Massive mako shark caught off Nova Scotia

[AmyJ]

yes, but as Pocahontas says...


How high will the sycamore grow?
If you cut it down, then you'll never know
And we are all connected to each other
In a circle, in a hoop that never ends

 

[archman]

Dang! The poets are always bushwacking me... All of my carefully reasoned arguments, blown apart by a few lines of heart-tugging prose. No fair.

 

[jbd]

2. Rationale for gut content analysis. Older, larger animals often have different dietary habits. And we really do know little about the behaviours and trophic dynamics of pelagic animals like makos. Often the information gleaned from books has been taken from very small data sets. Many times they're inaccurate as a result of this.
Another reason. Makos primarily are apex predators, feeding on billfishes, scombrids, and carangids. As those stocks are all commercially fished, it is useful to know if the diet of their natural predators is showing signs of shifting. If that can be documented, you have additional evidence that fisheries are being overexploited. "Lack of evidence" is the parrot-cry of fishing lobbies, and one of the top reasons regulatory action is slow to take form.

In the greater scheme of things, what difference does it make to the human race what the older, larger mako eats? What was learned about the behaviour of this mako shark--that it will drown and die while being dragged behind a boat? Apparently that was something that was already known. Until this shark was caught no one knew it even existed which is probably why it got so large and as old as it was. It certainly won't be getting any bigger or older, due, not to the advancement of science but for the sport and entertainment of mankind.

Since the data sets are so small and probably inaccurate anyways there is nothing about this shark that will set the record straight.

We don't need more evidence of over-exploitation of the fisheries--common sense and common knowledge of the fisherman already tells us that.

[QUOTE-archman]3. Rationale for aging specimen. Above-average sized wild organisms are always of interest to science. We'd like to know why they're so big.[/QUOTE]

Its because they escaped the attention of human beings and were allowed to achieve that size or age. Should we give the oldest living human a lethal injection so we can dissect him/her to see why they lived so long?

This lack of knowledge severely hampens our ability to pass regulations.

More correctly, this lack of mountainous reams of paper for the bureaucracy to feed on and process keeps us from passing regulations. There is plenty of available common knowledge to justify regulations, there just isn't enough money to motivate or necessitate the change. When it is too late then something will be done.

4. Public aquariums are not a better venue for a captured animal. It's far more useful to get data from a wild specimen. The only real advantages to aquarium transplantation are public education, and to ease the minds of the animal cruelty demographic.

Thats the point--public education just as Beckfish mentioned. There is no need to kill a shark especially one of this stature to educate the genereal public. Most of what is learned by the scientific community from this shark will never reach the general public and even if it did, it wouldn't have any real impact on the welfare or betterment of the general public.

 

[WarmGoingCold]

We kill 150 MILLION sharks per year worldwide(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0917_020917_sharks.html), mostly for fins, and yet somehow we try to justify these fishing contests as "scientific expeditions" into the shark world??? Oh yes, and to educate children?

Puleez.

With 80-150 million dead sharks per year, you would think we could gleam some scientific knowledge from them right?

 

[archman]

What was learned about the behaviour of this mako shark--that it will drown and die while being dragged behind a boat? Apparently that was something that was already known.

Behaviour is inferred from gut content analysis.

Until this shark was caught no one knew it even existed which is probably why it got so large and as old as it was. It certainly won't be getting any bigger or older, due, not to the advancement of science but for the sport and entertainment of mankind.

We do our own sampling, just not so often. Piggybacking existing fishing efforts is extremely valuable, and is done wherever possible. As for assuming oversized animals are rare due to human activity, that's well, an assumption. Often incorrect.

Since the data sets are so small and probably inaccurate anyways there is nothing about this shark that will set the record straight.

That would contradict basic statistics.

We don't need more evidence of over-exploitation of the fisheries--common sense and common knowledge of the fisherman already tells us that.

Tell that to the legislative bodies, the regulatory agencies, and the fisheries specialists. They may nod and smile at you politely, but you won't see them passing out reprints when it comes to sharks. Not yet anyway.

this lack of mountainous reams of paper for the bureaucracy to feed on and process keeps us from passing regulations.

This is a general complaint against the bureaucratic institution. I'll limit my remarks to marine fisheries.
1. Paper has been for the most part replaced with electronic formats. This isn't the 1980's.
2. Bureaucrats don't process the information. Scientists do this, and present summary findings.
3. The bulk of fisheries regulations are passed when findings leave no reasonable doubt, and there is a clear plan of action. Bureaucratic ossification does not apply here.

There is plenty of available common knowledge to justify regulations, there just isn't enough money to motivate or necessitate the change.

