Shark Links: 2010

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Dolphin Safe Tuna

What is it good for? Absolutely nothing except for dolphins and their egos. If you want to get a head start on your reading, check out this article by Southern Fried Science: Dolphin-Safe Tuna: Conservation Success Story or Ecological Disaster?

If you do not know the story, many people were angered that tuna fishermen were killing dolphins. Many people urged them to do something about the number of dolphins killed, and eventually Dolphin-Safe Tuna was formed. That tuna is certified to not harm dolphins. The Dolphin sets find tuna where dolphins are whereas the Log sets and School sets find tuna using a floating object or locating them from a spotter plane. As SFS says:
If you do the math on this... you find that one saved dolphin costs 25,824 small tuna, 382 mahi-mahi, 188 wahoo, 82 yellowtail and other large fish, 27 sharks and rays, 1 billfish, 1,193 triggerfish and other small fish, and 0.06 sea turtles.
The main point of this is that the dolphins that people are protecting are causing even more lives to be lost. While the debate could go on about the relative value of a dolphin versus a billfish, there are more things to consider. Dolphins are not that endangered. The main species are either Data Deficient or Least Concern while many species that are killed because of Dolphin-Safe Tuna are threatened with extinction.

So, what does this have to do with sharks? Many of the species of shark that are caught because of Dolphin-Safe Tuna are threatened while dolphins and their egos are not. I hope this image will clear things up:

To end, I would like to thank Chuck for his plug on Shark Links:
Speaking of new blogs and links, those of who have missed the sharks and snark of The Chum Slick should check out Shark Links for shark news and occasionally NSFW commentary.
 If you would like to, check out Southern Fried Science and their blog Ya Like Dags?

---> Calvin Requin <---

---> Calvin Requin <---

Invasive Procedures

I was asked about this show by a certain Mr. B, and as I remember what the show was about, I remember the post by Sharky on the more-than-admittedly-sick Chum Slick. If you did not catch this show, it is no other than "Expedition Great White" on National Geographic. Below are some of the images from The Chum Slick on the show.

Should a hook like this be used?

Let's get to our "Battle Stations".
See that blood? That's normal.
This does happen to be an invasive procedure.
This is also an invasive procedure.
This research project is intended to understand sharks more by "[Catching] adult great whites, bring them on board their vessel, take DNA and blood samples and attach the most sophisticated tracking devices before setting them free." Pretty cool, right? Nope.
The subject of controversy is the way these sharks are brought on board of their vessel. The first thing they do is hook a shark using no other than a hook and bait. After the shark is tired out over a period of time, they bring it to the "shark elevator" which consists of a wood platform on the side of their boat. After the shark is raised out of the water it is sampled. The only thing left after that is to lower the elevator and let the shark go. Pretty safe, right? Nope.
There are many reasons why I do not like this type of research on great whites. For one, there is a huge risk associated with tiring out these animals. When these animals fight against being caught for a long period of time, they consume an extraordinary amount of energy. If you are aware, you will know that swimming and catching prey consumes energy. When the energy reserves of a shark are depleted to a certain level, they may not be able to replenish that energy if they do not have any energy to feed. It would be like sprinting ten miles out into the desert and find out that the nearest place to eat is a mile away from you. That would be the reason why catch-and-release is so dangerous for these animals. I also have a problem with the time that the shark is out of the water and how it is treated. It should take less than five minutes to perform this procedure, not tens of minutes or more. While Mr. Domeier refutes the possibility that these animals could be injured as a result of being held down on a hard wood surface, I think that these animals probably should not be taken out of the water. Physics is a little different underwater.

If you would like, you can check out the Q&A with Mr. Domeier.

On the National Geographic website for the show, there is the quote:
Captain Brett McBride, Dr. Michael Domeier and crew members, David Olson and John Reed attach a tracking antenna to the dorsal fin of a great white shark. This allows them to follow the patterns of how they live, die and mate.
I can pretty accurately depict how they live, die, and mate from this show. They live ordinary lives until they are caught and prodded by these amateurs, slowly die because of it, and mate with their claspers and cloacas.

Are their tails supposed to bend like that?

If you would like to, you can play the Expedition Great White Game. It consists of bad programming, bad graphics, and a very unrealistic depiction of what actually happens.

If this kind of treatment a critically endangered species should endure is professional, I am not impressed.

