Beckyfish:
Hey, I just had to join the forum just to tell you guys about what really happened to this beautiful animal. If you look closely at the second picture of the article, that's me standing just below the shark with my arms crossed. I was a volunteer with the DFO (department of fisheries and oceans) at this derby and I was there when they brought the animal in and I helped to dissect her as well.
. . . keep a few things in mind: science needs specimens in order to proceed. Without the actual animals to study, we could never have a hope of finding ways to preserve them. Second, in most of Cananda - including where this shark was caught- it is illegal to kill sharks unless during an organized derby, only catch-and-release sport fisheries are allowed so without this event, we would have nothing to study.
Thanks, feel free to e-mail me any further questions you have!
goosey_girl@hotmail.com
I'm reminded of a Bristle Cone Pine that the forestry services studied, I think it was in the Sierra Nevadas, at the time I learned of it in a Wildlife Biology Class, they said it "was" the oldest living thing ever.
"Was" because in their scientific zeal, they cut it down to count the rings.
"Just another tree hugger."
archman:
Yes. Both long-term and continuous-sample projects require periodic specimen takes. The monetary costs and wait times can be significantly reduced by cooperating with existing fisheries. Public education is an added bonus.
The "scientific whaling" practiced by the Japanese is an example of exploiting a regulatory loophole. It's not a good example.
In both terrestrial and marine natural resource management it is standard, age-old practice to sacrifice portions of local habitats and populations in order to safeguard the overall ecology. The public demands it. There is very good socio-political reason as to why there are so fewer true marine reserves... the ones that forbid human entry of any but scientific kind. . . .
Catering to destructive human interactions on limited scales is one of the most effective ways to protect ecosystems as a whole. This is one of the biggest differences between researchers, environmentalists, and marine resource managers. The last group understands that in order to protect resources, you have to sometimes "dance with the devil". Scientists and environmentalists have the luxury of high principles... but they don't make the decisions.
While I agree that there has to be sampling, I can't understand why dissecting this Super Mako Mama, or any other record organism is so important to understanding and protecting a species.
Is there no way to examine the specimen without destroying it?
Darn that Heisenberg guy.
archman:
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.
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. Is it age, diet, sex, environmentally, or behaviorally motivated? What is the animal's reproductive status? Are there biomagnified compounds in the tissues reducing fertility?
Growth rates and fecundity are among the Top 5 measurements of importance to fisheries scientists. They're necessary in predicting and modeling stocks. Shark fisheries rank as among the most poorly known. This lack of knowledge severely hampens our ability to pass regulations.
Okay, but I don't have to like it, and I'm much more apt to agree with AmyJ and jbd, about this need.
The sad thing is that with politics and law being what they are, we have to kill things that we shouldn't need to, to avoid creating even greater havoc.
Still don't know why they couldn't have cored
the Bristle cone rather than murdering it.
Which is to say, why not tissue
samples from the Mako? Is there
no way to stomach contents
without sacrificing the donor?
If there is tournament cooperation,
then there could be equipment standing
by to subdue the animal for sample,
testing, measurement, and observation.
Tom
