I wrote in a previous post that I had seen great hammerhead sharks at Bimini with tags all over them. I wrote:
The older hammerhead sharks all had numerous tags on them; one
or two had 4" squares of flesh ripped off behind their dorsal, probably
from "researchers" who had caught them and glued tags on them, which
then ripped off. I used to study marine biology, even was in the PhD
program at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. But I am now sickened
and opposed to the constant, unending tagging of large marine animals.
I went through my video footage and have posted a couple of frame grabs showing one of the sharks. I wish I had a better shot of the wound of the shark, looking down on it.
Since that post, I've received a few comments from researchers.
Here's the comment from
182436hike:
"the
shark he is talking about is an animal we have known for a year it has a
nasty patch on his back. This animal was only tagged with a Casey
external national marine fisheries service tag. That would never have
produced such a mark. My guess is prop scar turned bad due to shark
suckers. I guess this guy had no idea great hammers are endangered and
the station founded the (dive) site."
Here are my thoughts on this comment:
The open wound on the shark was rectangular, with straight edges. I have strong doubts that a prop would have caused such a rectangular wound, with such straight edges. As for the comment that the station found the dive site -- great, but what does that have to do with the issue of tagging and this rectangular wound? Same with the issue of great hammers being endangered. OK, so great hammers are endangered. Does that mean they need to get stuck with three or more tags? There's really no other way to count and identify them? What about photo studies, like Rachel Graham suggests (her comment below).
I always hear researchers say things like "the only way we can get rid of lionfish in the Caribbean is by studying them." Really? I doubt that any amount of study of the lionfish population in the Caribbean is going to stop their spread. If you really want to get rid of all lionfish in the Caribbean, then just put out the word that they taste great and they will help with erections, cure cancer, etc to the 1.3 billion people in China. Those lionfish will be quickly exterminated, believe you me. So will all the lionfish in the Pacific too. Yes, I am of Chinese ancestry and yes, I am opposed to shark fin soup as well as a lot of other things.
As for tagging: Like anything else, too much of something can make that -- not a good
thing. My strong opinion is that there's been too much tagging now. The acclaimed underwater filmmaker, photographer, and writer Howard Hall wrote a good piece about the subject of
tagging at:
http://wetpixel.com/articles/howard-hall-tagging-a-celebration-of-science
Here's the concluding paragraph and a later comment from Mr. Hall after his article:
"A post-graduate credential often qualifies marine biologists for permits
allowing the tagging of endangered animals as well as species in marine
protected areas. As sport divers we generally celebrate these programs
and accept the damage done to wildlife as a justified sacrifice in an
effort to conserve ocean habitat and species. And I am sure many of
these programs are critical in that regard. But I also suggest that, as
members of the sport diving community, our acceptance should not be
blind."
"Thanks for all your comments. After forty years watching the decline
of wildlife in our oceans, this particular hypocrisy has become
especially irritating for me. I read the report Melvin mentions about
sea lions targeting salmon that are tagged with transmitters. An
unforeseen consequence of tagging. And I would love for Tony to write
about humpback fatalities due to tags. That should get the blood
pumping. And it is great to hear the Rachel has moved from tags to
photo IDs.
I'm presently at Tiger Beach. Earlier this year
researchers caught and landed over forty tiger sharks, cut them open,
and installed transmitters in their peritoneal cavities. A few of these
sharks still come back to Tiger beach and you can see the stitched up
incisions. Other sharks have disgustingly infested holes in their
dorsal fins from bolt tags implanted years before. Just lovely."
Back to my thoughts:
Tagging of marine life has reached ridiculous levels. I've seen
images of researchers fishing and landing great white and tiger sharks,
then lifting them on small boats to tag and otherwise manhandle them --
in the name of science. Who knows how many of these animals die after
being so severely stressed?
A
bird biologist told me a story about researchers counting roseate
spoonbill nests in Florida. Roseate spoonbills suffer from
reduced/changed habitat. They are easily stressed and will leave their
nesting areas. Researchers are concerned about their population. A
study was proposed and funded, and researchers studied a population in
one roosting area by rousting the birds off their nests, banding the parents, counting eggs
and chicks, etc. They stressed the birds so much (not hard to do at
all) that all the birds left the nesting area, their nests, and their
eggs and chicks. In the name of science, these researchers managed to
very quickly destroy one of the few remaining roosting sites preferred
by these roseate spoonbills.
