|
Big Bigger Biggest
So the rumor is Jason Johnston's 1,323 pound Mako is going to qualify as the new world record.
http://s.imwx.com/dru/2013/06/15dc3f...55_650x366.jpg That is one Big Mako!!!! |
Stupid.:rolleyes:
|
That thing should of been released Look how pissed off it looks.
http://theterramarproject.org/thedai...HARK-570-1.jpg |
Looks like the one I caught and released off my yak 2 months ago. I should of known it was a world record:doh:
|
Its amazing and scary that those things can get that big.
|
Hope my day doesn't come anytime soon.
|
Frankly I am glad he is in the cart - let the humans eat him...
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
And the next time I see a massive fin, I'll wish there were less. LMAO!!
|
Quote:
|
There are not many if any recorded bites from Makos not including those of people who bring them aboard a boat. We need more of them to bring down the fur bags.:the_finger:.
|
Quote:
Whites and Tigers attack more people because they hunt in the shallows where people swim. Adult Mako's are opportunistic apex predators that eat large prey. They will kill swordfish almost their size and have no problem killing seals, and even Dolphins. I saw one kill a 250+ pound sword off the west end of Catalina, just came up and ripped it's tail off. I'm sure they would have no problems with killing people. The deal is there's not a ton of big ones around close to shore, and people rarely swim offshore where they feed. What most people don't know is that large Makos are historically known for attacking boats, much more so then any other shark. They've been known to come up unprovoked and grab outboards of moving skiffs, sometimes destroying the transom or motor. I knew an old timer from Redondo that had one attack his boat three times each time killing the motor. Every time he'd fire it back up that shark would attack again. Finally he just quit trying and waited it out. Said it was a big Male Mako maybe 800 pounds and that the whole thing scared the hell out of him. This guy was a long time commercial fisherman and I certainly believed him. Though I'm sure the California inshore attacks against surfers historically where white sharks, I'm starting to think that some of the White Shark sitings offshore are possibly big makos. The deal is most people don't know enough about them to tell them apart. I've seen vids where people have dove and even swam with Great Whites. Whites are much more selective about what they feed upon, and have even been known to leave surfers after an initial attack. I can't see a Mako doing that, once they want to feed on something they mortally wound it then stick around till it's done. I doubt your ever going to see a video with a diver swimming with a 1000 pound Mako. I sure as hell wouldn't do it. You can get away with that with little makos, but anyone who tries it with an adult in my opinion absolutely insane. |
So I looked around for info on Makos and boat attacks.
Here's a vid I found where a Mako went after a skiff. <iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/k349IgrrMbk" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe> That shark attacked their outboard while they were under power. The vid starts after they turn around to see what they hit. You can see where the prop left cuts on the makos mouth and head but it's still more interested in attacking the outboard then the tuna chunks they throw in the water. Another male mako, not a really huge one but you can see it's clearly pissed off, and it's kind of wild that even after it was injured by the prop it still not afraid of the boat, and still being aggressive. |
I wonder how old that shark was...
|
Quote:
The enviros were pissed off that the shark was taken because they said it was valuable for reproduction. The truth is they only pup every three years with a 18 month gestation then a 18 month break between pregnancies. So if it was close to thirty, which it probably was, unless it was carrying pups it was probably not going to reproduce again. |
Tell me more about the last kayak fisher you heard of actualy attacked by a shark. There is more of a possibility of a sea lion biting your leg while trying to take your catch.
Not that im against catching a shark, for food, but lets not get this crazy Jaws shark hunt going again and destroying species just out of fear. If your that scared, Ill take your gear, keep what i want, and sell the rest. Botom line is dont take what you dont plan to eat. And dont kill out of ignorance. |
Quote:
I am the biologist who initially contacted Mako Matt and arranged for the fish to be sampled for research purposes. Both Keith Poe and Mako Matt were extremely helpful and made sure that the appropriate labs recieved sections of vertebrae, tissue, and stomach contents for future analysis. The fish is currently being aged and compared to other tagged and recaptured sharks in order to validate the results. Where did you find the information you posted in the quote above? 30 years old? 18 month gestation period? Please direct me to the scientific journal which states data supporting or validating you claims. The two statements you made above are actually the two most important questions that researchers are STILL trying to answer. Shark biologists are the first people to admit that they know nothing about the reproductive cycle, gestation period, litter size, migration patterns, and population size of large female mako sharks. And the age and growth rates of mako sharks are yet to be validated. Old studies have previously estimated that mako sharks could live for upwards of 20 years. But new, current research, is revealing that those estimates are likely way OFF. Yes sharks are aged using cross sections cut out of their vertebrae. And yes they can be read similar to the methods for aging trees with tree trunk rings. But unlike most bony fish and trees aging sharks in not as straightforward as you would think. For example it is unknown if mako sharks create one, two, or three growth rings per year. This fact alone is why the jury is still out on aging sharks. I admit I'm not expert myself and the statements you made above could be true. I just spend a lot of time working with the researchers who are currently trying to decide on the appropriate methods to age mako sharks. NOAA's Southwest Fisheries Science Center has been injecting Mako and blue sharks for years with a antibiotic which stains the vertebrae of sharks that they then tag and release. Ask Keith Poe about this if you like. The only way to validate age and growth for sharks is to recapture those same tagged sharks and then determine the amount of growth that occurred during their time at liberty based off when the shark was tagged and then counting number of growth rings laid down after the sharks vertebrae was stained with the antibiotic. |
Quote:
I also heard he used a gun to dispatch the fish, so it probably wont be accepted by the IFGA, or the sporting community. I also know for a fact that the fish only ate 12" pacific mac's, and that it was well over 100 years old. Just my take. Jay |