---> Calvin Requin <---

---> Calvin Requin <---

Monday, November 8, 2010

Another Asshole "Fisherman"--Another Asshole Journalist

'We're gonna need a bigger boat'. 'We are going to use colloquial language'. 'We are going to sensationalize a mundane story so you can fear everything'. 'We are going to do what every other news does'. 'We're gonna need to make a reference to a fictional movie'. What am I talking about? This: 'We're gonna need a bigger boat'... Angler lands biggest ever blue shark caught in British waters

It really does look like he should have his atrophied dick attempting to come out of that rod holder. Is not that the purpose of a rod holder? Well, he looks like he's trying to rape this innocent animal after he probably killed it. Apparently necrophilia is desirable among people who like to kill innocent animals for sport.
  Naturally, here's the text of the poorly-written article:
Angler Wayne Little defied his name to land the biggest blue shark ever caught in British waters. Wayne, 41, landed the monster shark which measured 8ft in length and weighed a mighty 222lbs after a 50 minute battle. It beat the previous biggest catch by 4lbs - a record that has stood for 49 years and should raise a few eyebrows to the growing number of people wanting to swim the channel. In 2009 there were 13 attacks on humans by blue sharks resulting in four deaths - a mortality rate of 30 per cent and is greater than any other shark. Dorset angler Wayne Little (left) and Skipper of the Whitewater Andrew Allsop hold the monster 8ft Blue shark. But despite his achievement the awesome fish cannot be officially recognised as a record - because Wayne didn't kill it. Controversial rules by the British Records Fish Committee stipulate that any record fish must be weighed on a quayside or bank in order for it to be considered. Wayne, from Blandford, Dorset, used a trusted formula of measuring the length and girth of the fish to calculate its weight before throwing it back safe and well. The angling community has largely accepted Wayne's catch as the biggest blue shark caught in UK waters as the method used is recognised by the Angling rust. Wayne said: 'I would never kill a fish like that for the sake of a bit of paper telling me I'm the record holder. 'The days of fishermen killing a big sea fish and then dragging it up the quayside onto scales just to claim a record are gone, you can't do that anymore. 'The record authorities need to accept that and change the rules. 'The formula we used is tried and tested and accurate and I know that is the biggest blue shark ever caught in British waters.' Wayne caught the deadly fish during a day's fishing trip 20 miles off Milford Haven, Pembrokeshire. He used a mackerel as bait and a 400lbs line in order to snare the blue shark - scientific name - Prionace glauca. Wayne, who runs a fishery in Milton Abbas, Dorset, said: 'It was quite a gentle bite to start with but then it started messing around with the bait for a bit and I could feel then that it was going to be quite big. 'It took me 50 minutes to reel it in, it was really tiring and my knees were shaking by the end of it. It was a fair old lump. 'It was an awesome sight when it broke the surface and was the biggest fish that I have seen.' Boat skipper Andrew Alsop sat on the head of the shark to prevent it from biting Wayne and his fishing partner Martin Bowler. Wayne and Andrew then held the shark aloft in order to pose for the customery photograph before throwing it back into the water. Andrew, of White Water Charters based at Milford Haven, said: 'It would have been criminal to have killed that shark. There would have been an outcry.' But David Rowe, secretary of the BRFC, said: 'Record fish have to be weighed in a manner that is correct and accurate in order for the credibility of the record books to be retained. 'You can't jeopardise a record list going back 40 years with entries that might be inaccurate. 'At the end of the day it is a moral decision that people have to make based on if they want the record. 'A rule change is high on the agenda of the committee but the situation will still remain the same.'  Blue sharks can grow to 13ft and 400lbs and are found in oceans across the world. The biggest ever shark caught in British waters is a 507lbs porbeagle shark caught in 1993 off Dunnet Head in Scotland.
1: Nobody cares that your name is "Little", although it does describe you fairly well. Anybody could catch a shark of any size. I do not care about the size of your member or catch.
2: "Monster", "Battle", and "deadly" are frequent words used in articles like this... It is getting boring to see industry propaganda over and over.
3: Nobody should ever give a rip about whether or not the catch was a record. The only eyebrows that should be raised over this kind of propaganda should be from the media. They love this sort of sensationalism.
4: We don't want to hear your lame statistics. I doubt that any of them are correct or relevant. By the way, you spelled various words wrong in this article.
5: I'm glad that he may have let the shark go, but I doubt that he did. He can whine all about how he wants the rules changed, but the truth is he just wants to keep up this little game of his.
6: If you do not have respect for the shark, do not make it sound like you are by telling us the scientific name.
7: Sitting on the head of a shark is a fairly good assumption that you should not be messing with these animals and that you are respecting them in no way, shape, or form. This animal was not released happily. I'm sure your pansy-ass legs were trembling as you held up the shark.
8: It probably would not have been a crime to kill the shark, but Andy probably did not want anyone to make a big deal about a little game they want to play so badly.
9: Nobody cares about your statistics. Again, I know that this is article is for the lame, but a science lesson is not needed.

