Is scientist taking great white shark research too far?

Were you able to watch the National Geographic special, "White Shark Expedition," on Monday night -- and if so, what do you think of the methods utilized by researcher Michael Domeier at remote Guadalupe Island off Baja California?

If you live in the Bay Area, you might also have viewed an ABC News program that was spawned by an incident involving Domeier's team using the same methods at the Farallon Islands off San Francisco. The program featured experts who were critical of the methods, which involve using a team of anglers and a large baited hook attached to a line with buoys.

(There's also a film crew, hence the National Geographic special and related episodes to air next summer.)

The hooked shark struggles until it's completely worn out. It's then lifted onto a platform, where a sophisticated tracking tag is bolted into its dorsal fin. A large hose is used to flush water through the shark's gills, so it can breathe throughout a process that can take 20 minutes.

The sharks usually are hooked in the corner of the mouth -- because of the 24-inch circle hook's design --but in at least one case at the Farallon Islands a shark had to be set free with part of the hook lodged deep in its throat.

The specialized tags have a life span of up to six years, providing real-time data and pinpointing precise locations of migrating sharks. They're important, Domeier says, for researchers seeking a clearer picture of these mysterious predators' life history.

I watched both programs and from a non-scientist's viewpoint (mine) the methods appear overly intrusive and harmful to a species of shark that is protected by federal law in the U.S. Given the extent of research already underway on white sharks by renowned scientists at the Farallones, I was surprised to learn that Domeier had even been granted access to the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.

Said sanctuary superintendent Maria Brown on the ABC News program: "This research helps us protect white sharks. I equated it to ... it felt like what it's like when I go to the dentist; when you go in, you get a cavity filled. It's something that maybe you don't want to go do, but you do it, it's quick, it's over, it's done."

It's not that quick; it involves a giant hook and tiring the predators to the extent they can no longer struggle. Besides, experts from various universities have already learned where these sharks go when they leave the islands -- to a vast, featureless area in the mid-Pacific, and some venture beyond Hawaii. Why they go and what they do there, however, remains unclear.

Like ABC News, I talked to Peter Klimley, a UC Davis professor and one of the world's leading shark researchers. He's against Domeier's methods and called them unnecessary. He said lifting so large a creature from the water Is potentially harmful. He added that pregnant females might be especially vulnerable to the technique. Klimley also expressed concern about how other scientists might be perceived by viewers of the National Geographic special.

"For the most part we are compassionate and we do care about how we handle the animals we work with," he said. 

Domeier, president of the Marine Conservation Science Institute, defended his methods and said, via e-mail: "I can unequivocally say that we have tagged and released 17 white sharks in the past two years and every single one has survived. The decision to use these tags was not trivial; the data we obtain from them can be gathered no other way, and the resulting multi-year tracks are going to reveal life history characteristics that will rewrite white shark life history."

Domeier also defended using a team of fishermen headed by big-game angler Chris Fischer, who runs Fischer Productions, and an actor that accompanied the group to Guadalupe Island.

"The reality is this: Without the involvement of the media on this project there would be no project," Domeier said. "The research is hugely expensive and the only way to pay for it is to involve National Geographic and Fischer Productions."

-- Pete Thomas

Photo: Crew member Chad Kiesel, left, and angler Chris Fischer tag a 14-foot female great white shark at Guadalupe Island. The hydration hose in the shark's mouth is designed to keep the predator alive while the team measures and tags it and takes blood samples. Credit: Chris Ross / National Geographic Channel 

Comments

[Lonnie]

I agree with the way they are doing the research on the sharks. I've had surgeys done in the hospital befor and the doctors needed to do all kind of test to see what was the matter with me. I new it was needed and I got well.
The have got to do research and study the data to do their job. If you ever seen a vet have to pull a calf from it's mother you would say that it is so much pain. But you know, it comes out fine most of the time and some times it don't. It took a lot of research and studying the data to learn more to make it better-----THING ABOUT IT. THINGS WILL WORK OUT JUST FINE!!!! They know what they are doing.

[Snarky Sharky Television]

Dr.D made a deal with the devil. Big funding and high profile for a film/television production that also did shark research.

He is in the middle of a storm that he gladly entered into,so no real sympathy there.

The credibility of the show was shot when actor Paul Walker was invited as eye candy, and Chris Fisher applied for the IGFA world record for the largest white shark ever caught - Kimel.

On the flip side this show will open the eyes to many younger audience members who perhaps will decide to become marine biologists because it looks cool.

The other side of the coin is much more sinister. Others will try and emulate him thinking the hybrid mega production/research is the way to go.

