Do you think Ocearch really love sharks?

Wetpixel welcomes members to voice their opinions in open discussions. However, facts aren't the same as opinions. I merely asked for clarifications on Skyler's assertions etc. The scientists you mentioned merely disagree with the methodology of Ocearch, but do not disapprove of the data. That distinction indicates a philosophical disagreement more than a scientific lambasting of OCEARCH data, which is how I read Skyler's post as.

As for scientific research, I suppose GWS are popular research subjects because of the Jaws fame and killer image. Funding is more readily available. However, I do remember reading other species of shark were tagged as well, during the Sharkmen series. Furthermore, I will not assume that just because a scientist is in front of a camera often and having "success" means they don't care about the species. As far as I know, the ones I know care a lot, but stay scientists first. It's not mutually exclusive.
The truth is while discovering new species of walking sharks in Indonesia may be wonderful, the public interest doesn't quite share the same excitement as marine biologists. Scientific research is good for several things, one of which is understanding the natural world for knowledge. Conservation work also requires scientific data, without which no agency or government will ever ratify. Look at all the work that went into the recent CITES listings, not just the obvious work but the behind the scenes stuff.
Daniel summarized this discussion rather eloquently. Research tends to have collateral damage in mortality/injuries and the Ocearch methodology is edited to present "good TV." Are the two mutually exclusive? Is it forever intertwined because of the corporate funding? In a world where funding for unpopular research is lacking, maybe the trickle down effect is the only way through.

Wetpixel welcomes members to voice their opinions in open discussions. However, facts aren't the same as opinions. I merely asked for clarifications on Skyler's assertions etc. The scientists you mentioned merely disagree with the methodology of Ocearch, but do not disapprove of the data. That distinction indicates a philosophical disagreement more than a scientific lambasting of OCEARCH data, which is how I read Skyler's post as.

 

 

Quoting your statement from one of your post: The tags will be giving data for a while, so the data may not be fully presented anytime soon.

Drew: Ocearch Data? What data have you seen from Ocearch that is so invaluable that is only acheiveable by their methods. I do not read research paper but will try to if there are something really so invaluable. Pray share!!!

Quoting from the 3rd post from Gina who is a scientist.

My personal belief is that Ocearch is not a true scientific research institute, but rather, a bunch of fishermen who think it's cool to catch and tag sharks, and they found a loophole that allows them to do this.

 

But, I am also a scientist and require proof. So I started looking around for hard evidence, one way or the other. The information I got on Ocearch was from their own website, http://www.ocearch.org/.

 

Yes, there may be more research papers that have not yet been published, but their track record isn't good so far. I can say with confidence that, as of today, there have been no legitimate, peer-reviewed research papers that have used data collected by Ocearch to support their hypotheses. (Ocearch founder and leader Chris Fischer has zero shark research papers to his name.)

 

 

 

Also, this quote from Jeff Reinhardt was directed at the recent Ocearch post about "New Blood Indicator Confirms Low Stress Levels with OCEARCH tagging Method

" As a marine biologist, I would not touch Ocearch with a ten foot pole unless it was a gaff to rip them off stage. But you can go on supporting these clowns."

I have only seen this data and my comments to this data on their page today: Good job on comparing ONE apple to a bunch of grapes. FYI- They have deleted all my previous comments. Note: The infograpic indicates the sample size for the GWS is ONE. Do you really think that this data is scientifically significant?

I don't know about you but even if I ask a 5 years old would an animal be stressed after hooked haul, dragged and then having bolts drilled into their body. I think that the answer is YES. Do re-watch the capture of the sharks on Sharkmen etc. and tell me that the sharks are indeed unstressed.

I think that has somewhat sums up that there are scientist/biologist and layman like myself not agreeing with their data but these are probably not Skyler's scientists. Why do you ONLY have so much interest in Skyler's scientists? I have also twice invited to add you to the WHITE SHARK ADVOCACY group for further discussions with other scientists but was rejected so I'm not asking again.

