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.
Hi Norbert,
ReplyDeleteThe white patch is indeed a healing bite wound. There are actually two separate Great Hammerheads frequenting Bimini with similar wounds. I have photos of the "white patch" when it was less healed, and you can see the teeth marks around the edges.
The Bimini SharkLab has not hooked or captured any of the Great Hammerheads you've seen, and to my knowledge no other researchers are utilizing this site. As you likely know, Great Hammerheads are very susceptible to capture stress, so all of the work is being conducted on free swimming (though obviously baited) animals.
Lastly, I think it's terribly unfortunate that the poorly thought out or excessive practices of a few researchers are being painted as the norm in this discussion. I've seen multiple film teams severely stress and even kill animals in an attempt to get footage, but I would never generalize that this is the norm, or suggest that all filmmakers or photographers are this careless. The same generalization is just as unfair about researchers.
Regarding the tags, just recently, the Great Hammerhead missed being protected under the Endangered Species Act in large part because data on the species is "severely lacking." Objectively speaking, what is more likely to result in better protections for this species, thorough data on their life history, habitat usage, and migrations, or beautiful photographs and videos of unmarked individuals? I think it is the former.
No disrespect intended, I just find this divide between researchers and divers to be very bizarre when the ultimate goal of both groups is often so similar.
Regards,
Grant
Hi Norbert,
ReplyDeletePlease contact me, I will forward you additional pictures of the shark in question with the bite mark (as seen in the latest picture you posted, but just barely). Trust me it is 100% a bite mark and from the earlier pictures you will see quite clearly it is. One of the dive boats here in Bimini calls that shark "Bite Back" which I can't help but like. The Shark Lab has a different name for this shark. I can tell you there are no other researchers here catching the sharks and gluing tags to their backs.
The other shark in your picture is carrying an acoustic tag that was placed by a free diver for the Shark Lab. There are dozens of underwater receivers around Bimini tracking that shark's presence. There are hundreds if not thousands more in other places in the Bahamas and the entire eastern seaboard of the USA that are also "listening" for and recording the presence of these sharks (and many other species)
In full disclosure, I use to manage the Shark Lab in Bimini but now I have no direct involvement in their tagging studies with the hammerheads. Of course I still know what is going on, which sharks are around, what tags (and their purpose) are being used so I like to think I am a credible source. I go out to help them from time to time as well. I however do not represent the Shark Lab so I just want that to be clear.
Contact me at sean.g.williams@gmail.com