The Farallones disaster showed us this is not the way to go.

Final summation?

This is the future of television folks, like it or not expect more, and there's nothing you can do about it. How's that for reality?

[Dr. Patrick Colin]

As a professional Ichthyologist and coral reef scientist I find the posts regarding the controversy surrounding the white shark research quite interesting. Michael Domeier has a sterling reputation first, as a coral reef fish biologist, later as an expert on large pelagic and benthic fishes such as marlin and giant sea basses, and now on large sharks. The latter creatures are difficult to work on, but are critical components of the overall marine ecosystem. You can't just shoot them with a tranquilizer dart (like the largest and most dangerous land animals or large marine mammals that rest ashore) and then attach GPS and satellite monitored instruments to gather essential information on movements and behavior. Why go to all the trouble (and I can assure it is trouble with a capital "T") to capture a large white shark and attach a tracking device to its dorsal fin, instead of just "darting" an instrument on a cable into the skin of the shark as one commentator suggested? GPS does not work underwater, and a darted satellite tag does not provide any accurate position data. Position information about where the shark goes between the time it is tagged and the tag releases is almost non-existent and is usually based on marginal methods using day length, water temperature, depths, etc. to try and figure where it went and when. Also the tag antenna has to be above the water to relay any data to a satellite, and this usually happens only when the tag is programmed to "pop-off". The "pop off" time is always a compromise, wait too long and your battery may go dead or the unit may fail (no data) or do a short deployment (limited data) and get something. Physically attaching the unit on the dorsal fin is the obvious solution since often the antennae will be above the surface and a GPS position can be obtained (when the shark is on the surface) and data can be transmitted on a regular basis and the shark tracked in almost "real time". The tags can last for years and report on a regular basis, where a pop-off tag is a relatively short term instrument. When viewers start asking "why this" or "why not that" they seldom have any idea of the technological and real world limits which dictate how things need to be done.

As to whether it is dangerous to the shark to be hooked, tired out by dragging floats around, pulled into a cradle, lifted from the water and worked on for 20 minutes before being turned loose, the final proof is whether any animal dies or is seriously injured from the treatment. Evidence indicates this is not the case, but this evaluation and what is acceptable can always change in the future, if there are problems. People like Domeier to do not approach this sort of thing lightly and the last thing they want is for an animal to die or be injured. When you do something for the first time, someone will always be saying you shouldn't do that. It is not really for the uninformed public (whose sole role in marine research may be limited to sitting a couch watching their energy-gulping plasma TV) to pass judgment on a research project which they do not understand about animals, their environments and the limits of technology to which they have no connection.

The managers of the Farallon Islands sanctuary should be applauded for having the courage to permit research which will increase knowledge of the area and organisms they are trying to protect. It is so much easier to just do nothing, no one will criticize you for that. Other researchers working in the Farallons area may be feeling a bit territorial and in the scramble for limited research funds may not appreciate some new competitors now intruding on their turf. Anyone could equally say these researchers should not be allowed to disturb anything in the sanctuary either by their presence, their boats (fossil fuel burning), and equipment. Research and knowledge can easily be stifled by a small minority against everything that they are not for.

Given the poor public support (both financially and intellectually) for science, often the only way something can be done is to allow media access and support. It comes with a price (there really aren't many scientists at work in the field who want to pose for the camera), but as has been indicated the research would not happen without it. Domeier and his collaborators have put together a remarkable team and project, I just hope the media types allow what is presented to be accurate and real. The natural world is much more interesting than fiction most of the time.

[Cailin Maki]

If it’s not broken don’t fix it. Since the early 1990’s Dr Klimley's researchers have been tagging white sharks off the coast of California and Mexico using lance mounted transmitters and without having hook or haul them out of the water. The subject shark is first lured near the research vessel with a seal decoy, which draws the sharks in to be tagged with a lance. This method was pioneered in California from what I can gather and evolved from the use of a surfboard that developed into the use of seal shaped lures. It is quick and efficient and completely low impact.

The transmitters are attached to the shark via tiny stainless steel darts and applied with a light weight lance designed for this purpose.

The refined methods developed in California take only moments and the archival satellite tags collect and transmit data for well over a year with the shark behaving in an uninhibited and natural way.

Why the giant leap backwards!?

And what credible scientific value is or logic is there in regards to the actors and reality TV show thematic?

That this "TV show" was allowed to hook and haul two protected species out of the water within a marine wildlife sanctuary is just unfathomable.

