Official GWS Thread

Bill, No offense, but I think this poll might be a bit too simplistic.  An Either/Or proposition.

Olfactory attractants used by researchers could include mammal blood, fish blood (guts), fish oils, fish, fowl, or mammal meat.  Each of which, I think may engender a different response.

The Pelagic Shark Research Foundation (psrf.org), working out of Santa Cruz and maintaining the most prolific tagging operation in the Northern Hemisphere does not use any sort of blood, but sometimes will use seal or whale blubber in  a gunny sack for the oil slick it produces.  PSRF was also the key player in dissuading the authorities NOT to grant a "Shark Diving" cage operation at Ano some years ago, citing the risk of GW's associating humans  (in the water) with food (attractants used by cage charter operators, usually fish, meat, or blood, or combination).

Towing decoys, even with an oil slick, doesn't necessarily cause an "association" by GWs of humans to food.  Indeed, though GW's are intelligent, I doubt they associate humans with the giant floating object (the tow-boat) at all. The GW's are mysterious and unpredictable, and will only become less so if we can study them.  The more we know, the better decision we can make in regards to entering their world.  Percentages are with us.

Having said that, I won't paddle out in the sharky areas during the months of higher concentrations.  Denying basic research practices is not going to affect when and where GWs are going to be a any given time (anywhere they want to), nature will. 

Here's some good reading material in a book by Klimley that describes some of the investigation/predation studies done up at the Farralones.  The behavior of GWs there is much like the behavior at Ano and along the SC/SM coastlines.  Indeed, some of them are the very same sharks.


http://books.google.com/books?id=2My8M5tL-KIC&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=great+white+decoy+risk+to+humans&source=bl&ots=3qfM_4a7qQ&sig=r3LwpWj-Fe3wknkAXd1_neUjyCo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=d9HwTu_cOYSWiQKG2KyyDg&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=great%20white%20decoy%20risk%20to%20humans&f=false


Allen

FACT: 3 of our ncka brother's have been attacked in the last 4 years in the area I'm talking about.

FACT: the people doing this are using a "decoy" in a slick of seal blubber. This decoy looks a lot more like a surfboard or kayak than either a dead or alive seal.

FACT: since I both surf Waddel and yak-fish off of the pigeon point areas I am concerned that teaching white sharks to approach and attack inanimate objects,the decoys in the seal blubber chum slicks, could potentially be very very dangerous to my, or my brothers, health.

FACT: I don't believe this particular tagging program in this one location is crucial to the survival of the GW species. Let them tag at the Farralons where the public isn't in or OTW.

After reading the book about sharks @ the Farralons,(The Devils Teeth) they say that the sharks become desensitized to the seal,surf board decoys after hitting them once or twice. They learn that it is NOT food and do not attack them anymore.

After reading the book about sharks @ the Farralons,(The Devils Teeth) they say that the sharks become desensitized to the seal,surf board decoys after hitting them once or twice. They learn that it is NOT food and do not attack them anymore.

Bravo Adam!

Fact:  2 of the three Bros had an "encounter" in the off-season, summer, when research is not being conducted.  Not necessarily even the same sharks that are there during the winter. The third I guess I would consider an "attack," the vertical hit; but precisely during that period of time when I don't paddle in that area. (mostly)

Fact:  oils and juices, not actual blubber tissue, which is contained in a gunny sack.  8 feet long and 4 feet wide?  No surfboard I've ever ridden or yak I've paddled.

Fact;  Consensus seems to be that approaching, nudging, chewing and even attacking floating inanimate objects is natural GW behavior, not something we are "teaching them."

Fact: Your opinion is not necessarily a fact. I guess i selfishly I support GW research as much for my personal survival as for the species. I am going to adapt to them, cause they won't adapt to us that's for sure. TAgging and behavioral studies at Ano are not "crucial to the survival of the GW species," but the more we learn, the more we can do to support their survival (and our own).

Also, they do tag at the Farralones, just not as diligently or with the consistency of the Ano studies.  Mainly a money thing. Funding is paltry.  There is no giant pot of gold grant $$ flowing towards this research.  The Ano PSRF project is Waaaay shoestring.

Since they can tag in locations where people do not normally recreate in or OTW.......then I would prefer them  to do so in those places.

I put my and my fellow ocean users lives above endless taging at that specific location.

The results from the tagging operations are the way we now know where they are seasonally.  I would submit that ocean users are now safer as a result.  At least we generally know where they are at a given period during the year, so we can make decisions about where and when to go out.  That's a lot more than I knew 20 years ago when I lived in the bay area and surfed those spots on a weekly basis (Waddell, Ano).

Yeah, being in the grant business somewhat myself, I can't imagine that there's much loot there in GWS study.  The money is in the fish that we like to catch.....like salmon.  Grants for salmon research, monitoring, and enhancement in California have totaled in the mega-millions in the last 30 years.

I dunno, just as general personal creed, I always like knowing more - not less......... especially about sharks.  And I'm a person that has been physically in the ocean around three days a week for the last 20-30 years.

Sincerely,

Dave

The results from the tagging operations are the way we now know where they are seasonally....

This fact almost sums up the whole thing.

....I would submit that ocean users are now safer as a result.  At least we generally know where they are at a given period during the year, so we can make decisions about where and when to go out....

I have to agree. We're better off knowing more about them than less, and particularly about the populations in recreational areas. Also, as Adam pointed out, the research can also tell us more about how the GWs do or do not adapt to interactions with people. Best practices can then be developed from that info. If researchers find something that does show the animals associating humans with food, they can advise other researchers to avoid those practices.

The recreational feeding is a whole other thing. That's just plain dumb IMHO. 

Has anyone posted this yet?

Attack down on the central coast
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/15/11721176-yikes-great-white-shark-attacks-fishermans-kayak?lite

Has anyone posted this yet?

Attack down on the central coast
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/15/11721176-yikes-great-white-shark-attacks-fishermans-kayak?lite

yep a few times, but yours is the first in the right spot

Has anyone posted this yet?

Attack down on the central coast
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/15/11721176-yikes-great-white-shark-attacks-fishermans-kayak?lite

Yeaaaaa!!! It wasn't a Hobie!

Just a fun fact I learned during my brief time with DFG.:

Researchers are catching and tagging juvenile GWS's in the SF bay and monitoring them with acoustic receivers.

Here's the fun part........they have regularly received hits EAST of the Carquinez bridge.

As long as they stay out of the Sac River system we are good.

Here's the fun part........they have regularly received hits EAST of the Carquinez bridge.

WHAT?!?!

JUVENILES - I wouldn't worry too much about it. Although I think I've read that an adult has been tracked cruising through the bay on at least one occasion.
Bull sharks, now that would scare the hell out of me if they were in the bay.

Im sure the big ones must cruise pier 45 when its stacked with furbags.