Record Shark

[Hooked on Fish]

Hammerhead

5 Hour fight?

[Chrome Bumper]

Another one bites the dust. 25# stingray for bait!

[red willie]

it will never make sence to me why they KILL sharks like that..

the top of the food chain need not choped off, just for the fun & record of it..

just my

rw

[greenbuttskunk]

yep, great looking shark, but I too wish it still swam.
The loss of apex predators is not a good thing.

[El-Kabong]

check out this for additional information

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12977325/

seems he has spent the last 10 years trying to kill very large sharks.

[JustCallMeDave]

"Although we are thankful that the fisherman gave this unique specimen to Mote, and we are learning a lot about this species from this large female shark, we were saddened to see so many unborn pups inside her so close to birth," said Dr. Robert Hueter, director of Mote's Center for Shark Research.

"We ask fishermen not to kill sharks for sport and to remember that shark populations have been severely depleted by overfishing. Very large sharks like this hammerhead are often pregnant females that help maintain the status of the species' population into the future. We advocate release of these large sharks and the tagging of them.

[OldRedSled]

I was a commercial shark fisherman in Hawaii and we got a tiger bigger than that. Our's bent the 1 ton boom we used to haul in.
We tried to report it but no one ever came to see it

[Hooked on Fish]

[goodie]

The guys that I spearfished with had seen them. Although I never had.

[eyeFISH]

:depressed: :depressed: :depressed:

[Reelentless]

Did he do anything illegal? If not, then who are we to judge him?

If I catch a record sized Halibut, I'd be VERY tempted to keep it. Even though I realize they aren't that great to eat and these hens produce thousands of eggs.

The way I see, if its legal to catch them, it was his choice not to cut it off. I may have made a different choice, but that doesn't make me right and him wrong. I blame the state for not protecting them.

[postman]

Is it legal? Yes
Is it ethical?

[IDWITHELD]

Sharks eat seals and sea lions.
I like sharks.

[red willie]

[thintwinspinners]

Should have realeased it!

[FishNFoe]

Should have released it ALL DAY LONG!
yesh!! its not like he is going to eat it or use it properly....probably ended up as dog food or trash can filler =/

[Fish Mode]

He said it isn't fair to criticize him because other anglers catch pregnant fish.

"They do it every single day. I just got a lot of attention for it," he said. "I didn't know she was pregnant. All I saw was a big fish."

SAD man... ! we now have red-necks in florida!

[wildthing]

Sharks eat seals and sea lions.
I like sharks.

It is a shame that they kill those big sharks like that. anyone ever watch that shark hunting tourney on OLN? they constantly kill those 500+pound sharks, and many of them ancient fish.

[OldRedSled]

Hooked,


There are a ton of tigers out there. We used to pull them right off the surf infront of the Hilton Hotel. They got really mad at us so we started dragging them out to see before hoisting them up. I wind surfed right off that beach too, never bothered me.... i dont look like a tuna head..

[Hooked on Fish]

Red Sled, I knew it! That was my first time to ever eat sushimi. With my breath smelling like fresh tuna I'm lucky I wasn't mistaken for dinner.

As to the record shark, far as I know it was legal game, taken with legal gear, by a legal fisherman. Good for him!

[Fishingfanatic]

whats the difference in this guy catching a 1200 lb pregnant shark and us catching 1000's of huge pregnant Salmon every year? Seems very hypocritical if you ask me.

[STGRule]

Actually not. Salmon spawn once and die at about 3-5 years of age. They release thousands of eggs. They evolved to do this as they are a prey species. They are made to be eaten by higher predators.

Sharks give birth/deposit egg cases only every few years and only at about the rate that keeps the species population stable. And are old when they do it.

It's the same as comparing chicken and human reproduction. One is based as a prey and one is based as an apex predator.

[wayout]

So if I was fishing legally for a world record fish and I was fortunate enough to hook the world record, then play by all the IGFA rules and finally land the world record after a 5 hour fight, would I let it go and forego the record I was seeking? No way! Record fish are caught very, very rarely.

But I guess its a new millenium now. We'll probably have to have Hemingway's heirs re-write The Old Man and the Sea, so the old man is met by a bunch of PETA-types when he finally gets to the beach. I can see it now, the old man is berated and chastised on the beach by the PETA crowd for catching and killing that magnificent fish, then dissed by more ethical fisher people than he on the internet. Soon his epic struggle has made him a pariah. Finally in desperation he takes his little boat back to sea, jumps overboard and is eaten by a huge hammerhead shark.

