|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forum | Online Store | Information | LJ Webcam | Gallery | Register | FAQ | Community | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
10-10-2013, 04:35 PM
|
#1 |
|
#1 on fishstick's hitlist
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sea level
Posts: 1,478
|
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.
__________________
MLPA- My Largest Poaching Area 
|
|
|
10-11-2013, 09:28 AM
|
#2 |
|
Vampyroteuthis infernalis
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 585
|
__________________
____________________________________________ |
|
|
|
10-11-2013, 04:24 PM
|
#3 | |
|
.......
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,509
|
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. Last edited by Fiskadoro; 10-11-2013 at 05:11 PM. |
|
|
|
|
10-11-2013, 06:43 PM
|
#4 | |
|
Vampyroteuthis infernalis
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 585
|
Quote:
ps: this is my 500th post. do I get an award? 
__________________
____________________________________________ |
|
|
|
|
10-11-2013, 09:45 PM
|
#5 | |||
|
.......
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,509
|
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:
Last edited by Fiskadoro; 10-12-2013 at 08:08 AM. |
|||
|
|
|
10-11-2013, 09:48 PM
|
#6 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,856
|
Holy crap! I'm out of popcorn!!
__________________
 www.facebook.com/Teamsewer |
|
|
|
10-12-2013, 06:49 AM
|
#7 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Otay
Posts: 704
|
Everybody's doing a good job
|
|
|
|
10-12-2013, 08:53 AM
|
#8 | |
|
.......
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,509
|
Quote:
I'm sure I've told you that I grew up fishing sharks from shore in the Gulf. I started fishing them in the early seventies with senators and dacron. What I probably never told you though is that we never caught any Makos at all, I never even saw one till I came out here. We caught Tigers, Bulls, scalloped and Greater Hammerheads, Lemons, Blacktips all the Coastal species both large and small but we never got Shortfin Mako's. The only Makos I heard about were all caught well offshore usually a hundred miles or more. They didn't even come into the rigs back then. The first one I heard of caught in the surf was taken in the late 90s and when I was told about it my first reaction was that had to be total bullshit story. Now I'm starting to think that possibly so many of the large coastal sharks were commercially overfished that it left essentially an opening for more Makos to move in and take advantage of inshore feeding grounds closer to shore. What's interesting also is the time of year. You're talking about catching them in March? When I fished the Gulf we mainly caught large sharks between May and October but Tigers, Hammers and the really big ones never showed up until water cleared up and got warmer in June. What was the water temp when you caught those Makos? Sounds like they are coming through before the water warms up. Though the same species your Florida Makos and our California Makos probably have some pretty different habits due to what they feed on. We have large numbers of seals you don't so your larger Makos are most likely feeding almost exclusively on fish. The Islands here are surrounded by deep water, yours are in shallows and surrounded by reefs. There is also a greater diversity of fish inshore in the gulf which is why it's traditionally had a huge coastal shark population of large sharks that we just do not have out here. So your dealing with pretty different conditions, and maybe a different behavior set in response to them. I'd love to catch a big Mako in the surf, but I wouldn't want to swim around one. Tigers used to scare the shit out me when I saw them shallow, but I'd pretty scared to be swimming around larger makos as well. At least Tigers move pretty slow compared to Makos... ha ha Greats stuff I envy you.
Last edited by Fiskadoro; 10-12-2013 at 09:25 AM. |
|
|
|
|
10-12-2013, 09:06 AM
|
#9 |
|
Fishing Addict
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange County
Posts: 202
|
Not that many seals here? Someone hasn't been to the Coronado islands haha
|
|
|
|
10-12-2013, 09:21 AM
|
#10 | |
|
.......
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,509
|
Quote:
The Atlantic Coast seals are mostly up north, I think they are like a cold water harbor seal or maybe a fur seal but they hardly ever make it down to Florida or the Gulf. They once had a warm water seal in Florida the Caribbean Monk Seal but they are gone and the species is now pretty close to extinction or already extinct. California Sea lion population has exploded, you should see Santa Barbara Island it's disgusting with them, they are destroying the island, but the Atlantic and Florida doesn't have a warm water species like our sea lion. Last edited by Fiskadoro; 10-12-2013 at 09:30 AM. |
|
|
|
|
10-12-2013, 10:13 AM
|
#11 |
|
#1 on fishstick's hitlist
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sea level
Posts: 1,478
|
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*.
the pics posted are not mine but a couple of local guys. i tangled with two and lost both. one after a few jumps and the other only a couple hundred feet from the sand. very disappointing. the last Mako i know of landed this year was during the Big Hammer challenge and if i recall the temps were low 70's on top and we still had a cool current running west on the bottom. but, there have been a couple sightings during the last 6 weeks.
__________________
MLPA- My Largest Poaching Area
|
|
|
|
10-15-2013, 06:32 AM
|
#12 | ||
|
.......
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,509
|
Quote:
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:
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.
Last edited by Fiskadoro; 10-15-2013 at 02:33 PM. |
||
|
|
|
10-15-2013, 07:51 AM
|
#13 |
|
Emperor
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Buena Park
Posts: 3,649
|
Here's a couple of my favorite quotes..."there's nothing colder than yesterday's hot dog".
"you ever been in a cockpit before?", "you ever seen a grown man naked?" [Airplane] "Here at globo-jim, were better than you and we know it!" [Dodgeball]
__________________
There's nothing colder than yesterday's hotdog. Last edited by ful-rac; 10-15-2013 at 07:52 AM. Reason: Why not? |
|
|
|
10-15-2013, 11:48 AM
|
#14 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: SAN DIEGO
Posts: 1,086
|
"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"
This Mako flew 25ft off the water! I say this thing had a lot fuel left. http://www.itechpost.com/articles/10...rld-record.htm |
|
|
|
10-15-2013, 10:07 AM
|
#15 |
|
Team Keine Zugehörigkeit
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Way out there
Posts: 2,854
|
So did it make it? I have not seen anything on the IGFA website yet?
mako!.jpg mako 2!.jpg ce6c943c-3fec-4994-8f24-3793ccff7f63.jpg
__________________
 Não alimente os trolls------------Don't feed the trolls---------------インタネット荒らしを無視しろ 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