Research tends to have collateral damage in mortality/injuries and the Ocearch methodology is edited to present "good TV."

 

 

And so this is okay and neccessary?

Ignorance is bliss!!

Wahlaoeh,

I've already linked and mentioned how some of the Ocearch data has already surfaced. I'm not going to reiterate every point I've made because it seems you obviously have well-entrenched opinions on this matter and seem uninterested/unwilling to discuss the contrarian/alternative points others like Daniel, Mike (Bottom Time) and myself have brought up. Again, you are entitled and very welcome to voice your opinion here in Wetpixel, but realize that others may not share your opinion and will question your points, or at least offer an alternative or counter point, which is the point of having a discussion.

Drew: If I'm uninterested/unwilling to discuss, I wouldn't have bother spending my time on here. I have also re-read Daniel and Mike (Bottom Time) posts and have confirmed that there is no mention of Ocearch's data except for "Cape Fear" which is an article; I have read but it also doesn't offer much information.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/09/09/130909fa_fact_wilkinson

While you have mentioned about Michael Domeier's recent paper, with data garnered from the TV program, is from the Guadalupe population. I think Skyler has already responded to you on this. I did not read his paper but I trust Skyler's words on this because he has been spending one whole year researching on this subject.

3. I also had already read the Domeier paper prior to your suggestion. I even discussed it with him. His sample set is small, his failure rate on tags is high, and his conclusions are premature. You might be interested that he already published a paper in 2007 about his "discovery" of Guadalupe white sharks going out to the "Cafe", or "Sofa", so if anything his SPOT tag data is redundant even if it's more detailed.

 

Sorry if I seems blunt on the post posted this morning and hope this clear things up with you

Fischer's Facebook page lists five "Published Scientific Papers." All five references are mentions in one book, "Global Perspectives on the Biology and Life History of the White Shark," edited by Michael L. Domeier. The only place I could find these papers published was in this book; these are not peer-reviewed scientific papers. All papers listed Michael Domeier as an author.

Actually, Gina, they are peer-reviewed papers. This book is similar to the book that Klimley put together back in the early '90s. Lots of different authors in there, many of whom are as respected as they get in the elasmo world.

 

I don't know about you but even if I ask a 5 years old would an animal be stressed after hooked haul, dragged and then having bolts drilled into their body. I think that the answer is YES. Do re-watch the capture of the sharks on Sharkmen etc. and tell me that the sharks are indeed unstressed.

 

 

Yes, let's just employ instincts and feelings and eschew all this messy, questionable science. Have a headache? Just open a vein and let some of the bad humors out! Found a turtle on a Cape Cod beach in November? Doesn't it look so sad with its teary eyes? I hate to see turtles crying! That's why I just throw them back in the water. After all, that's where they belong, right? I also let my five year old son punch classmates in the face. After all, he does so instinctively, and human instincts are infallible. If it snows tonight I'm going to sacrifice a goat to the weather gods so the snow melts and my wife and I can get to the hospital to have our next child this week. Wait, did I say hospital? I meant to say I'm going to call the local medicine man, who'll deliver the child the old fashioned way. No vaccinations for my kids, either. I get my vaccination info from Jenny McCarthy, who has "mommy intuition."

Drew, PLEASE watch "Sharkmen" again and try to let your instincts tell you what's going on in the footage. Do NOT listen to science. Unless you happen to find some research papers that show how bad Ocearch is for sharks, in which case please DO read those papers.

 

While you have mentioned about Michael Domeier's recent paper, with data garnered from the TV program, is from the Guadalupe population. I think Skyler has already responded to you on this. I did not read his paper but I trust Skyler's words on this because he has been spending one whole year researching on this subject.