[STGRule]

What do you think the mind-set of individuals fishing the Columbia River in the early 1900's if you told them that their lawful, legal sturgeon fishing was going to crash the population in just a few years and that it would take 50 years for it to recover to the point that a highly regulated fishery could once again happen? What do you think they might say to you about that?

How about if the people that built Grand Coulee Dam had done the ethical, moral thing instead of the legal thing? We might still have 80-90lb. June Hogs running up the Columbia right about now.

[JustCallMeDave]

Please, do not introduce logic and forethought into this debate, STG. It has no place amongst bravado.

[Chrome Bumper]

Shark bad, must kill .

[foxer]

Who cares if you caught a record shark? So u get ur picture in a local paper. Catch it, take a picute and cut it loose.

[Hooked on Fish]

What do you think the mind-set of individuals fishing the Columbia River in the early 1900's if you told them that their lawful, legal sturgeon fishing was going to crash the population in just a few years and that it would take 50 years for it to recover to the point that a highly regulated fishery could once again happen? What do you think they might say to you about that?

How about if the people that built Grand Coulee Dam had done the ethical, moral thing instead of the legal thing? We might still have 80-90lb. June Hogs running up the Columbia right about now.

My intention is not to get the "mod squad" all up in arms, and I thought I did a nice job of introducing "law" into the thread which I assumed is based upon logic, by stating he was a legal fisherman, using legal tackle, etc.

To begin with, is it "logical" to assume that by catching big sharks we're "crashing" the population? I honestly don't know but I trust the scientist and policiy makers in our fish and game departments to assess impacts and make a call that is good for the wild game and the public.

Case in point, I think they've done a fine job of protecting sea lions and managed their numbers effectively. Wouldn't it be logical to assume they're doing the same with sharks? :grin:

Of course I'm being a wiseacre here.

I must admit, it confounds and mystifies me how smart and knowledgeable folks can wail about the legal taking of a shark, or any legal beast. Our legacy is to be good and responsible stewards for our natural resources. Part of this legacy is to teach our children to hunt and fish. Part of hunting and fishing is to seek out the largest. I suspect practice of targeting the largest specimen dates back to the beginning of time. This is why we have game departments to assist our society in managing this resource.

Please don’t mistake me for being heartless or disrespectful. Yes, I cried the first time I saw Old Yeller. Yes, I was sad to see Bambie’s daddy get shot. But, I gotta tell you, the back strap was mighty tasty on that monster buck and I’m proud to have his rack on my wall.

It was a monster "LEGAL" shark. Again, nice job and wish I could land one like that. :grin:

[JustCallMeDave]

My intention is not to get the "mod squad" all up in arms

Please set aside the fact that Ruth and I are moderators of ifish and accept that before that happened we were anglers, and in her sake she's also a biologist. We both care deeply about the many different species of fish that inhabit our big blue marble, and while we enjoy harvesting species that can sustain that harvest we also have justifiable concern for species that might not be able to.

Here's a quote from the Florida Museum of Natural History's Shark Department:

In the US, hammerheads (with the exception of the bonnethead which is a small coastal species) are grouped with large coastal species, a group that biologist consider to be one of the most vulnerable to overfishing. Although not a targeted species, this hammerhead is taken by gillnet and longline and as bycatch in driftnet fisheries. Mortality is likely to be significant although little data is available on populations and fishing impact. Different species of hammerheads are sometimes difficult to identify in high seas fisheries where observers are often not present, resulting in insufficient bycatch data.

Currently, the great hammerhead is considered to be "Data Deficient" throughout its range, with the exception of Australia where it is considered "Least Concern" by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). The IUCN is a global union of states, governmental agencies, and non-governmental organizations in a partnership that assesses the conservation status of species. A listing of "Data Deficient" is assigned when there is inadequate information to make an assessment of the risk of extinction based on distribution and/or population status. More information is needed to make an accurate assessment of the status of this species.

In a nutshell, they don't know how many are out there so they can't make a determination as to if the are a threatened species. They may be, they may not be. Why not err on the side of conservation, just in case?

As for the size of the fish, remember that there's something about that big girl that let her get that big. Just age? Maybe. Genetics? Quite possibly. We're better off as a planet letting her give us many babies for years to come than we are writing a guys name and some numbers in a book somewhere.

The species as a whole is more important than his ego, no matter what he may tell you.

[STGRule]

Mod hat (currently a Blue Meanie model ) taken off:

My point was just to make us think a bit. I feel like there is a difference between something being legal and being not illegal. One has had a process and one hasn't. Laws a made for when ethics and morals fail. You are correct that that fish was legally killed. In hindsight so were many other animals on this earth that are no longer here.