As one commenter put it:
Hearty congratulations on catching ths wonderful specimen. Excellant angling. Congratulations to on the release alive which was really uplifting to read. You and the skipper are are an example to us all. Come on anglers lets all catch and release and help save our sport!! Now where is my shark rod?
Congraturatuns on your wonderful comment, Dave. I'm sure that it was uplifting in a different way for you. So, you guys need to save your sport? Ha! It seems as uplifting as foot-binding to me. Many others commented on how Andrew did not get his head bitten off since the shark was alive and close to him. They claim that the shark must have been dead for them to take this picture. Haven't we seen this before? Ah, yes. The first post I made with a very similar argument, article, and picture.

UPDATE: Here is a picture posted by Sharky a while back:
"Don't Put Sharks Up Your Ass and Don't Put Yourself Up a Shark's Ass." --Sharky referencing shark liver oil in Preparation H and this picture.

---> Calvin Requin <---

---> Calvin Requin <---

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Shark Bigotry Fail

Gabe Raymer, you are the proud recipient of a Bushy, the award for gross stupidity, retardation, double retardation, obviousness, and ignorance.
Sorry, but this blog was not up and running when Gabe received his first Bushy. Here it is. For your lack of logic, consumption of a mixture of cinnamon and water in a chemistry beaker, various boners blunders, breaching of rules, frequent absences without explanation, and last(but absolutely not least), your bigotry against all of our stances on sharks at Shark Links, you have won a Bushy.

Do not worry, that is not it. Gabe is still up for re-nomination for a Bushy which I would like to give out semi-annually. There should be some good competition, though.

FYI, the Bushy is sponsored by Shark Links since The Chum Slick has basically kicked the chum bucket.

---> Calvin Requin <---

---> Calvin Requin <---

More Anti-Shark Pro-Asshole Propaganda

Today I stumbled upon another petition about sharks: Stop the Promotion of Shark Killing as Sport. The petition does not link to the article so I had to find it myself. Here it is on Urban Daddy:
Sharks... It’s a constant debate as to whether they’re lurking in the Bay. But the definitive answer is yes, yes they are. Which means: you need to catch them before they catch you. Cue the Jaws theme song. Fire up the boat. You’re going fishing... Behold Sole Man Fishing, a seafaring outfit at the ready for baiting and hooking sharks in the San Francisco Bay, now taking charters out of Fisherman’s Wharf. Now, if you’re having visions of wrestling gigantic great whites with your bare hands as the sea whips your sturdy craft to and fro, you should know those beasts are rarely seen inside the Golden Gate. But there’s a slew of other prehistoric, big-jawed fish—leopard sharks, giant seven-gills, threshers and soupfins—ready and waiting. And that’s where Captain Don and his trusty deckhand come into play. You and five of your closest angling buddies can charter a 32-footer with an ample fishing deck, onboard grill and even a heated cabin—and head anywhere between SFO, the Golden Gate Bridge and Vallejo. The method for shark fishing isn’t all that different from regular fishing, but for the slightly more powerful fight you might have to get it onboard (hint: a bat comes in handy). Nearly eight out of 10 catches will be leopard sharks, with the occasional seven-gill at the end of your line, so with a per-boat limit of three, you’ll have to choose wisely. But remember, the sharks are probably thinking the same thing...
I'm not one for ripping on innocent people, but this guy is nuts. He should get an honorary Bushy.

First, there is no debate over whether there are sharks in the Bay or not. Second, sharks are unable to "catch" humans. They can rip people to shreds with ease, but they are more respecting of humans. It doesn't always work the other way around. Third, Jaws was a fictional book and movie. Fourth, I agree, fire up that boat. Gasoline does become rather useful in that situation. Fifth, fishing should consist of you underwater without any equipment whatsoever catching anything with your bare hands--not by asshole "fishermen" and "fisherwomen" buying their way to indiscriminately killing animals for their own self-centered reasons. Sixth, you should not use "prehistoric big-jawed fish" unless you are attracted to making yourself sound smarter when you are just another dumb-shit journalist. Seventh, killing harmless animals for sport does not make your dick any larger. Here's evidence:

Asshole "Fisherman" attempts to use harmless Leopard Shark to make penis larger. Pseudoscience or not?
 Eighth, sharks are not "ready and waiting" unless they are ready and waiting for this "Fisherman", journalist, and sport-fishing balderdash industry to die. Ninth, you and five of your closest rapist angling buddies can charter a 32-footer [boat] with an ample slaughter area fishing deck, onboard grill and even a heated cabin for the pansies that might get cold. Tenth, a bat comes handy when you want to kill your rapist friends before they rape you or when you just want to kill one of these "Fishermen". Apparently bludgeoning innocent animals turns these guys on. Eleventh, the government only allows three murders per day, so pick wisely. Hey, if you voted for Basil Marceaux in Tennessee, you could have killed all the people and innocent animals you want! Twelfth, these animals are out to get you not ∵ you are an asshole, but ∵ you kill them.