 

 

Yes, Mr. Thomas certainly has been busy. I wonder if it took a "whole year researching" to come up with the nifty analogy that fishing for spiny dogfish off Chatham is like "rape" or "genocide." Maybe a little less than a year? Maybe he was just watching a couple hook boats and gillnetters offload their catch, and it all just looked so darn rape-like and genocidal and yucky, well, the analogy just came to him instinctively. No matter that NMFS has deemed that dogfish stock rebuilt, or that MSC has certified that fishery as sustainable, or that sustainable seafood advocates throughout the Northeast are encouraging chefs and consumers to give dogfish a try, especially with cod and other groundfish stocks in dire straits and Cape fishermen struggling to make ends meet. Who cares about all those science-based analyses when one can just watch an offload and witness genocide before one's very eyes!

I don't know about you but even if I ask a 5 years old would an animal be stressed after hooked haul, dragged and then having bolts drilled into their body. I think that the answer is YES. Do re-watch the capture of the sharks on Sharkmen etc. and tell me that the sharks are indeed unstressed.

 

 

Daniel: I like your humour, I really do

Okay, there is a hint of tactlessness on my comments above but that was written when I realized that my posts/comments were deleted from the Ocearch page. I can assure you that those comments that were originally posted was not demeaning but questions that need clarification. I admit that I was a little annoyed at that moment and I have already apologize to Drew for my bluntness on my last post.

I started this thread to understand is it really necessary to employ Ocearch methods, which is invasive and damaging to the sharks, IMO. And are the data collected more invaluable than any other tagging methods? What I have seen from the replies here so far is that: If there is any amazing data, it has yet to be seen? Am I missing something?

I know that there is a recent case of shark attack fatality in Western Australia. This has caused both media/public frenzies and WA fisheries was trying to capture the “culprit” shark which is tragic, IMO. Western Australia's Shark Monitoring Network has reported to have tagged more than 300 sharks but occasional shark attack still occur so I’m not sure if tagging a few more (or hundreds) will help in this rare occurrences.

I was talking to someone from WA on another forum and he mentioned that the beach goers can use the shark alarm system to make a decision and feel a level of security.

http://www.sharkalarm.com.au/sightings

I looked at that website and noticed that many of the reported sightings are from Helicopter and there is a lapse since 16, April 2013. To which he has replied:

 

“Shark Alarm is not a govt sanctioned website as far as I know, its done by volunteers. Public post sightings - not always accurate either - dolphins have been mistakenly added at times. Surfers are the main users of this webpage. I guess the organisers of this site are going with the some information available is better than no information and if you want to go out, up to you to check sightings. I havent gone through all the pages but I would hazard a guess the activity in Aug/Sept/October correlates with more people having this information on the media so therefore more people looking for and filling in reports -

 

14 July 2012 Ben Linden, 24, is killed while surfing near Wedge Island, 180km north of Perth. A witness who tried to help said the shark swam away with the body.

31 March 2012 Peter Kurmann, 33, is taken in south-western WA while diving in the Port Geographe Marina. His brother, who was diving with him, tried to fight off the shark with a knife.

22 October 2011 George Thomas Wainwright, 32, an American tourist, sustains horrific injuries and dies while scuba diving off Rottnest Island, near Fremantle.

10 October 2011 Bryn Martin, 64, disappears at Perth’s Cottesloe Beach and is presumed a shark-attack victim. Only his damaged Speedos were found.

4 September 2011 Kyle Burden, 21, is taken by a shark while bodyboarding with friends at Bunker Bay, near Dunsborough, about 300km south of Perth.

 

So my guess is people were still ''worried'' in those following months and really jumped on the shark alarm website in greater numbers - I went back to 2009 and saw sightings from all over Aus listed. The peak reporting seems to be around the fatals. Fatals not in the news, less people jumping on the reporting band wagon.

