Big Bigger Biggest

[Fiskadoro]

Originally Posted by dos ballenas

Are you kidding me?

Backpeddling my ass!! I was just being friendly because in general I respect science and scientists that study such things and for that reason I took the time to repeat what I said and then gave you the reasons I said it, but at the same time admitted they were just my opinions.

The oldest relatively recent life expectancy estimates I've heard were around thirty years, that shark being the largest ever caught is probably about as old as they get. Makos like whites probably have something like a 18 month gestation period and then take 18 months off during pregnancy. In my opinion those ideas (I didn't make them up or pull them out of my ass) make sense and are likely to be true. I'm not a scientist I'm not writing for Scientific America I don't need peer reviewed documentation to have those opinions.

When I believe something I do so for good reason and I'm consistent as shit unless someone shows me something that changes my mind. You want to get picky.... fine! How about you show me something from a peer reviewed journal that concretely disproves any of the things I stated above. Or for that matter more definitively states how old that shark is.

Unlike most I already knew about NOAA's program using antibiotic staining, and last I heard it's not produced any concrete results. Saying they are not sure about the spine rings or don't have anything concrete doesn't change the estimates of life expectancy scientists have made in the past based on them, or the fact that some of those estimates are more plausible then others.

Speaking of consistency next time you see Kieth ask him about my opinion on the conservation value of telling people not to take trophy Makos vrs a 60 inch size limit.

Back in 1999 when Tom Brooks took his 986 pound Mako a number of people including Kieth condemned that catch online and told everyone that taking large makos that size was bad for conservation. At the time I pointed out that tens of thousands (I can't remember the exact number) of Makos under sixty inches are taken local every year and a sixty inch size limit would do much more for conservation of Makos then encouraging anglers to release the handful (five or six) of truly big sharks over 900 pounds that are hooked each year.

I made some of the exact same arguments back then that I posted in this thread. That big sharks like that are probably getting pretty close to the end off their life cycle, that unless they are carrying pups they probably aren't going to producing more offspring, and that even if they did get pregnant again that at best they would only produce a handful of young.

A lot of the local online shark gurus disagreed with me about that one, but that didn't change my opinion one bit, and I still think a size limit would do more for conservation then all this save the big breeder talk you see on the local boards.

We may of never got the size limit I wanted but a number of East Coast States installed a 54 inch size limit on Makos shortly after that. Of course it had nothing to do with me, but because I keep up with such things even back then before the internet was such a big deal I saw it coming. East Coast States and the Gulf were facing a major shark decline to overfishing by the commercials and they needed to do something that went beyond just rhetoric, that would actually make a difference, and the size limit was one of the better options.

Well you know what they say about hindsight: last I heard they still have that minimum size limit and they never installed a maximum size limit. I'd suggest in hindsight those arguments about size limits protecting younger sharks had some validity in the scientific community, and that there was a scientific basis for them, even if they did not pass the public forum board, shark sentimentality, popular argument, test on the local boards.

[dos ballenas]

Originally Posted by Fiskadoro

Are you kidding me?

not really

Backpeddling my ass!! I was just being friendly because in general I respect science and scientists that study such things and for that reason I took the time to repeat what I said and then gave you the reasons I said it, but at the same time admitted they were just my opinions.

ok

The oldest relatively recent life expectancy estimates I've heard were around thirty years, that shark being the largest ever caught is probably about as old as they get. Makos like whites probably have something like a 18 month gestation period and then take 18 months off during pregnancy. In my opinion those ideas (I didn't make them up or pull them out of my ass) make sense and are likely to be true. I'm not a scientist I'm not writing for Scientific America I don't need peer reviewed documentation to have those opinions.

ya you said that earlier

When I believe something I do so for good reason and I'm consistent as shit unless someone shows me something that changes my mind. You want to get picky.... fine! How about you show me something from a peer reviewed journal that concretely disproves any of the things I stated above. Or for that matter more definitively states how old that shark is.

did you read what I said above? Nobody is really sure how old that mako is yet. stand by

Unlike most I already knew about NOAA's program using antibiotic staining, and last I heard it's not produced any concrete results. Saying they are not sure about the spine rings or don't have anything concrete doesn't change the estimates of life expectancy scientists have made in the past based on them, or the fact that some of those estimates are more plausible then others.

Actually it changes everything.These kinds of studies takes years and lots of funding, and so as I said above, stand by.

