Big Bigger Biggest

[dos ballenas]

Originally Posted by Fiskadoro

Should be pretty maxed out. They live for thirty years give or take a year so it was probably close to if not over thirty. Sharks grow their entire lifetime in fact they age them by checking the growth rings like tree rings in their spine. Since it was the largest ever taken it's probably one of the oldest and wasn't going to around much longer.

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.

Are you kidding Jim?

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.

[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