 

Again, it is a public site that the public have access to if they want to report a sighting - not the CSIROs tracking program. If people use that website to decide they will or will not go to the beach, fine, up to them. The percentage of people who use that website to make decisions is not something I can answer...Ive never checked it before going to the beach. Im a fan of sharks - that site will not deter me from entering the water. When I go down and the fisheries dept have their guy sitting there and a beach closed sign up, then I cannot enter the water. When beaches are closed by fisheries (in the case lately of the whale carcasses on the beach) the information is broadcast over the media. Big sharks and lots of them are part of life here, and Im glad about that. I dont think the target audience is divers, if you check most of the reports on that site are from surfers or fishermen.

 

So, in short, the answer is no, that is not what the public use for tracking sharks - the CSIRO and Fisheries dept track sharks and provide that information to the public when risk assessment meets the criteria for media announcing

 

The other link I posted is what the OPs question relates to, The Tagging program - Extension of the shark monitoring network is one source of information at a scientific level, the shark alarm site is simply an illustration of how we are involving the public.

 

 

 

 

I also question has there been any correlation done to see what percentage of these shark alarm sightings are tagged sharks but has gotten no reply. Anyone?

The shark safe barrier IMO is a better barrier system to protect both marine life and people. At least that is better than shark nets used previously. Are these safe shark barrier being used in WA? Anyone?

http://www.sun.ac.za/english/Lists/news/DispForm.aspx?ID=130

I have to say,Daniel, this is the first time someone has posted Jenny McCarthy in the WP forums that I haven't had to edit out! LOL However, to correct you, it's "mommy instinct" not intuition.

..

Thanks for editing your comments, Drew!!! But was that comment based on instinct as well?

In a perfect world, everyone would understand that sharks need to be let alone, no one would overfish or even fish them, and we would be totally fine no knowing where they go.

However, this is not the world we are living in. Sharks are killed. It raises concerns, and politician are listening to both sides :

one that say "we are feeding people, making money, paying people to be fishermen, sharks are just fine we still catch a lof of them and when we don't we will stop anyway because it's not gonna be lucrative anymore and then they can recover"

and then there is the people that don't want sharks to be killed. I'm one of them, and we have to "counter" the argument made before. We have to make politics understand that what "killing sharks" bring to society is not as important as "not killing sharks" is.

In this world, we can't say "look they suffer", or "poor them they die". It just doesn't work. Politics don't care.

We have to come up with solid argument and data and prove to politics why, without a doubt, they should trust us more than them.

And doing so it happening through science.

Now, it does not justify bad methods, and I am not saying that we have to kill a few to save many - I wouldn't do it because we don't know if we are going to save many in the end.

I do not comment on the Ocearch as well, I don't know enough about them.

What I can say however, it that catching sharks (hooks, nets) is the only way we have to do some sort of science on them. Tagging and genetics, which are used a lot today, both needs catching sharks.

Because older scientist have been experienced shark catching, we learned a lot of tricks to make it easier for the sharks. I.e. circled barbless hooks, which species are the less resistants, how to handle a juvenile without hurting him, why you should not drag a heavy shark by the tail on a beach, etc....

All this techniques allows, if you follow the rules, to make it less stressfull for the sharks. At least for the "easy" species, you can catch and sample /tag individuals quickly enought to make sure there is no dammage, that he go back in the water just fine, and that he'll be here on his routine the next day.

So, I guess the original message was :

does Ocearch follow these rules, or do they unecesarly (i.e. for TV / to be cool or whatever) hurt sharks ?

rather than "is sharks science a good thing?".

Catching a shark can be stressfull for him, but if you do it right he'll be just fine. The only problem is, how "right" do you do it.

Autopsea, to further your point, one must not forget that accidents happen, that includes landing sharks for research.

Wahlaoeh, that lime was meant to be a private joke between Daniel and myself, but could be misconstrued by others, hence I took it out. It was not directed at you at all..

(BTW, if I remember correctly, the Quensland alone is killing on purpose over 600 tiger sharks a year just so there is less chance that an accident happen.