I just finished ageing some sturgeon pectoral fin spines that were recovered from a midden site on the lower Columbia River. The bones that I got to hold in my hand were 500+ years in the ground. I was given some journal articles to read about fish importance in native cultures gleaned from different archeological site around the Northwest. The coolest one was about the Roadcut site in The Dalles. There is evidence of human/salmon/sturgeon/cormorant/pinneped interaction that dates back about 9000 years! Nine THOUSAND years . And modern man has managed to wipe out a lot of things in a couple hundred years. All legally.

In the end, my point is to try to think beyond today and tomorrow and think truly into the future. And maybe not have to wait for “somebody” to tell us not to, but for us to figure it out before there is a problem.

[Reelentless]

And my point is that we shouldn't be condemning someone for doing something we don't agree with because it doesn't meet our ethical "standard". As I said in my first post, I may have chosen to cut it loose because I don't have any use for it and I think its better off alive. But I think its absurd to criticize someone for not doing what I would have done. Who am I to say what is right and what is not? If I want to point the dirty end of the stick at someone, I'd point it at the people who are supposed to be protecting these species if they do indeed need to be protected.

The ethical standard I hold myself to and think everyone else should be held to is the law. Laws are created for a reason by people who are more educated about the subject than I am. And as long as someone is doing something legal, I am not going to be critical of the person. I might not agree with the law, however, and thats where I would focus my attention.

[Pete]

The law is often the lowest level of acceptable behavior. Ethical behavior is often a higher level. It is legal to hold trout out of the water for a picture, but if the fish is going to be released, the exposure to air will significantly increase the likelihood of death. That makes the legal act unethical. Harming our natural heritage, even if it's legal, isn't ethical. Similarly, there are critical social issues which also touch on this topic. I won't introduce them, as they'd side track this discussion, but think about issues the Supreme Court and Congress wrestle with regularly ... the law is often a compromise which reflects the lowest common denominator among differing ethical standards.

[Reelentless]

Well maybe we shouldn't have been fishing for them (or fishing where they exist) in the first place.

And pulling the fish out of the water might not be ethical to you, but why is your standard the "right" one? PETA thinks we shouldn't fish at all so they have a much higher standard than either you or I.

A line has been drawn in the sand that sets the standard we all need to live by. If your standard happens to be higher than mine, good for you. But don't expect everyone to live by it. If you feel the standard it too low, work on changing the law so the line in the sand can be changed.

[Pete]

I never said my standard was right for everyone. I do what I feel is right for me. There are parts of the country where it's considered inappropriate to fish for anything one doesn't intend to keep and eat. That's the difficult part of ethics - there is often disagreement about it, since different people have different understandings and different situations and that's why the law creates a floor, not a line in the sand.

[MPT]

It compares to targeting oversize sturgeon! :depressed:

[Hooked on Fish]

Now that Pete has entered the fray that makes it a "Mod-pile" :grin:

I spent an hour this morning Googling the topic of hammerheads just so I could make a counter argumet based upon the premise of iffy population reserearch. Why? Basically just to be bull-headed. I'll most likely not be fishing for sharks or any other big fish in the big blue. However, I discovered multiple scientific groups and groups of fishermen agree the populations of hammerhead have declined by up to 89% over the past 20 years. Obviously, someone needs to get the law modified.

However, it remains legal for now and I say well done to the fisermen.

Guess you could say my opinion has been partially "Modified" :grin: :grin:

[Pete]

0

[Thumper]

It compares to targeting oversize sturgeon! :depressed:

Based on STG's objectives, I have to agree. I do not understand the "ethics" of hassling these fish.

But then again, I did it many years ago, and it was kinda fun. :whazzup:

[OldRedSled]

hammer-heads are in trouble becuase they, like blues, cross commerical long liners and such allot.

Perhaps they were targeting A Thresher, or Mako, blue water sharks that are good to eat. Or Possibly that monster wandered up onto the reefs where they were targeting tigers (again a yummy shark).

Anyhow unless it's not illegal; the ethics are only debated on the internet and at bars where a great the line "your a poo-poo head usually wins the day.

[Elkhunter]

Strange to see a MOD put others down? Insults are insults!

[JustCallMeDave]

Strange to see a MOD put others down? Insults are insults!

I'm sorry, would you be so kind as to alert the infraction with an explanation? I don't see it, but maybe other mods will.

[Elkhunter]

Please, do not introduce logic and forethought into this debate, STG. It has no place amongst bravado.

That's offensive!

[PapaHog]

That's offensive!

I don't see it that way. Facts are sometimes mistaken for insults. I don't see any insults here.

[sandman]

Very offensive,can't we all just get along

[Hooked on Fish]

Elkhunter, I'll tell you something that's not offensive. That antelope you cooked up a couple of weeks ago was so dang good I'd like to do it again. Dang that was good meat!