Regarding sharks, the data is building, but its far behind most other commercial fisheries. A lot goes into making regulations... you have to know your target species extremely well. If not, you're going to have the economic sector screaming at you for jumping the gun. There's plenty of money influencing these decisions, and it all comes from the parties that benefit fisheries. Nobody likes to lose money. You have to convincingly argue a better state than the status quo. If you're going to cry doom-and-gloom, you'd better back it up 100% and dot your i's.

When it is too late then something will be done.

Human nature. If it isn't broke, we won't fix it. Preventative legislation is quite a rarity.

We kill 150 MILLION sharks per year worldwide(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...917_sharks.html), mostly for fins, and yet somehow we try to justify these fishing contests as "scientific expeditions" into the shark world??? Oh yes, and to educate children

This wasn't a scientific expedition, it's a fishing tournament. Just a very cooperative one.

With 80-150 million dead sharks per year, you would think we could gleam some scientific knowledge from them right

If there are observers aboard. If landings are reported... and reported correctly. We've had reason to believe that China doctors it's records. And you'd be shocked to know just how anarchist one can behave in international waters. Most sharks are caught there, or within territorial seas of less prudent governments.

There is no need to kill a shark especially one of this stature to educate the genereal public.

Again, the animal was killed in a fishing tournament. A tournament that just so happened to cooperate with local researchers, and elicited informal education opportunities. You'll be hard pressed to find educational programs outside the animal health sector that routinely kill animals.

Most of what is learned by the scientific community from this shark will never reach the general public and even if it did, it wouldn't have any real impact on the welfare or betterment of the general public

It is ridiculous and unfair to argue the results of the localized and narrow, with impacts to the general and broad. It is similarly absurd to believe that the bulk of scientific findings are released to the general public. Only the simplest and most relevant data are disseminated. Other than the specialists concerned, who wants to look at "mountainous reams of paper"?

**
I'm going to request this thread be moved over to the more relevant forum of Ecosystems & Preservation. The majority of postings have strayed into the realm of environmentalism, animal cruelty, and conservation. It can kick around in there longer too, to my detriment. I can only defend fishing and marine policy for so long... you progressive, environmentally responsible people are wearing me out. Oh well, this is far more preferable to arguing with fishermen.

 

[Poseidon8118]

I didn't think a mako could get so large! The mako is one of the fastest fish in the world and it being 1035lbs is shocking. The mako makes the great white look lazy in the water and this one is comparable by size. Oh by the way, what’s with the advertisements for shark cartilage and teeth at the bottom of the Scubaboard page??? THAT’S EVEN MORE DISTURBING THAN THE POOR SHARK?????????????? I would expect more from this site

 

[hermosadive]

... I was there when they brought the animal in and I helped to dissect her as well. All of the sharks that were caught in this derby were fully processed: nothing was wasted. They were all cut into steaks and sold to local resteraunts and the rest was made into fertilizer.

I grew up in Nova Scotia just an hour or so from Yarmouth. My family is mostly commercial fishermen. I can't recall ever seeing shark on the menu in any local resturant on the South Shore. I'm sure there may be a couple establishements that would offer shark, but it is not a popular menu item. I guess we can only assume that most of the shark was used for fertilizer then. I'm sure we have enough fertilizer to go around without using shark.

 

[SubMariner]

.Oh by the way, what’s with the advertisements for shark cartilage and teeth at the bottom of the Scubaboard page???

Excuse me, but I don't recall seeing any of this "at the bottom of the Scubaboard page". Please include a link.

Meanwhile, I would ask that everyone participating in this thread please remain civil.

Thanks,

 

[deadend]

I grew up in Nova Scotia just an hour or so from Yarmouth. My family is mostly commercial fishermen. I can't recall ever seeing shark on the menu in any local resturant on the South Shore. I'm sure there may be a couple establishements that would offer shark, but it is not a popular menu item. I guess we can only assume that most of the shark was used for fertilizer then. I'm sure we have enough fertilizer to go around without using shark.

Instead of whining about how a fisherman LEGALLY caught a shark and kept it, do something else like lobby to restrict unethical and sometimes illegal commercial fishing. The average fisherman is not the problem nor the solution. The simple act of living means that something else must die. If this fish was consumed then what's the problem? Skin and guts are not appetizing to most of the civilized world so fertilizer is a better fate for them than landfill fodder.

 

[buff]

In the end it's all about population control-human population. More and more pressure on animals with decreasing food sources and area to roam results in less and less animals. Too many humans for the rest of the animal kingdom to exist. Though lots of cars, kids, cows, canines, cats.