Welcome to ScubaBoard, an online scuba diving forum community where you can join over 205,000 divers from around the world discussing all things related to Scuba Diving. To gain full access to ScubaBoard (and make this large box go away) you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
Participate in over 500 dive topic forums and browse from over 5,500,000 posts.
Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
Post your own photos or view from well over 100,000 user submitted images.
Gain access to our free classifieds marketplace to buy, sell and trade gear, travel and services.
Use the calendar to organize your events and enroll in other members' events.
All this and much more is available to you absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact the ScubaBoard Support Team.
The bottom line for me is simple. Does this benefit the sharks in the long run? Does the loss of 1-2 sharks outweigh finding birthing/breeding areas? For me, its is a yes. Though the loss of a few sharks is very tragic finding area's that could lead to protection would be invaluable. I've been watching the series and they are getting concrete proof that the Guadalupe is a breeding ground. Another aspect that the tagging uncovered was at the SOFA the males and females appear to be segregated (males in one area, females another). Information such as this can lead to ways to help ensure pregnant GWS deliver to term.
Could their methods be improved, yes, but from what I have read in many subject areas, I have yet see a methodology that was perfect from the get go. That as data is gathered, methods are improved.
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Thomas Jefferson
"Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing." -Benjamin Franklin
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." — Mahatma Gandhi
It's typical of modern day shark programming, all fart and no ****. It's sensationalised, fabricated, terrifically dull and doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.
I have no doubt that Dolmeir has a thing for sharks but his methods suck and I don't think the crew give a **** about sharks in the slightest, it's just a glorified fishing show with some beefcakes for the housewives to boost viewing figures.
The concept of more advanced tracking is fine but these methods damage the sharks and are actually pretty pointless. It's just a load of people who want to be on telly and get laid and they know sharks are a decent way to do both.
I'm not a fan, can you tell?
Office, I am not trying to argue or anything of the sort but are you an expert in the field? If not then how do you know that "ALL" the data they are receiving is already known. I am actually a huge fan of Dr. Dolmeir.
Yeah, this is not really ablack and white type of issue. I do believe Dr. Domeier's main motivation is science, I know too many biologists, it is not an easy way to earn a living and nobody who pursues that career path has any misconceptions. I bet he is probably kept awake debating his methods and weighing the possible advances he could make with the potential side effects these methods could cause. It is possible I could change my mind completely in a year or two, when results start pouring in and we learn the sharks are not really being harmed.
From a funding perspective this is win-win, Domeier gets his research without depleting the pool of funds for other scientists, and may generate more interest via the "Steve Irwin Effect".
His crew on the other hand I feel much more cynical about. I am pretty positive that their motivations and rewards from this have nothing to do with science and perhaps even less with the continuation of this species.
White sharks are at the top of just about every big game angler's dream list, and are pretty much off limits to everyone. Here is a chance to not only target but land these sharks, as big as they can manage. Here in NJ you are supposed to cut your line as soon as you realize a white shark is hooked as opposed to a legal species. You are not allowing to land or bring them boatside for any reason.
I might be willing to entertain the notion of creative editing, however the show they produce gives the impression that these "anglers" are excitable and undisciplined. One episode I watched had them hunting in a RHIB despite captains orders to the contrary, and every show I have seen features crew members screaming at each other and arguing about tactics etc.
For giggles, the shrak tagging results I mentioned yesterday can be found here:
Between November 2003 and February 2004 a 12.50 foot female travelled from S. Africa to Australia, about 11k kilometers and at depths of up to 750 meters. This was recorded using a PAT tag, similar I guess to the research you assisted with?
I am very interested in the long term data from the SPOT tags, but really not liking the methods of this show...
They said spot tages were anywhere from 1 to 3 years, so what happens after those three years? I believe that is why the Dr. uses the longer lasting tags.
The bottom line for me is simple. Does this benefit the sharks in the long run? Does the loss of 1-2 sharks outweigh finding birthing/breeding areas? For me, its is a yes.
Despite the fact that these birthing/breeding areas were already known before the work of "Shark Men?" They did confirm their existence, but IMHO did not discover them.
Office, I am not trying to argue or anything of the sort but are you an expert in the field? If not then how do you know that "ALL" the data they are receiving is already known. I am actually a huge fan of Dr. Dolmeir.
Indeed there are a number of other shark tagging studies that were in place before "Shark Men" that offer longer-term studies. In most cases the work of "Shark Men" has merely substantiated the findings of other studies that have not had the benefit of National Geographic funding and media exposure.
I can't speak for OfficetoOcean. Although I am not personally an expert on great whites or sharks in general, I am a marine biologist with 42 years of research and education experience, often dealing with sharks (or their absence of them today).
I do believe Domeier has a sincere interest in these amazing fish. However, if you are such a fan of Domeier's, you might want to learn to spell his name correctly.
Indeed there are a number of other shark tagging studies that were in place before "Shark Men" that offer longer-term studies. In most cases the work of "Shark Men" has merely substantiated the findings of other studies that have not had the benefit of National Geographic funding and media exposure.
I can't speak for OfficetoOcean. Although I am not personally an expert on great whites or sharks in general, I am a marine biologist with 42 years of research and education experience, often dealing with sharks (or their absence of them today).
I do believe Domeier has a sincere interest in these amazing fish. However, if you are such a fan of Domeier's, you might want to learn to spell his name correctly.
I edited it when I realized my mistake but do not know why it did not take.
7Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by OfficetoOcean