I think one of the toughest things on Gods green earth to be is an ifish moderator. ifish has pretty high standards, and I don't mind a bit that the mod's hold us to these standards, it is what it is. But when a mod jumps into any discussion we tend to be hyper-sensitive and hold the mods to the highest standard possible. There was a time when I would have been offended by JCMD's statement but that was before I new that there is much to learn from the "back and forth" discussion. Also how can I be offended after I saw his car. :grin:

Give me a minute and I'm going to add it here.

[PapaHog]

I suppose I should not enter into this debate. But it seems curious to me why someone with higher ethics should be attacked for their ethics.

Because my ethics believes it is wrong to kill this big fish just for the sake of killing does not make it illegal. Yet some would attack me because of my ethics.

Environmental laws are set to some degree at he lowest ethical point that society will allow us to destroy our planet. Sportsmen and women with higher ethics need not be bashed because of the higher ethical standards.

On the contrary they should be appreciated.

[Jennie@ifish]

I so not much like this when the mods do this to me!
I'm the only "mod" left around to moderate.
Once a mod steps in it, (plays in the debate) then they give up their right to moderate.

Someone... HELP ME!!!! :shocked:



Maybe I'll just hide. Here, Kilchis! We are going to the river!

Jen

[STGRule]

Go for a walk Jen. There isn't anything to moderate here. I think it's going along just fine. It's hard to debate ethics without getting into an argument, but it seems like we are doing okay so far.

[Hooked on Fish]

Go for a walk Jen. There isn't anything to moderate here. I think it's going along just fine. It's hard to debate ethics without getting into an argument, but it seems like we are doing okay so far.

I don't know STGrule. Now that sandman is also upset we could all be in trouble when you get him and Elkhunter going. :grin: I'd say you've got to be tough and quick working with sturgeon all day. But now you're getting the antelope hunters fired up. They can be a mite cagey. :grin:

[steelhead22]

Our legacy is to be good and responsible stewards for our natural resources.

And we've been doing such a GREAT job of that.

[husker]

LOL.....

[Hooked on Fish]

[JustCallMeDave]

That's offensive!

If I had directed a comment to someone saying "Please, do not introduce logic and forethought into this debate, STG. Pete's being a knucklehead" then it would be an AUP violation because I attacked someone. My post didn't attack anyone specifically. Instead, it identified the general mentality that would choose to kill a magnificent specimen like this for the sake of writing on a paper instead of looking at the bigger picture and recognizing that this big girl was more valuable to us alive rather than dead. This is acceptable within the Acceptable Use Policy of ifish.net. Trust me. I'm a pro at this.

And don't worry about sandman. I'm sure that he can catch a bus to a place which will make him happy again.

[Fishin Magician]

Just because I would have released that fish doesnt make me right and the guy that keeps it wrong. In our world we are afforded choices and we each need to live with our choices. Ethics are legalities are at times polar opposites, but like someone else said, Do what you feel is right and rest with an easy conscience. I do what I feel is right and am good with that.....

[crabbait]

JCMD is correct. The comment could have been offensive/inflammatory if it had been aimed at an individual. It was not.

Of course, anyone who found the comment offensive may be reacting to the fact that they were slinging a little bravado.

[wayout]

Wow. I've been out fishing all day and missed all the fun on the internet. You know right there on the bank I found a compass. Someone must have dropped it. Picked it up, turned it over and it had a label imprinted "Pat Pending 1947, Moral Co." No-one was nearby, and I'd been looking for a Moral Compass for years, so I stuck it in my pocket and scuttled on home before the owner came back looking for it. Now I won't need to be told on the internet what's right and wrong, ethical, more ethical, least ethical or whatever. Won't need to be checking in on any internet boards. No sir! I'll just pull out my Moral Compass and know just what to do in any situation. Here are a few of the answers its given me so far on the shark debate:

Sharks...No bait. Barbless hooks. Only on a dry fly. Always hooks em in the lip. Catch and release only. Must use a hemostat to remove the hook while keeping the beast in the water at all times, even if the critter tries to come on board with you. Keep several extra hemostats on hand to clamp off severed arteries in case of loss of hand in the hook removal process.

