Quote:
Originally Posted by lowprofile
Friskdoro, the Makos come in when the water cools. were starting to see a couple here and there, but no one has landed one so far this fall. end of November to April is the prime season. water temps in the upper 50's to 65*.
|
That makes perfect sense. I can't say I'm that surprised. I've found the prime temperature for larger Makos is around 63 degrees the same temp albacore seem to love, and now thinking back on it that first Mako I heard about, it was caught in the winter in the surf in the Gulf at Padre Island.
Go get them!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dos ballenas
stand by .....
|
Speaking of not surprised, I'm not seeing any peer reviewed info that's blown me out of the water, or makes me change my mind.
So since it's not forthcoming why don't I just go through and debunk the whole save the big breeder in the name of conservation talking points without that input. Since day one the same people have been making the same arguments about protecting these handful of big sharks, and over time I've got pretty used to them. So I kind of know them and their weaknesses by heart. I'm not even going to look anything up, I'm just going to type this in stream of consciousness style (forgive the misspellings)
First a disclaimer, and premise.
My arguments are my ideas, they aren't just googled up. Some of my online critics like to pretend I just repeat what others say, using others ideas on any given topic in order to seem smart or in the know. Of course there is a flaw in that argument, and it's really pretty funny if you think about it.
I mean think about it..... Look at how I rig my kayaks, set up my gear, the rods I use, even how I rig my terminal tackle and you'll find that all of it is not the standard way people do it.
It's all based on my own ideas. If I knew nothing about these things I'd just do the same things everyone else does or say the same things everyone else does, because that's what's easy to find online. I don't copy others. I invent new ways to do or think about things. Piaget said "To learn is to invent" I think that works for everything from installing a transducer on my yak,to making my hoopnets, or how to think about ideas.
Science is a building and innovative process where new ideas are constantly evolving built on the ideas that came before them. Very little is written in stone. I'm really into pattern recognition. Looking at a lot of info and then figuring out how it fits together and creates a larger pattern. So let's just say that what I write are my own ideas based on my interpretations of years of combined science I've read about.
One one my favorite quotes is:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident"
I think when you look at nature in a simple and direct fashion without preconceptions or bias it's often pretty obvious what's going on. I like to figure these things out but I also enjoy explaining them to others in a such a simple and direct manner that they seem obvious, or self evident. That's what I'm going attempt to do here.
So this and all 1000 pound+ Makos should be released because:
1. That shark eats lots of seals.
OK I'm starting with this one because this is the argument that in my opinion has the most merit. Big Makos do eat seals, along with swordfish, Marlin, Black seabass and pretty much everything else they hunt down, and I bet they eat a lot of seals too. I used to not think so. Now I do.
Here's the deal. You can tell basically what sharks are designed to eat by their teeth. For instance Tiger sharks have big wide mouths and broad heavy hooked serrated teeth that evolved over millions of years because they fed on sea turtles. That big mouth and hooked teeth allowed Tiger sharks to not only get the turtles in their mouths but saw through their shells when they shook their heads side to side.
Makos are the polar opposite. They have extremely sharp curved teeth like fish hooks designed for grabbing something quickly locking on to it and holding on. There is no serrations, the sides are not even that sharp.
Makos do not bite and saw through their prey like a Tiger sharks. They don't cut up seals like white sharks. They grab on and then rip out chunks of flesh, which the then swallow whole.
It's a perfect design for attacking fish at a high speed. They come up behind their prey at high speed, grab on to the tail section then turn violently to the side and rip the whole ass end right off the fish. That mortally wounds it, and they then come back and rip it up. They do not chew their food or cut it up, they tear them apart and swallow the chunks whole. With this technique they can kill fish as large as themselves, it's a highly successful way to hunt, and from what I can tell they always attack live prey the same way.
Obviously their teeth are not designed for hunting seals, they can't cut through tough skin like a knife, so a decade ago I really thought they just did not hunt them. Since then two things have happened that changed my mind. One is I've seen dozens of videos of them killing seals using the same methods they use on fish, and it obviously works, and also some new archeological data has taught me a lot more about their evolutionary history.