Quote:
Jay, no need to be so modest. You clearly have read more of the internet than most fishermen. :notworthy: |
Quote:
whatever the case maybe, if im on a kayak and i see a huge DORSAL FIN.... Im out! |
Quote:
Actually your preaching to the choir..... No doubt the jury is still out, and nothing is definitive. Like Kieth I've been interested in these sharks for decades, read a lot about them, and put a lot of time in on the water, but I've not heard anything all that concrete. I think the first estimates were based on two rings a year, then they went to one. Used to be people were estimating something like twenty years, then last I heard they kicked it up to thirty, but I'm not a biologist just someone who's interested in fish, and I'm just throwing out my opinion based on what I've read in the past. If I had to personally guess I'd go with 30 to 40 years but the highest estimates I've read were only thirty. Reproduction wise. I used to think they pupped every year, then some studies on Whites showed that they probably carried their young longer and took time off between pregnancies. That was a while back and they based it on migration patterns and sat tags. I.E. the Great White females varied their migrations in cycles and went to specific areas when carrying pups and after they dropped them. Since they changed their migration pattern the next year, the theory was that they skipped years in their reproductive cycles. Later I read somewhere that Makos might have a similar cycle even though their migrations are not the same. Makos and Salmon sharks are biologically closer to whites then most sharks so it kinda makes sense. I'm not sure where I read it, but it stuck with me since it challenged my preconceptions. Speaking of preconceptions where do you think they pup? I've heard they probably have a reduced feeding response around the time they give birth to keep them from eating their young. Since Big females can be caught local, I always thought they probably pupped elsewhere in Mexican waters then swam up here afterwards. Then I caught this. http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/452/9gz1.jpg That's a 22 inch female mako that I caught trolling off the West end of Catalina. It probably only weighed three pounds max and still had part of it's umbilical attached from it's egg sac. That shark attacked a skirted Bonita trolled on the downrigger. The bait was as big as it was but it still manged to rip off it's back end and put a 9/0 hook right through it's gills. The guy I was fishing with and I have a running joke about that shark. We may of not caught biggest local Mako but we probably got the smallest, at least for one that hit a bait and was outside it's mother. I figure it had to be fresh pupped so the question in my mind is if the females loose their desire to feed when they are in they are in there pupping grounds, then why do we still catch full sized adults here like the 1300 pound fish that I started the thread with. I'd say a on again off again breeding cycle like the whites have might explain that, but of course that's just a guess, and can't back it up with hard data. Fortunately I'm just an amateur so I don't have to :D You know how it is, fishing always involves a lot of guess work especially for us non-scientists. Good to hear Matt got you some of the spinal cartilage, I was hoping you guys got it. I'd be really interested to know how many rings they find. It's my understanding is they do not stop growing as they age, so no matter how old that shark is in years just it's size suggests it's one of the oldest makos ever caught, and likely maxed out in life expectancy. Jim |
Quote:
|
Quote:
That little mako really is pretty fn awesome. I keep it in the freezer, but now it's completely dried out and almost mummified. What's really cool is even though it's tiny it has all the features of a full size adult mako. It's like a scale model, even the teeth are in the exact same pattern and razor sharp. I never seen another one even close to that size. It's a total little eating machine. It's hard to believe something so small can grow to something so huge. I mean if you think about it it's really pretty amazing. Here you have an animal that right after it's born, even at just 22 inches is already fully adapted to it's role as an apex predator, and it's never going to change throughout it's whole entire lifetime even though it might grow to almost 500 times it's original size. That shark attacked a three pound Bonita and ripped it's tail off in the exact same manner that an adult mako attacks a Blue Marlin or Swordfish. From the start right out of the womb it hunts down prey and kills it in the same manner as it will when it's a full sized adult. That's really pretty amazing. Both Mako's and Whites are decedents of the 370 million year old Cladoselache shark, but the mako with it's wide keel, more symmetrical tail and longer streamlined body is closer to, or better yet is more likely to have had similar behavior patterns to the Cladoselache as it was a high speed hunter. Lamniformes or mackeral sharks: Makos, Whites, Salmon sharks have been around relatively unchanged for a 100 million years. Natural selection has refined them into perfect creatures for their biological niche. |
We used to call lil makos bonito sharks back in the 70's. We used to see quite a few of them.
|
Quote:
i want one! |
Quote:
|
screw that guy for killing that seal eating machine for fame. I have no respect for loser. Harvesting anything for food is fine by me, even calico's....
but to kill just to kill... lame -Nic |
Quote:
X2 Nic!!!! |
Jim you pull that thing out when the super models come over?:eek:
It looks like you can throw it away now..... what other dried mummified specimens do you have locked up in that garage of yours? http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/i/20...ke-d40fizp.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't know what kind of sick games you play tony, and i do not want to ask why you have Matt aka as (stinkymatt) tied in duck tape. :D BTW: i think he likes it |
Quote:
|
2 Attachment(s)
big mako for sure. that would be one helluva fight from shore.
I'm not so sure about them being as vicious as you portray. the largest i've seen caught from shore was about 10'6" and the bait was dropped in 20ft of water (350yards from shore). right around the beginning of spring break and there were no sharks attacks in the area, even with 8 mako's over 9ft landed from the beach. about half a dozen spotted each month through spring by the kayakers and again, no attacks. I've said it before, that i don't keep big fish, just what i want to eat. But if i did get a grander, it would probably be drug up the beach and carted home. |
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
ps: this is my 500th post. do I get an award? :) |
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
|
Holy crap! I'm out of popcorn!!
|
Everybody's doing a good job :D
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 2002 Big Water's Edge. All rights reserved.