GWS Tagging, Research, Baited Attractants At Popular Water Usage Area's

To all concerned; the poll closes in 30 days, each user can vote up to two times and you will not be allowed to change your vote(s) and the results will only be showed after you vote.

Do note I may present the results of the poll to the Director of the Department of Fish and Game, the Fish and Game Commission or others deemed appropriate.

Thank you
-Bill

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

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

Hi Allen no offense taking and yes I am no expert at doing poll's however simplicity was the goal, thus the three questions and the way they were worded. The subject matter really centers around not finding a way to end research per say but rather it is to see if the general on the water and the in the water user groups like kayak fishermen, general kayak enthuses, divers and surfers would rather not see GWS research take place at popular in water usage areas. This one is a how do you feel about it, what do you think about it and possibly a leading to a: what do you want to be done about it or think should be done about it poll and post for a later date.

Yes I do realize this post and poll was going to be hot one for many on all sides of the issue. Do you have a suggestion on wording the poll questions better keeping it simplistic to two or three questions only. The third question I think is the status quo question if one choose to do so vote for; I think there is not an issue with the way GWS research is being done at popular on the water and in the water locations.

Thanks Allen for your input and I'll read the suggested material.
~B

Keep the voting for the poll going, thus far 12 forum users have voted. Hope to see more NCKA forum users participate and in the poll.

~B

Poll closes next Wednesday, so this is a thread wake up call get attention to it and the poll.

Thanks Bill