Miss Costa was named for our long time friends and partner Costa Sunglasses. Costa has done so much to enable our work on the water and we have been waiting to name a female white shark in honor of our partnership with them.
This is actually pretty impressive. My only suggestion is that they rig a net suspended from a sling. They could weigh the shark as well. It would also support the shark better because they aren't designed to rest their full weight on a flat surface. Especially when they grow beyond a certain size. These guys worked fast but you could tell she was pretty stressed when they let her go.
Considering their tagging data is available to anyone and we can determine which sharks die with in hours of being tagged...which is ZERO...your suggestions that they are killing sharks holds no merit. But I welcome you to provide data to support your statement. Also, as the blood samples taken and the gill reactions of the sharks show, the sharks are stressed far less than critics assume. The real time data does not support the theory that these sharks are being significantly harmed. Yet the volume of data provided by this program has surpassed all other methods of tracking and learning about the great white sharks.
@@brians6480 got proof? Data? I mean that's what science is about...proof and data. Saying they falsify data without proof is gossip. I would be very interested in the data because I'm not finding anything other than one person bemoaning their methods while disregarding the far more extensive data they gather beyond tracking. I've been following Ocearch for years. They capture and tag a miniscule amount of sharks. Funny how thousands of sharks die in shark nets every year and people are "meh". But one shark dies from tagging and everyone loses their minds. Guess it's just posh to complain about what is seen on TV that we have knee jerk reactions to.
@@Merry_Otter...yes. Thousands of sharks die in nets, thousands are caught to be finned and tossed away alive in the ocean. All these sharks are at risk. But the sad things is, Great White's are an ENDANGERED SPECIES. Ocearch’s methods and claims are bullshit. They are a 'For Profit' organization. All for the fountune and fame they are seeking on TV and the Web. You might want to do some research yourself on the true nature of Ocearch’s program. Here is a article you can find by doing a search on the net. It's not the only one out there.... Ocearch is NOT a team of scientists. They are fishermen with fishing backgrounds and are motivated by media endeavors and not science. They recruit scientists using reward tactics for working with them. Their methods are; out-dated, redundant, proven to kill and maim subjects, and overall is a high risk for low/no gain operation. Here are the issues of concern: · The Ocearch team uses a large hook and buoys to drag the shark to near death exhaustion over multiple hours. a) Other researchers throughout the world have been able to acquire the same data using pole tagging without hooking the shark. (www.earthtimes.org/scitech/great-white-wave-glider/2130/) · Ocearch claims their data is “ground-breaking” for the discovery of “unlocking the secrets of the Great White”. a) Migration route and gathering locations data has been around for over a decade. Prior to Ocearch, approximately 80-90% of migration loops were known. The use of other tags and photo identification have already shown what SPOT tags are showing. The risks associated with Ocearch’s methods to gain the final 10-20% of data is not justified. · The Ocearch team uses a platform to raise over 1 ton of animal (designed to be suspended in the water) completely out of the water with its full weight bearing on internal organs and/or any young inside. a) These effects of such a large mass of weight on internal organs have been shown in other large pelagic fish to show long term higher risk for death and in the case of whales, has been recognized so significantly, it is policy among aquariums to use a sling. b) Dr. Domeier, the original Ocearch scientist, has recently SPOT tagged a large Great White Shark WITHOUT bringing it out of the water. c) All other researchers throughout the world are using slings when they need to incapacitate sharks. · Ocearch claims they are doing this for “conservation”. a) To date, Ocearch’s efforts in conservation have been almost absent. They have not joined in any petitions to protect sharks. They have not used their connections to create significant actions to protect sharks. They did not make any efforts to change laws, even after 2 of their tagged sharks were illegally caught, killed, and finned. b) There is not a major shark conservation group who has received any major offers of “help in conservation”, nor do any of these groups publicly endorse Ocearch’s conservation efforts. · Ocearch claims their SPOT tags are the “newest” and “only” way to acquire the data. a) New technology in tags allows for the use of other tags applied in a less risk operation to supply the same data. b) Ocearch has stated they have an average of 25% failure rate for the tags and data. · Ocearch claims operations are safe and sound. a) Off California, they gut-hooked their first large shark and then it swallowed a buoy. One of the crew was seen shoving his foot inside the gills to get the buoy out. Blood was seen coming from the anus. The shark showed up a year later emaciated and with a first-of-a-kind seen wound on a Great White Shark. b) Off South Africa, their report to the South African Government stated they were directly responsible for the deaths of 3 sharks. c) In South Africa, researchers involved have stated off record the condition of several of the sharks was questionable, including having to assist the animals for up to 2 hours to regain strength to swim away. d) Their most recent capture off Florida shows the shark with “Rope burns” as reported directly by Ocearch. e) There have been several sharks that were reported in “failing condition” that did not ping in a few months later. These sharks have not been visualized since. f) There have now been well over a dozen sharks photographed with; fouled tags failing to come off as designed, fins torn or malformed due to failure of the tag, and wounds or marks resulting from the capture method. (www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0027242) g) Out of roughly 60 animals that Ocearch has captured and tagged, over half have been reported: dead, injured, maimed, or failing to transmit data. · Ocearch claims it is supported by the top researchers in the world. a) Their first scientist, Dr. Domeier, no longer supports Ocearch and has distanced himself. b) The second scientist, Dr. Klimley, will no longer make any public comments regarding his support or relationship with Ocearch. c) A majority of his “researchers” are interns, students, assistants, etc. d) A majority of his “top researchers” that are legitimate have received benefits directly from Ocearch or indirectly through media attention. e) A large portion of the science community does not support Ocearch’s methods. · Ocearch is a legitimate conservation company with honest scientific intentions. a) Their financial grosses in media coverage and contracts have far exceeded the budget of the same research operation through other researchers. b) Dr. Domeier has publicly stated he, “questions Fischer’s motive”. c) Inside reports from National Geographic and Discovery revealed dishonesty and questionable motives behind Chris Fischer’s actions. d) Ocearch’s “conservation efforts” are only brought into question just prior to their attempts to air a TV series. Outside of that timeframe, conservation efforts are significantly lacking. e) Chris Fischer is NOT a scientist. He has no background in science, nor education. Yet he continues to be seen in the media giving scientific information rather than the actual scientists involved giving it directly. As such, he as often given out inaccurate or irrelevant facts. f) Inside reports have said Chris Fischer “hesitated”, “was resistant”, or “completely disinterested” when approached to do research without the ability to film or air episodes. The bottom line is Ocearch is operating a high risk operation for media endeavors. They have killed, wounded, and maimed animals and their “data” has not been so significant to “save the species” any further than current efforts. Their operations are highly controversial in a negative manner, imbedded with bad publicity, and contracts are laced with drama. Caterpillar is a world-renown company that embodies quality, high standards, safe equipment and operations, and honest business endeavors. We urge Caterpillar not to tarnish the company by supporting such a questionable operation. Please pull your support from Ocearch. If ocean or species conservation is a desire, we encourage you to put those financial resources into true conservation efforts through proven legitimate operations. A list of organizations and research projects that have a history of sound practices is available.