Seriously, yes indeed hunters and fishers have been the cause of animal population declines and even extinctions. Yes, fish and game management agencies have allowed this to happen. They've allowed overharvest many, many times on many, many species around the world. Sometimes they've even allowed populations to be hunted to extinction - Passenger pigeon springs to mind. Maybe even worse than allowing overharvest, they've actively introduced non-native species to places they don't belong...shad, striped bass on the West coast were introduced by the old Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Carp, too, if memory serves. These agencies seem to love to tinker with the ecosystem this way. Among the worst things fish and game agencies have done is being complicit in allowing things like Grand Coulee Dam...removing an incredible amount of salmon habitat forever and destroying fabulous stocks of salmon...but at the same time creating some jobs for biologists at fish hatcheries...what a travesty! The habitat blocking, destruction, and degradation allowed by these agencies charged with protecting our natural resources, coupled with the overharvest they've allowed, and the introduction of predators and competitors (as well as parasites and disease organisms) by these agencies, does NOT give me much if any confidence that they've got a handle on things or would do the right thing for the resource if they did. The agencies regulating our natural resources can and should do much better. It's their job to set the rules for us to live by when we fish or hunt. It's not an easy job by any means but somebody's gotta do it. We all get the chance to second guess them, and we do it all the time...increase the limit, decrease the limit, change the minimum size, open the season, close the season, put the nets in, get the nets out, no bait fishing, catch and release, barbless hooks, etc. Many of the decisions, and ensuing regulations are in reality political, not biological decisions. I mean, really...why should there be such a thing as a flyfishing only stretch of river on the Kalama?...its to satisfy a certain political faction - flyfishers, to the exclusion of other political factions - bait and gear fishers. This wasn't a biologically-based decision, it was political. So as my granddaughter says...you get what you get, and you don't throw a fit. We get imperfect resource management from our resource management agencies. Does that mean we have to take fish and wildlife management into our own hands? Maybe so. I know I once went after oversize sturgeon, but now I don't since I've learned the oversized fish are all females that don't spawn every year, and they may resorb their eggs after the stress of being hooked and fought to exhaustion. I admire the bill fishermen who do their tournaments with tag and release these days. I think that's great. But on the other hand if I'm at the dock at Kona and someone comes in with a marlin they've killed, I don't dis them, I congratulate them. They caught a legal fish, and are rightly proud of their accomplishment so I'm right there with them. Way to go! Great fish! Same deal with the shark fisherman. Way to go! Congratulations! I don't fish for records, but some people do this. I'm fine with those folks who want to get line class records and put their name in a book. Way to go! Congratulations to them too! Same deal with the oversize sturgeon fisher who brings a 10 footer to the boat...Way to go! Congratulations! I might believe targeting these fish should be illegal, but its not. IMHO Way to go! Congratulations! is the only thing to say to a fisher who legally takes a big fish.

Like Mom used to say...If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. My newly found Moral Compass agrees that's how we ought to deal with successful fishers who haven't violated any laws. Hmmmm. Maybe that's a good idea for ifishers too (mods or not). Naaaaa! What fun would that be! Maybe I'll just take that Moral Compass back where I found it. The doggone thing's starting to crimp my style. :grin:

[PapaHog]

"Pat Pending 1947, Moral Co."

[timinthegorge]

yes indeed hunters and fishers have been the cause of animal population declines and even extinctions. Yes, fish and game management agencies have allowed this to happen. They've allowed overharvest many, many times on many, many species around the world. Sometimes they've even allowed populations to be hunted to extinction - Passenger pigeon springs to mind.

Uh, I don't think this should be a "blame the regulators" thread. This isn't even about fishing or hunting...

It's about limited resources in the face of ever-expanding, and non-sustainable human population growth. Let your individual philosophy ponder or ignore that fact.

And that's not under any cloud of uncertainty... But then I appreciate and rely on (uncertain) science, and not so much on (certain) religious dogma.

And if I've offended anyone, I apologize in advance.

Tim

[FreeDrifter1]

Well said Timinthegorge

[wayout]

Timinthegorge, Not about fishing?? Guess I made a wrong turn. Thought that's what this board was all about. Still your point about our growing population and resultant impacts on other species I agree with (I think). If I recall this all started with a big fish being caught. A few people said Way to go, but then others jumped on the fisherman as an unethical fellow who should have let the fish go. Some chimed in on the side of the fisherman and some on the side of the shark. Some got a little aggressive that they were more logical than others. Some thought that was insulting or offensive. Some said legal wasn't good enough for them. Needed to be more ethical. What fun! Sorry if I went the long way round to get to my point. Maybe you missed it since it was near the end. Something about If you can't say anything nice... The references to Grand Coulee and the regulators partly addresses a post by STG Rule from last night - something about the mentality of doing the legal thing and wiping out fish stocks. I'm acknowledging that the legal thing isn't necessarily the best thing to do, but its still legal so I don't complain about people doing legal things.

No worries, Tim. It's not possible to offend me. Too dense.

The ethics class may now continue.