Speaking of consistency next time you see Kieth ask him about my opinion on the conservation value of telling people not to take trophy Makos vrs a 60 inch size limit.

OK, so why did you kill the teeeeny mako pictured above?

Back in 1999 when Tom Brooks took his 986 pound Mako a number of people including Kieth condemned that catch online and told everyone that taking large makos that size was bad for conservation. At the time I pointed out that tens of thousands (I can't remember the exact number) of Makos under sixty inches are taken local every year and a sixty inch size limit would do much more for conservation of Makos then encouraging anglers to release the handful (five or six) of truly big sharks over 900 pounds that are hooked each year.

so

I made some of the exact same arguments back then that I posted in this thread. That big sharks like that are probably getting pretty close to the end off their life cycle, that unless they are carrying pups they probably aren't going to producing more offspring, and that even if they did get pregnant again that at best they would only produce a handful of young.

Such BS, in fact probably the most bullshit I have ever read on the internet.

A lot of the local online shark gurus disagreed with me about that one, but that didn't change my opinion one bit, and I still think a size limit would do more for conservation then all this save the big breeder talk you see on the local boards.

its great that you have your own opinions, i'm not here to belittle them

We may of never got the size limit I wanted but a number of East Coast States installed a 54 inch size limit on Makos shortly after that. Of course it had nothing to do with me, but because I keep up with such things even back then before the internet was such a big deal I saw it coming. East Coast States and the Gulf were facing a major shark decline to overfishing by the commercials and they needed to do something that went beyond just rhetoric, that would actually make a difference, and the size limit was one of the better options.

Well you know what they say about hindsight: last I heard they still have that minimum size limit and they never installed a maximum size limit. I'd suggest in hindsight those arguments about size limits protecting younger sharks had some validity in the scientific community, and that there was a scientific basis for them, even if they did not pass the public forum board, shark sentimentality, popular argument, test on the local boards.

stand by Jim. Sorry I busted your balls. Like we all know opinions are like assholes......

ps: this is my 500th post. do I get an award?

[Fiskadoro]

Originally Posted by dos ballenas

OK, so why did you kill the teeeeny mako pictured above?

I already posted why. When it ripped the tail off my bonito it also put a 9/0 hook right through it's gills. There was no point in throwing back when it was going to just bleed out.

Originally Posted by dos ballenas

"...... big sharks like that are probably getting pretty close to the end off their life cycle, that unless they are carrying pups they probably aren't going to producing more offspring, and that even if they did get pregnant again that at best they would only produce a handful of young..."

Such BS, in fact probably the most bullshit I have ever read on the internet.

Really!!! That's quite the claim! "Most Bullshit ever" Now please explain why in detail.

I say that in animals that continually grow until death like sharks the largest of the species recorded are likely to also be some of the oldest. That's pretty much a common sense claim. The growth rings are a potential way to figure the sharks age, but that's only possible if the shark never stops growing. Each ring no matter what the time increment involved signifies a increase in the size of the spine. What that says to me is the shark is constantly getting bigger.

As the spine is enlarged more rings are created so it only follows the larger they are the older they are.

How old is that Mako? Well the best estimates I've seen suggest thirty years but that's not what's really significant. 30 35 40 years the number is irrelevant. It's sheer size suggests it's the oldest one we've found, and though you might claim otherwise it's size also suggests it's approaching the end of it's life cycle. I hate to point out the obvious but if there are older bigger Makos around why have we not seen or caught them? Since this is the largest it's also likely the oldest. If you don't agree with that idea then please show me something based in science that proves it wrong.

You're the scientist, this should be easy for you. If you think it's BS I gather you must have some empirical evidence to back your opinion up. I'd love to hear it, tell me why the above assumption is wrong, and if you can back it up with peer reviewed information from a scientific journal, that would be wonderful. I always like to hear and read new information I haven't seen or thought about before.

Originally Posted by dos ballenas

its great that you have your own opinions, i'm not here to belittle them.

Fortunately I don't feel all that belittled. I'm not overly concerned because as you say "opinions are like assholes" and I'm used to dealing with both. All I'm trying to explain is that my ideas are based on observation of available data not some preconceived notion, bias, or emotional premise.

[jorluivil]

Holy crap! I'm out of popcorn!!

[captnblood34]

Everybody's doing a good job