That it would super-impose this effort on top of an ongoing, extent and highly successful long term study and thus injuring and chasing away some of the sharks is just completely pernicious and seriously questionable in terms of purpose and motivation.
- Cailin Maki Writer, Ontario Canada

[Some call meee..... Tim]

Devils teeth indeed:

--"Loooook at the bwoonzzz!"--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg&feature=related

[kws]

Another fine example of an unqualified person complaining about something they know nothing about on the basis that it makes them queasy. It's sad that PETA & the entertainment industry has dumbed down the public so much that major concern is "how other scientists might be perceived" when they are doing their jobs.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

That this highly invasive and direct impact white shark fishing expedition took place in a wildlife 'sanctuary' where these protected species (white sharks) are ostensibly supposed to be safe.. from harm.. and injury is the crux of the problem. Throat hooking a protected species is an accident that was waiting to happen and is exactly why such a project should never, ever have been approved. Never mind that there are studies in place already that is generating the same kind of data; it takes longer (is it a contest or race?) to gather the info but the passive tagging methods using lures are low impact and does the job. There have been numerous paper published already. This project was duplicative and harmful.

[loren thompson]

hey so im a senior in high school and its my dreeam to become a marine biologist but in the name of science and tagging a mature pregnant white shark to find out where the females mate and give birth will unlock more information about studying these animals. since the sharks have less nerves in the dorsal fin the animal doesnt feel pain this isnt cruel! Dr. Domeier inspires me to become a marine biologist

[Joshua]

I agree that the researchers have to assess the cost
to the animals against the new knowledge gained.
While I respect all these people for trying to unravel
the mysteries of the oceans- sometimes its best to leave
nature as we found it. I think less invasive approaches
will be better for nature & all of us watching these shows.

[David McGuire]

There is nothing like a White Shark to stir up controversy, ego and ignorance. White sharks are endangered and this is a highly vulnerable population consisting of pregnant females. Speaking from experience tagging other species of sharks onboard- while the data will be much better than the far less intrusive tagging methods - the risks to the animals is too great. I support our Sanctuary and sharks, that is why we are opposed to this intrusive method at the Farallones, Mexico or anywhere else. There has been 16 years of responsible research on these islands by the PRBO using best practices.
Domeier said it right, without Nat Geo the research wouldnt happen. Too bad Nat Geo is slipping into the sensationalism of Shark Week.

Seastewards.org

[Patrik Muehlematter]

Yes this is taking research too far!
I am happy to see I am not the only one thinking like that. You can research on animals and learn much more about them without touching them. National Geographic make lots of damage in the name of the Science, they should use their notoriety to promote the protection of our planet setting an example.
Patrik Muehlematter
GoodDive.com

[Jess]

"A shark is a fish not an animal" HAHAHAHAH Since when are fish not animals? Is a fish human or what? A plant, maybe? Fungus?

My question is how can great whites and other magnificent animals be endangered when stupid people are thriving?? SHEESH Never understood that one..

[Raidergirl37]

I believe that anyone whining about the way the sharks are being treated has a real problem. I don't seen anything wrong with what the Dr is doing. They are being as careful as possible & are commited to the sharks well being. We need to know in order to better protect them. I would give anything to be able to be on that boat and be a part of that research. I am thankful that the Maria Brown had the guts to stand up for these Sharks and their well being. Should it be considered overly intrusive when the doctor goes in with forceps to help us have a baby. Sharks have been found with some unusually large objects in there stomachs. I have always wanted to be able to go out to the Farallones and observe first hand there majestic beauty. I hope that Dr Domeier keeps up the good job & people quit belly aching about his work

[disaster]

I would like to see the results of this research. According to the website www.marinecsi.org, Domeier has been tagging white sharks since 2000 and only one paper has been published? Is this science intended for the media or to actually protect the white shark? I thought Domeier was a coral reef expert?

[chris]

btw melanie mont u must be stupid as white sharks are an endangered species and its because of people like u crying about shark attacks and then blaming a shark that is nowhere near the crime

[chris]

i think this method of tagging white sharks is cruel the shark could die before it is dragged on the boat.
dr. domeier is just another prat looking to make money from a endangered animal i hope he gets bit on day

[K.C.]

The risk of injury to these sharks is great and the liberties this scientist is taking in catching them are absurd. What you don't see in this article is another photograph of this scientist and his crew flashing the hang loose sign and posing like victors over a GWS while the bleeding fish suffers on deck for the sake of the "money shot." (http://www.bohemian.com/bohemian/10.28.09/news-0943.html)

According to the IUCN, a global authority on endangered species, one third of sharks worldwide are threatened or endangered, and in some areas, that number exceeds 50%. Domeier has not sufficiently proved how his research will do anything new to improve shark conservation. His research permit should be revoked, and Maria Brown should be penalized for permitting the abuse of a protected species in a National Marine Sanctuary. Her comment about it being like going to the dentist is almost laughable. You're right, Ms. Brown--it's a routine procedure...as routine as the day the dentist jams a metal instrument down your throat and then leaves half of it in there 'cause he can't undo the damage he just caused. Meanwhile, his office stays open for business!

