divers and the public alike. Kudos to all of them for having spoken up and said it as it is.
Alas, the perpetrators remain completely unfazed.
Not that I would have expected anything else from Fisher. As amply documented by his public boasting, all he really cared about was to hook and subdue(if that doesn't say it all) a couple of giant Sharks - and the scientific research was just a pretext to do so within two marine sanctuaries, and to subsequently sell the show to Nat Geo. Very savvy indeed, and pretty cynic on top of that - but again, hardly surprising considering his track record.
What however baffles and quite frankly saddens me is that Domeier just doesn't seem to get it. What is being criticized is the brutal handling of the Sharks, not the fact that this or that tag was deployed. In fact, everybody seems to agree that SPOT tags are the current cat's meow and that the long-term observational data collected would provide valuable and unique information about the GWs life history - but apart from Fisher's obvious requirements: was hooking and subduing really the only possible procedure?
Really? I may be repeating myself, but just imagine the outcry if anybody dared to state that the level of temporary stress we subject these animals to is unfortunate, but the scientific advancements are well worth the effort, and then proceeded to go and hook and subdue, say, an Orca! And then released it with a huge hook embedded in its throat!
Are we really to believe that Domeier could not have adapted the proven non-invasive techniques for capturing and handling large Cetaceans? That he could not have tagged the Shark by keeping it in a cradle next to a skiff, like everybody else seems to do? That he could not have built some tool like the grabber this guy has invented, or used nets instead of rod and reel? Or re-designed the anchors so that the tags could have been deployed by using pole spears? Or developed some other non-invasive technique?
Did he even try? Thing is, he just doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about the animals, does he.
Eagerly awaiting news of the Shark you tortured and injured!
Domeier apparently thinks that showing off this meat hook is somehow cool - well, it aint!
Bingo!
I've just come back from an epic DEMA Show, only to find out that Domeier has managed to grieviously injure a Great White. This is what has happened (transcript here).
It's all very very bad but having said it all before, there's no need for me to post any more opines on the matter. Others have taken up the issue, foremost of which Underwater Thrills, Sharky (welcome back buddy), Sea Stewards, RTSea and even the mainstream media like the ABC Blog and undoubtedly, many others.
Just this.
I'm particularly appalled by the reaction of the people involved, be it that woman who gave the permit, Domeier, NatGeo who remained silent and above all, that guy Fisher who chose to act as the spokesperson and greenwasher of the whole fiasco. Their statements populate the comments sections of the various blogs and articles and are a glaring example of their arrogance, lack of ethical imperatives and pure and simple hubris. Where they should have been eating humble pie, admitted their error, apologized and stopped their stupid undertaking in view of developing better and more respectful procedures, they chose out to lash out against the critics and to point their finger at similar (and equally unethical) experiments by their peers. Shame on them and shame on NatGeo for not having pulled them back and taken better control of what amounts to a substantial blunder and according tarnishing of their brand.
Secondly, this has come at no surprise. I chose to chastise it in unequivocal and abrasive terms, partly because of, I hate to admit, my Germanic genes coupled with a sometimes poor understanding of the foreign language I write in - and partly because being literally in the thick of it, I vehemently and passionately oppose unethical and gratuitous science, a recurrent thread of this blog. Turns out that on top of being unnecessarily brutal, the whole exercise was largely redundant as TOPP and others had already collected a vast sample of identical data. Yes the new tags stay on longer but that's no excuse whatsoever for harming the animals and yes, I'm repeating myself.
Thing is, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this was wrong and that it did harbor an unacceptably high risk of harming the animals. If this comment is true, it appears that they hadn't even figured out the need for using proper circle hooks, something every game fisherman has known for years. Anyway, what I wanted to say is that I had wished for a more unequivocal condemnation of the way things were being handled - and this from the outset and not only after disaster struck.
Guys, in so many ways, we are the gatekeepers. So let's be a little less politically correct, a little less timid, a little less oblique, a little less calculating and let's say it as it is - and yes, I'll leave it at that, the more as I'm sure you understand.
Luckily, within the scientific community, many concur that this unethical shit must stop. I had the honor and great personal pleasure of finally meeting one of the world's foremost authorities on Sharks. We had a fantastic dinner where we exchanged views and lined up some exciting stuff for the future. And I was touched when he said that he started by killing many Sharks, a fact he now regretted as he was seeing what was happening and wanted to devote his efforts to getting the animals protected. What a great thing to witness!