I am not a bird expert so some of my
facts may be off-course, but I believe the basic premise that
researchers disturbed a bird species enough that they left an uncommon
nesting site. Here's what I found from a quick read of
Audubon's archives:
http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/birds/birds0107.html
"But
a great many nests have failed on the other keys. Since the late 1970s
spoonbills in the bay have re-nested if things have gone wrong, and I
see signs that some failed nesters have moved over here to try again.
Let's hope."
Attempts by many of the bay's breeding pairs to nest or re-nest often fail, as (despite Lorenz's hopes) they did this spring.
Here's the more reasoned comment, from Sean:
My comments:
Sean, thanks for the suggestions on how to travel to Bimini. For some reason, everyone I spoke to recommended Silver Airlines as the best way to get to Bimini.
I am always happy to provide amusement. But I don't believe that such a rectangular wound was caused by bite marks. Are you sure that other researchers have not been pulling "your" sharks out of the water and gluing stuff on them?
As for photoshopping out tags, I am incredibly unskilled at using Photoshop. I spend enough time at the computer already, and have never found the time to become very good at using Photoshop.
I was a Pew Fellow in Marine Conservation about 10 years ago, and I met many of the folks who are now involved in policy-making. Therefore I understand the importance of research efforts and stock assessments, but I don't agree that tagging and intrusive methods are always the best way to do such research.
Rachel Graham has a relevant comment after the Howard Hall article. Here it is:
Excellent article Howard. Thank you. As I incorporate tagging into my
research I always ask myself if the tagging is necessary to advance our
understanding of the species or its conservation. In the case of whale
sharks, I started out using conventional tags in 1999 but realised after
3 years that the tags often got fouled and broke and therefore were
useless for inter-annual population and even long term migration or site
fidelity studies. Around 2002-2003 the unique fingerprint of its
patterns of dots was clearly providing an alternative to conventional
tagging ( I had started taking ID shots in 98) and I stopped all
conventional tagging thereafter and focused primarily on
satellite/acoustic tags to provide information that the spot patterns
could not provide, e.g. behavioural, migratory, environmental
preferences. The knowledge gleaned from the tagging gave us incredible
insights into whale shark movement patterns, environmental preferences,
site fidelity, population size and more that underpinned management and
conservation strategies necessary in the context of a burgeoning
tourism. I agree that tagging has its place but there must be a strong
justification for using it and only if it will provide key information
for conservation that non-invasive methods cannot provide.
...snip...
You mentioned that you were in a PhD program. I would expect someone with your education to research something before posting utter nonsense. I hate to say this but many of us got a good chuckle out of your comment. We all know exactly the shark you are talking about, or at least a couple that fit your description. The holes you are referring to are clearly bite marks from other sharks. They have been well documented this year and there are many pictures of them in various stages of healing. There are no tags being placed by "researchers" that are being glued on their backs. The actual tags have been placed by the Bimini Biological Field Station (SharkLab), who are the ones responsible for discovering this amazing site. They do this in the water, free diving, so as to not have to physically catch these relatively delicate animals. They have been placing tags on these animals long before any commercial dive boat came to Bimini. Thankfully many of the boats and divers support the research efforts. A number of them donate to the lab and have even purchased tags. One dive boat provides all the dive gear for the Shark Lab to deploy and collect the array of underwater receivers that is listening for and recording the presence of these animals.
The PEW Trust and BNT were both driving forces behind creating the Bahamas Shark Sanctuary and both support the Shark Lab. PEW just held an important shark meeting at the Big Game Club, because of the Shark Lab's role here in Bimini. It involved other Caribbean nation governments in the initial stages of a push to widen the protection of sharks from the Bahamas to a larger Caribbean wide area. International agreements like CITES, which we all hailed as a success with their recent additions, including hammerheads, rely heavily on scientific information and stock assessments. Without this information species listings are doomed to fail. It would be nice to see more people like you support the research efforts, especially in this case as you are diving in an established research site. I understand that the tags are often unsightly and I can respect that as an amateur underwater enthusiast myself, but there are bigger issues out there then your own personal images. I have no issue photoshopping out tags (and sometimes I do) so I would think someone of your reputation would be vastly better than I.