Mako teeth are not designed for eating seals because they were fully evolved before sea lions even existed. They do eat sea lions now but they eat them attacking them exactly the same way they attack fish, coming up behind them grabbing their ass end and then ripping them in half literally tearing them apart. I've seen it enough on vids to now believe it. If you ever see an injured seal that's been attacked by a shark look at it's injuries. If it's cut in clean cuts it's been attacked by a White if it's back flippers and the end of the torso are torn off and shredded it's been attacked by a Mako. Makos evolved hunting fish, but they are so good at what they do they do, and their method is so lethal in the water, that they didn't even have to change it in order to feed on seals. They just rip them apart with sheer speed and brute force. Pretty FN amazing in my book.
So how many seals do they eat? Well I'd imagine a hell of a lot of them. Like I said makos are high speed predators. They've been clocked at ridiculous speeds like up to 30 knots+. I've seen vids of huge ones just hauling ass, at speeds you would not consider possible. They swim, they hunt, they eat, they are not territorial, constantly on the move, they do not rest or hang around.
Now consider that 1300 Mako, and imagine the energy, the sheer horsepower needed to make it go that fast through the water. We're talking hundreds of horsepower in mechanical terms. White sharks grow bigger but they swim around slowly most of the time and limit themselves to short bursts when they attack. They also develop hunting territories where they hang out and wait for food. Makos hunt with speed, and are constantly moving, it is their very nature, so in order to keep going they need a ton of fuel, and like big tuna have to constantly feeding.
Ultimately that's their downfall.
Their biggest strength is also their biggest weakness. With creatures that grow until death like that mako their own size eventually kills them. They can't stop growing larger, and there is a tipping point where they can't hunt down enough food to keep their mass moving fast enough to hunt down what they need to survive. Simply put the bigger they are the more fuel they need and eventually they run out of fuel because they simply can't hunt down enough food to keep them going.
So that big Mako was a seal eater no doubt, and it would of likely eaten more seals before it died, but the rub is it's was likely getting close to the tipping point where it could no longer eat enough to survive. Max size means max age, and that shark probably wasn't going to be around that much longer.
2. That shark was going to produce more pups.
Like I said that shark was probably at the end of it's life cycle. It was about to hit the wall or tipping point where it could no longer eat enough to keep going. There's nothing new in that, it's a well know idea, it's the reason they say that most fast moving fish like tuna can only get so big.
Once again. This is the biggest Mako ever caught by a fisherman, it was having to eat more then any other Mako to keep going, and eventually, probably sooner then later it's skills as a hunter were not going to be able to keep up with it's tremendous need for the energy required for it to haul it's big bad ass around the ocean and hunt down it's prey. Sad but true.
That said: Let's play devils advocate. Say it was about to breed and actually got pregnant. Well there's obvious problem with that. If it's already close to the tipping point where it's size and resulting energy needs are about to eclipse it's ability to feed itself, then what happens when it get's pregnant?
Gestating a litter of pups takes a lot of energy, at the same time the shark would put on more mass and weight, so the sharks energy needs and resulting need for food would be higher then ever. A pregnancy could likely just push it right over the edge.
In fact if these sharks can still get pregnant at that size, it wouldn't surprise me at all if a lot of them die pregnant, or right after a pregnancy. Nature is full of examples where females who are having trouble getting enough to eat to sustain themselves have issues with pregnancy, they do not survive, can not get pregnant, or spontaneously abort pregnancies, or die from complications from a pregnacy. It's not a stretch to think pregnancy might have a negative impact on a shark of that size.
Let's say that it makes it through the pregnancy though just for argument sake.
Well if it lived another year and a half and had the pups it would produce what 4 to 16 pups? These are not seabass they do not lay thousands of eggs. They have litters of pups and last I heard those numbers max out in the teens.