Hopefully, the many new scientists he coaches and mentors will take up this modern view of what science needs to be: committed to conservation and always respectful of the animals. Hopefully, the likes of Domeier who apparently sold his soul to the gratuitous fame of a stupid reality show will be adequately reprimanded by their peers at the next meeting of the AES or whenever he will try to hawk the data he has gathered. Hopefully, in the future, we will never again enable nor condone this kind of attitude, irrespective of the media dollars and the scientific veneer and according brownie points it may come with.
And hopefully, the poor Shark will survive - and guess who now carries the onus of proving it!
Enough said.
PS The Dorsal Fin has weighed in on this one and if one follows the links, one ends up on Mr. Fisher's website. Pretty revealing huh? So, maybe, this was primarily about reeling in some monster Fish that would have otherwise been protected? Honi soit qui mal y pense...
One would think that all Shark researchers love the Sharks they study.
Well, think again. Marine CSI researcher Dr. Michael Domeier goes fishing for endangered Great Whites. He hooks them, drags them aboard and then uses a drill to attach satellite tags to their dorsal fin. The following was apparently filmed in Guadalupe for a Nat Geo documentary and now, Domeier is planning to do the same in the Farallones, equally a marine preserve, once again documented by the inevitable film crew.
Check it out, it's a brutal procedure.
Some of the blue bloggers, namely The Dorsal Fin and RTSea have picked up the story and voiced their concerns, citing the "stress" this procedure could inflict upon the animals. Others seem to be more on the fence.
Me, I'm simply appalled and outraged.
Great Whites can be easily lured next to boats and hundreds of them have been successfully tagged using a pole spear - and yes, one can also easily take DNA samples and with a little bit of ingenuity, blood samples as well. Granted, some of the tags costing thousands of bucks will detach themselves and be lost, but -and this is what counts!- the animals are neither "stressed" not otherwise negatively impacted.
Here, the Shark is hooked and then left to fight a couple of buoys until it is completely exhausted, then dragged onto a hard platform where its own body weight can easily crush its internal organs and potentially kill any unborn fetuses, then completely removed from the water and left to lay semi-comatose and desperately fighting asphyxiation for a good 20 minutes whilst somebody uses a drill and other implements to make holes in its body. You can check it all out in this, I believe shocking image gallery.
It thus comes as no surprise that some specialists assert that some of the Sharks are likely to die as a direct consequence of this treatment.
How about if anybody did the very same thing to a Dolphin, notabene an animal that is not highly endangered and that can breathe outside of the water? Yes, no catching with nets, none of those purpose-made, body-hugging cradles preventing the animal from hurting itself (check out the fresh cuts on the Shark's caudal fin and the lack of chafing gear on the rope), no padded water tanks supporting the body weight, no exquisite care administered to the animal in order to prevent dehydration of its sensitive skin - just the same nasty fishing hooks, the same brutal and heartless treatment and a comatose Dolphin left to fight for its life on a hard naked wooden platform whilst somebody drills holes into its body?
Still think that this is maybe OK?
I've said it before: this is not the seventies.
Since then, the public's sensibilities and the rules about what is acceptable in science have thankfully changed- and this is just not acceptable.
Do I really need to spell out that the "objects of research" are really not objects and must be treated ethically? Does Dr. Domeier really need to be reminded that Sharks, and GW in particular are particularly vulnerable and that hurting them and endangering their life is just not on?
Why MCSI has chosen to abandon its own successful, tried-and-tested non-invasive techniques and to resort to such brutal and heartless manhandling will always leave me baffled. I understand that the tags may be some novel gizmo requiring this kind of deployment - but then, the gizmo is faulty and needs to be re-designed or the protocols, to be drastically changed. Always keep in mind that nothing of this is either necessary, or urgent: not for the advancement of scientific knowledge and especially not for the survival of the species!
Full stop.
No data set is worth torturing animals in this brutal and heartless fashion!
Guys, Please: show the Love and the Respect!
PS Underwater Thrills have weighed in on this and further emphasized the need for controlling the associated media output. That's a valid, although I believe, secondary point. Those "fun" images of "cool" guys posing next to the comatose animal are certainly highly inappropriate.
We'll be keeping an eye out - for the Nat Geo program but above all, for reports of any tags having been "lost" (as in Sharks having perished) in the research paper.
.jpg)