A illegal fishing vessel with 4 tons of sharks have been taken in new caledonia less than a month ago, and it's not the first time it happens.

and there is more example like that all around. I understand it's important to watch that no organisation is doing bad things, but these hundreeds of deaths should be more in our focus)

I have to say,Daniel, this is the first time someone has posted Jenny McCarthy in the WP forums that I haven't had to edit out! LOL However, to correct you, it's "mommy instinct" not intuition.

Ah, yes! How could I have been so stupid?

 

Actually, Gina, they are peer-reviewed papers. This book is similar to the book that Klimley put together back in the early '90s. Lots of different authors in there, many of whom are as respected as they get in the elasmo world.

Do you have any information on who does the peer-reviewing in a book like that? Are the articles reviewed by other authors in the book, or by unrelated third-parties? What I see is an editor publishing his own papers (along with papers written by others), but I cannot find any record of those papers being peer-reviewed or published in any respected scientific journals (such as Science, Nature, PLOS, Copeia, etc.). As a biologist, if I were to go to my advisor with this book as a reference she would disregard it.

Michael Domeier's recent paper, with data garnered from the TV program, is from the Guadalupe population.

That link references a paper published in a journal called Animal Biotelemetry. I can find no record of this journal in my university's database of scientific journals. I have an inquiry in to our science librarian to check on its legitimacy, but the school is closed this week for Thanksgiving holiday so I may not hear back until next week.

The original poster also questions the validity of OCEARCH using SPOT tags. This study settles the issue. As long as it's not longer than 24 months, the tags tend not to do much permanent damage at all.

Regarding that study, it does say "These observations suggest that SPOT tags designed to rust and fall out within 12 months are unlikely to cause permanent damage to the structure of the shark's fin as long as they detach within that time." However, it also says "Damage to the fins structure was evident from the observation after 24 months. ... This result suggests that white sharks yet to obtain full size - particularly while sub-adult and growing fast are unable to sustain SPOT tags in place much longer than 12 months without such damage occurring. ... We therefore conclude that based on the tags deployed in South Africa in 2003–2004, SPOT tags did not cause long term damage to the sharks when detached within 12–24 months, but they had the ability to cause permanent structural damage to the dorsal fin when left in place for longer periods." If Ocearch is indeed using tags that stay in place longer than 12-24 months then evidence points to their SPOT tags have "the ability to cause permanent structural damage to the dorsal fin."

I see the crux of the matter as two-fold: Is Ocearch participating in valid scientific work, and, are their methods considered cruel or harmful to the animal? If they are using long-term (>12-24 months) SPOT tags then yes, according to the Jewell, et al, study their methods can be considered harmful. Are they considered cruel? That's difficult to say. Having a hole drilled through its (cartilaginous) skeleton most likely causes the animal pain, but to what degree?

What can we do about it? Since Ocearch says they "follow the standards of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC.org) of each institution" I called U.C. Davis and spoke to their IACUC administrator to get some information about how an IACUC works with a third-party tagger such as Ocearch. (Drs. Klimley, Padilla, and Hearn from UCD are listed on the Ocearch website as "collaborating scientists".) He said they currently have no open protocols calling for the use of Ocearch data as the studies are now complete. In this case they did have a protocol for the tagging work that was being done because UCD researchers were there on the boat participating in the tagging. But they don't always have protocols--it depends on the work being done, the level of researcher participation, and the type of funding. He specifically mentioned that if a researcher was going to use Ocearch data that had already been collected (Ocearch maintains all of their tagging data is available for all to use) then the IACUC is not at all involved with the project. This means that the FAQ question/answer on Ocearch's website "Q- Does Ocearch decide how sharks are handled? A- The tagging, handling and sampling procedures employed during the expedition follow the standards of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC.org) of each institution" is just some clever wording. The truth is that, in at least some cases, they answer to no one.

