Do you think Ocearch really love sharks?

Mike: The font size on your last post is so small that I have to put on Costa sunglasses to read.

Mike

PS. Spider woman suit underwater... you win.

 

I absolutely agree with you on this one.

This is a good read - Open access: The true cost of science publishing

The author mentioned the rejection rate for a couple of different journals in the body of the article. I dont know if most of the journals advertise their acceptance/rejection rate, but I would love it if they did.

Thanks for posting this. I've never submitted an article for publication so I had no idea this was a growing sector of the industry. (And yeah, it would be nice to have more articles available for free to the general public, but that's a whole other topic.)

PS. Spider woman suit underwater... you win.

Thanks I've also been Santa for Christmas, complete with beard over my full-face mask.

-Gina

I would love to see Ocearch change their ways.

 

Me too, Mike. And I also hope that those rich sponsors like Caterpillar etc. will stop sponsoring them till they improve in their methods.

Am glad to see this news:

WA Fisheries will let West Australians track sharks in real-time without O$$earch

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/wa-fisheries-will-let-west-australians-track-sharks-in-realtime/story-fnhocxo3-1226772041752

Quote:

WA Fisheries research executive director Rick Fletcher said the website, which is understood to have been in the pipeline for some time, would be ready soon but would not give a definite date.

He said the real-time detections will come from the satellite receivers along our coast which already alerts Surf Lifesaving WA and beach authorities when a tagged shark passes by.

"Our research program is focused on investigating the longer term movement and behavioural patterns."

Fisheries Minister Troy Buswell yesterday told The Sunday Times he had rejected OCEARCH's offer to use its vessel saying the group's proposal did not add to WA's own "robust" program.

He said WA's Shark Monitoring Network had already tagged more sharks than OCEARCH and did not require the use of a specialised boat.

"Naturally no system can tell you where untagged sharks are. Our job continues to be to provide the most robust information we can, to replace belief and speculation with scientifically defensible information and advice.

ps: Am excited to see these new information

Me too, Mike. And I also hope that those rich sponsors like Caterpillar etc. will stop sponsoring them till they improve in their methods.

Unlikely. Caterpillar sponsors the Ocearch because the Ocearch uses Caterpillar engines and generators, as do thousands of other big seafaring vessels.

 

Unlikely. Caterpillar sponsors the Ocearch because the Ocearch uses Caterpillar engines and generators, as do thousands of other big seafaring vessels.

Daniel: Thanks for saying that out loud for me. This is just a sad situation about need and greed involving Bad Science, IMHO. Bluntly put, the vultures of greed!!!

ps: i can only hope.

Sharing some news on WA fisheries tagged sharks: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/how-great-whites-trawl-our-coastlines-for-7000km/story-fnhocxo3-1226772406903

Here's a Wired article about some of the GW tracking so far: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/12/secret-lives-great-white-sharks/

Interesting and not surprising to hear that Fischer is being rebuffed by West Coast scientists, and one of the East Coast scientists says they have enough tracking data for the time being. Maybe that means the Ocearch will not be parking off Chatham next summer?

More interesting is that they think there is no pattern. I mean SOFA sorta proves the pacific sharks go to an area, albeit a huge area. The other way to think about it is that they haven't got a big enough sample section to see a pattern. "Mommy instinct" can only go so far in discovering patterns.

“There’s no frickin’ pattern at all,” $komal said.

Shhh!!! Don't tell CF that as it might burst his 400 million year old puzzle bubble .. LOL!!!

More interesting is that they think there is no pattern. I mean SOFA sorta proves the pacific sharks go to an area, albeit a huge area. The other way to think about it is that they haven't got a big enough sample section to see a pattern. "Mommy instinct" can only go so far in discovering patterns.

What are you saying? Are you suggesting that a sample size of 2 is insufficient? BLASPHEMY!!!! Though I do admit, "Mommy Instincts" are a powerful force to be reckoned with, every good psuedoscientist knows that all you need is one piece of inferential evidence and a bag of magic chicken bones or a good Ouija board to crack the code.