[whocares]

first off Jess -
a Shark is a fish not an animal
if you you find this cruel you obviously have never been fishing...theres really no difference from how they catch sharks from how i catch trout.

and the old pole method doesnt capture the same amount of data.

also, THESE ARE SHARKS. you really shouldnt feel bad for the ultimate predator.

[whocares]

What was Paul Walker doin on this show? he just stood there the whole time.
he wasnt fishing or doing anything for the scientists, its as if they put him on just to have a famous face on the show. i dont even think he had any lines

[Michael Domeier]

Peter, I find it very ironic that you are OK with hunting and fishing, and yet you find these scientific methods intrusive. What about the photo of a dead deer you have recently posted to your facebook page? Don't you think that deer found the hunting methods a bit intrusive?

A white shark is a fish. If I had tagged and released a yellowfin tuna, no one would have cared. In fact, I've tagged many other species of fishes and no one has cared. I've done surgery on several species of fish, to implant a tag that is recovered when someone else catches and kills the fish in the future. What you do not realize is that the majority of fishery science is based upon studies that require the sacrifice of hundreds, if not thousands of individuals. Killing white shark is not acceptable and I am doing all I can to learn about these magnificent animals in ways that do not require the sacrifice of any individuals.

As pointed out by Bill Bushing, I used to attach tags by harpooning them into the sharks. I have learned all I can from this technology and yet there are huge gaps remaining in what we know about this species. The only way to close these gaps is to get multi-year tracks, and the only way that is possible is to capture and release these fish. Furthermore, harpooning tags into sharks leaves a very sharp dart in the dorsal musculature of the shark for the rest of their lives. Does that sound more humane?

We cannot protect these wonderful sharks if we do not know them. An estimated 70 million sharks die each year and all we learn from that is that there is a huge demand for shark fin soup. I have never killed a white shark in my study of these animals, and the tags we have deployed in the past 2 years are revealing amazing new patterns that we never knew existed.

Michael Domeier, Ph.D.

[Jess]

Did the shark which was released with part of the hook lodged in it's throat survive? There has to be a better way to attach the tag than hoisting the lifeless shark onto the boat and sticking a hose in its mouth to keep it from dying. I'm not a peta, elf or alf fanatic by any means, but I am against cruelty to animals. And this isn't only crueler than a mother@#$%^&, it's also a pointless, seeing as how great whites can be tracked by simply attaching a tag to their fin via 10 foot pole. But I guess Nat TV needs that dough...

[Florida Travel Photographer Melanie Monte]

I dont think the methods are a problem. These are extremely dangerous creatures, and studying them has got to be a real test. Besides, it's not like they're an endangered species. These sharks have been villanized by movies and TV for a reason, they're killers. I'm not suggesting that Dr Domeier is exacting revenge for the beachgoers of Jaws though. :)

At least they weren't using baby seals as bait.

[Dr. Great White Snaggletooth]

You're feeling sympathy for a Great White Shark?!? Didn't you see JAWS? That fish is nothing more than a mindless man-eater that has been trying to eat as many people as its stomach can handle.

(Of course I'm being facetious...)

I think we should be thanking these scientists for documenting their research. I can't remember the last time someone uttered the words "that poor shark." People's minds have been changed and we're now making efforts to preserve the species.

Finally - why was Paul Walker on the show? You can't attach a Nitrous Oxide System to a shark.

[Dr. Bill Bushing]

I was out with Dr. Domeier at Guadalupe in 2005 when the methods used to satellite GWSs consisted of darting the free swimming sharks with the tags using a pole. This was MUCH less traumatic and intrusive than the methods used in affixing the new POST tags as seen in the TV special last night.

I am a kelp forest ecologist and not a GWS expert. However, these methods seem very intrusive to me. Much as I think the POST tags can provide valuable information about this species. However, I AM concerned about the methodology.

What bothered me most about the National Geographic special was that it seemed focused on what made the "best TV" for the average viewer. Although not as bad as the Discovery Channel's "Shark Week" offerings, I felt it focused far too much on the methods with too little of the results. Of course it is early in Domeier's study, so results are still pending, but I would have greatly preferred more focus on what Domeier and other scientists have already discovered... I grew bored with repetitive segments of capture and tagging. I expect much more from National Geographic shows.