-Gina

 

Yes, let's just employ instincts and feelings and eschew all this messy, questionable science. Have a headache? Just open a vein and let some of the bad humors out! Found a turtle on a Cape Cod beach in November? Doesn't it look so sad with its teary eyes? I hate to see turtles crying! That's why I just throw them back in the water. After all, that's where they belong, right? I also let my five year old son punch classmates in the face. After all, he does so instinctively, and human instincts are infallible. If it snows tonight I'm going to sacrifice a goat to the weather gods so the snow melts and my wife and I can get to the hospital to have our next child this week. Wait, did I say hospital? I meant to say I'm going to call the local medicine man, who'll deliver the child the old fashioned way. No vaccinations for my kids, either. I get my vaccination info from Jenny McCarthy, who has "mommy intuition."

 

LMAO!!!

That link references a paper published in a journal called Animal Biotelemetry. I can find no record of this journal in my university's database of scientific journals. I have an inquiry in to our science librarian to check on its legitimacy, but the school is closed this week for Thanksgiving holiday so I may not hear back until next week.

Animal Biotelemetry is in my university's database of Journals.

 

The truth is that, in at least some cases, they answer to no one.

They answer to no one or is it possible that they answer to someone other than th IACUC?

So, I guess the original message was :

does Ocearch follow these rules, or do they unecesarly (i.e. for TV / to be cool or whatever) hurt sharks ?

rather than "is sharks science a good thing?".

Catching a shark can be stressfull for him, but if you do it right he'll be just fine. The only problem is, how "right" do you do it.

(BTW, if I remember correctly, the Quensland alone is killing on purpose over 600 tiger sharks a year just so there is less chance that an accident happen.

A illegal fishing vessel with 4 tons of sharks have been taken in new caledonia less than a month ago, and it's not the first time it happens.

and there is more example like that all around. I understand it's important to watch that no organisation is doing bad things, but these hundreeds of deaths should be more in our focus)

 

 

 

Autopsea: Thanks for the clarification on my original message. I’m also in agreement on your second point about the biggest thread to the sharks but that has been known for a long time and many people are already focusing on these issues. I’m also very concern about these issues and have been actively petitioning against such practices.

The reason why I have started this thread is to discuss Ocearch and their tagging methods, not so much for the data but more about ethicalness; to which I have already explained on my 2^nd post:

I also have my own doubts on Ocearch's work and value. For the record, I'm just an avid diver who care and love sharks so have not read any scientific c papers on their work. I've recently just got back from a great white shark expedition and have learned about their unethical tagging methods causing damage to the sharks and so that has started my interest in this subject.

 

 

Some not so invasive methods that I have found online: MCSI develops new methods for tagging adult white sharks - http://www.marinecsi.org/

And this video which absolutely ROCKS, IMO -

What I have learned so far (a month), hopefully I will not be spending one whole year, is that there are definitely newer, less invasive and more humane methods. The question remains as to why is Ocearch still using such outdated methods. Also, I believe that Ocearch operation is not new. It has been going on for a long time and I’m amazed that so far, anything invaluable from their data has yet to be seen. We can always sit around and hope that the value of the data Ocearch’s work yields outweighs the negative consequences or learn more so as to raise awareness to others on the unnecessary harm towards the sharks.

Having said all that, hope those who share private joke and comments not pertaining to this topic can take them somewhere else so that other members who are interested can focus on further discussion. Appreciate that!!!

 

Some not so invasive methods that I have found online: MCSI develops new methods for tagging adult white sharks - http://www.marinecsi.org/

Oh my!!!

Wahlaoeh, I commend your passion, but you really need to start reading the papers. You just linked to Michael L Domeier's work. "New publication reveals the 2-year migration for adult female white sharks in the Northeastern Pacific" is the paper that Drew linked and is the same paper that your friend Mr Thomas dismissed as being "Premature". However, it does leave me a little confused about Ocearch's contribution in the collection of the data for that paper.

