Big Bigger Biggest

[wiredantz]

Originally Posted by Dim Jay

That fish is obviously not a Mako. It is clearly a Great White. The internet told me so.

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

whatever the case maybe, if im on a kayak and i see a huge DORSAL FIN.... Im out!

[Fiskadoro]

Originally Posted by dos ballenas

Are you kidding Jim? .... age and growth rates of mako sharks are yet to be validated..... 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.

Hell I'm no expert just opinionated

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.




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

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

[wiredantz]

Originally Posted by Fiskadoro

Hell I'm no expert just opinionated

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.




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.

My take was it had to be fresh out of it's mother. So the question in my mind is if the females loose their desire to feed when they are in their 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

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

that picture is pretty cool

[Fiskadoro]

Originally Posted by wiredantz

that picture is pretty cool

Thanks!!!

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.

[kareem korn]

We used to call lil makos bonito sharks back in the 70's. We used to see quite a few of them.

[wiredantz]

Originally Posted by Fiskadoro

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. The teeth are in the same pattern and razor sharp. I never seen one even close to that size.

dude you have it frozen!



i want one!

[CalicoCody]

Originally Posted by Fiskadoro

Hell I'm no expert just opinionated

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.




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

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

..... BABY KILLER!

[Nic D]

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

[driftwood]

Originally Posted by Tamarack Studios

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

X2 Nic!!!!

[ful-rac]

Jim you pull that thing out when the super models come over?

It looks like you can throw it away now.....


what other dried mummified specimens do you have locked up in that garage of yours?

[Fiskadoro]

Originally Posted by ful-rac

Jim you pull that thing out when the super models come over?

I always pull it out when super models come over!!!! The chicks dig it

[wiredantz]

Originally Posted by ful-rac

Jim you pull that thing out when the super models come over?

It looks like you can throw it away now.....


what other dried mummified specimens do you have locked up in that garage of yours?

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.


BTW: i think he likes it

[Fiskadoro]

Originally Posted by wiredantz

I don't know what kind of sick games you play

[lowprofile]

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.

[dos ballenas]

[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