So we need to release that Mako to protect under 20 pups? Well seems to me if protecting pups is the issue we could just make a size limit and protect thousands. How many sharks over a 1000 pounds have even been taken in the last decade? I don't even know of ten, but people want to protect those few hundred pups that might of come 1000 pound Makos, but at the same time they want to ignore the thousands of pups under 60 inches that are taken local every year. That just doesn't make sense if you consider the numbers. If the pups need protection put a size limit on them, otherwise give it a rest.
3. That shark had unique genetic worth that needed to be passed on.
Yep by living as long as it did, and by getting so big this huge mako has proven it has superior genes and deserves to pass them on.
Well the obvious question is: if it did get pregnant, survived, passed on it's genes how big a difference would it make?
I like to call this the Prize Bull fallacy, because it comes from a misunderstanding of the basic genetics.
See most people think of genetics like breeding of Bulls or prize race horses. Sure the genetics of animal that you've modified through selective breeding in the last 200 years is likely to have different genetics then the rest of it's species that are worth preserving if you want more fast race horses or big prize bulls. In animals with social hierarchy like Lions you could even say the largest dominant lion should pass on it's genes for the good of the pride, but Makos are not breed, and the do not live in groups, thy do not have social hierarchy.
Unlike prize bulls race horses or lions, Makos also have been around for millions of years, pretty much virtually unchanged for almost ten million years now.
In other words that big Mako is probably astonishingly similar to Makos that lived millions of years ago and is probably not all the genetically unique at all. In simple terms in a species were the genetics has not changed for millions of years there is no reason to think one shark is somehow the cutting edge of a new genetic advancement for the species.
I suppose you could say that that one big mako is the predecessor for a whole new wave of Makos, a change in the Mako population where they get bigger badder and eat more seals, but if a change was needed for survival that genetic advancement or change would of most likely already occurred in the last 10 million years.
In fact it already has.
Roughly 16 million years ago this otter like Mammal took to the ocean, grew larger, more prolific, and developed into what we now call three distinct species of Otarioidea which are now known as the Sea lions.
I imagine Makos ate them from day one in much the same way they hunt and eat them now, but there was a distinct population of Makos that started eating them more and more.
Over time their genetics adapted to hunting seals. Their teeth got wider and flatter and developed serrated edges for cutting through seal hide. They slowed down, they stopped their offshore high speed hunting and moved inshore where they started ambush hunting the seals, their size increased and they become territorial with distinctive feeding areas that the same individuals hunt year after year.
How do I know all this? Because they are still here. They are White Sharks.
Great whites are Makos that over time were modified by natural selection and genetics into the huge, slow (by Mako standards) serrated toothed seal hunters we have today.
So if Whites and Makos are so similar then why can't our Makos keep growing to the size of White Sharks? Well Whites gave up high speed open ocean hunting, and they now hunt inshore and are territorial. That means they can rest between kills, so they do not have to eat as often to maintain their size and can grow much larger then their brother Makos.
Makes you think, doesn't it.
I'd say in a species that's stayed roughly the same for 10 million years like the Mako's, that remained the same even when a large portion of their population changed into what we know consider a completely different shark, that's got the same build and still hunts the same way is it's ancestors did millions of years ago, I'd say in a shark like that the difference in the genes of that one shark is not that big compared to the rest of it's species, and it's specific genes would have almost zero effect on the overall population.
Not to mention that obviously this particular Mako has already successfully passed on it's genes, and reproduced litters of pups many times. It wasn't like it was born yesterday.
It's already likely to have produced over a hundred offspring, how many more are needed to pass on it's genetics? So considering it's genetic lineage, the fact it is not all that likely to reproduce again, and that even if it did would only produce another dozen or so pups, and the fact it's already produced a bunch. Well if you consider all that the whole genetic worth, must pass on these unique genes to save the species argument seems a little less then valid.
So why do we have to protect these big Makos again? because I'm not getting it.
4. I like big sharks and don't like it when people kill them.
Fair enough, but I have to add that's a emotional response and has nothing to do with science.
There you go.... Peer review that
ps: I put more then 500 words together about science. do I get an award? Or a degree? 
pps: This probably will set a new standard for the the most bullshit you have ever read on the internet, if you actually take the time to read it.