Mike

Oh my!!!

 

Wahlaoeh, I commend your passion, but you really need to start reading the papers. You just linked to Michael L Domeier's work. "New publication reveals the 2-year migration for adult female white sharks in the Northeastern Pacific" is the paper that Drew linked and is the same paper that your friend Mr Thomas dismissed as being "Premature". However, it does leave me a little confused about Ocearch's contribution in the collection of the data for that paper.

 

Mike

 

 

Mike: You're so quick to jump in! I'm only referring to this: MCSI develops new methods for tagging adult white sharks. Yes, MCSI is still using SPOT tags (which I don’t think is necessary) but I commend him for NOT landing sharks using haul-hooking methods. See the difference.

http://www.marinecsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/DSC1684b.jpg

Scientists at MCSI have been working to improve methods for SPOT tagging adult great white sharks. New methods developed, tested and implemented by MCSI involve a device to prevent gut hooking, soft fishing gear to prevent skin abrasions and constant forward movement to fully irrigate the gills. Sharks tagged in this manner, including the largest white shark to ever be SPOT tagged, were far more vigorous upon release than our previous method that lifted the sharks from the water. We strive to constantly improve our methods to do what is best for the sharks and the scientific community.

ps: I do read papers but not research papers but I think I read somewhere that Dr. Michael Domeier and Chris Fischer are no longer working together. Maybe that's just a rumour.

Yes, I agree. I'd much rather see this kind of SPOT tagging going on that the large production that I have seen from Ocearch. But, I am a little confused as to whether or not this was the technique used for Mr Domeier's work in Guadalupe or if his work being presented on their web site is a sign that Mr Domeier

is distancing himself from Ocearch. Maybe I'm reading too much into this though.

PS. I just realized that my comment to Daniel's comment may have come across as a barb directed at you. That was not my intention and there was no inside joke that I know. I was only laughing at a sharp, witty and intelligent statement that I hope I will on day be able to use with the 50year old childern that I manage at work. I appologize if it offended.

Mike

Yes, I agree. I'd much rather see this kind of SPOT tagging going on that the large production that I have seen from Ocearch. But, I am a little confused as to whether or not this was the technique used for Mr Domeier's work in Guadalupe or if his work being presented on their web site is a sign that Mr Domeier

is distancing himself from Ocearch. Maybe I'm reading too much into this though.

 

PS. I just realized that my comment to Daniel's comment may have come across as a barb directed at you. That was not my intention and there was no inside joke that I know. I was only laughing at a sharp, witty and intelligent statement that I hope I will on day be able to use with the 50year old childern that I manage at work. I appologize if it offended.

 

Mike

 

 

Mike: I'm not sure about that but at least Dr D is distancing himself away from Ocearch, which is good IMO.

It's all cool!! I saw the private joke comment (before it was deleted) that Drew posted yesterday so I'm for a Mod to post that.

They answer to no one or is it possible that they answer to someone other than th IACUC?

According to Ocearch's own website they only mention the IACUCs of the institutions they are associated with. So, if an IACUC is not involved then no, they mention no one else overseeing them.

If they were actively working in conjunction with an American institution (I don't know how rules work outside the U.S.) and anyone had a complaint with how the research was being done then you could file a formal complaint with that institute's IACUC--that's one of the reasons they exist. But if the project is complete (so far as that institution's involvement is concerned) then you can only complain to Ocearch themselves. Since the white shark is only currently listed as Vulnerable with the IUCN there are no international regulations governing their use/abuse. If they ever get listed as Endangered, or better, if they get listed on an appropriate CITES appendix, then there may be regulations prohibiting catching the animals.

What I suggest is finding out if there are any researchers who are currently working with Ocearch and have open protocols. If so, then you can contact their IACUCs and talk with someone there about the procedures being used, and file a complaint if necessary.

-Gina