Here's to the author of the Urban Daddy article and Sole Man Fishing which "should be raped by Cthulhu's thorned-and-tenticled cock until the end of time."

---> Calvin Requin <---

---> Calvin Requin <---

Tuesday, November 2, 2010


It is not Sharky's usual comic of putting "Pig Fucker" on the side of a fisherman's boat, but this is still pretty good. The man behind Shaaark! is Phil Watson from Australia. His work comprises of the largest single-frame cartoon collection all about sharks as well as some great animations. While bathroom humor is not on the list of types of humor Phil uses, he does manage to create some pretty hilarious comics juxtaposing humans and sharks. Swim on over there if you want some great shark cartoons.

---> Calvin Requin <---

---> Calvin Requin <---

Protip: Do Not Write in Contradictory Tones.

I would like to make some dick jokes and entertain you, but it is kind of hard to do so when you do not have trolls but do have a subject worthy of respect. Last year Sharky commented on how the Shark Conservation Act of 2009 passed in the House of Representatives. This is what he said on March 3, 2009:
Not all of Congress has passed the bill, just the House of Representatives. The Senate still has to vote and Obama still has to sign it, but all indications are that this will happen very soon.
That was 1 year, 7 months, and 30 days ago. During that time about 160,000,000 sharks were killed in human hands. The bill is still in the Senate with strong opposition from Senator Tom Coburn. Coburn has yet to even read the short seven pages of the bill which would NOT need new revenue. This bill is simply asking to fill a loophole and make sure these animals are secure which would require a paltry sum of money. Relatively, if the one million is the cost, there will be major benefits to the country--not loss. Sharks are worth plenty of times more alive than dead, and they are able to reproduce to continue that investment. The whole thing is like solar panels; you buy them for a large amount but it pays itself off and then some. The cost to the world without bills like this would eventually be more than a simple fix of one million. There is no solution to oceanic extinction. We must act BEFORE we have nothing to save.
We are standing on a thick line. A line of decision or indecision. We can do this the easy way or the way that we like best but will never fix the problem and eventually create more problems. Saving sharks is not just a moral obligation, but an economic necessity. Who knows what will happen to our beloved animals? If we fall to moral degradation, corruption, and apathy, and these animals become extinct, we will be the ones that nobody listened to. To think that we are the crazy ones...
I leave you with an article. It seems as though a third of shark and ray species are threatened with extinction. I think I already knew that, but you probably did not. Oh, by the way, over 50 Percent of Oceanic Shark Species are threatened with Extinction. A nice little tidbit. Shall we sit back and watch the chaos unfold before us?

---> Calvin Requin <---

---> Calvin Requin <---

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Bigotry, Failure, Misunderstanding, and Cruelty

There comes a time when you just have to stop. Stop before things get out of hand. Many people do not realize that a slight change in balance in the world can cause irreversible damage. One such person is Senator Tom Coburn. Here's an account of what happened in the Senate from The Hill--Reid, Coburn in floor spat over shark bill. Here's the actual footage from C-SPAN. Finally, here's the latest article covering the whole ordeal from The Huffington Post. It seems as though people do not seem to understand. This bill, S. 850: Shark Conservation Act of 2009 is "a critical lifeline for sharks" and if the point of no return is reached, we're fucked. Majorly. Apparently Coburn does not realize that this animal has survived millions of years and numerous extinctions keeping the oceans and world in balance. Never before has the shark went into extinction. Who knows what catastrophic meltdown of chaos will result if this animal is mercilessly killed to extinction by the only animal that could save it? I guess the price for this delicacy will be paid in millions of lives of these animals and the lives of many more animals of varying species. As Henry David Thoreau stated:
Away with the superficial and selfish phil-anthropy of men,-who knows what admirable virtue of fishes may be below low-water-mark, bearing up against a hard destiny, not admired by that fellow-creature who alone can appreciate it! Who hears the fishes when they cry? It will not be forgotten by some memory that we were contemporaries.
To close, I would like to offer you a PDF document by Oceana on the importance of these beautiful and ever-important animals. Predators as Prey

---> Calvin Requin <---

---> Calvin Requin <---

Saturday, October 30, 2010

John Coles is a Fucking Liar

Here's yellow journalism, fear mongering, and media bias at its finest. You want a good bullshit story? Holy claspers! This does not get far from that. Online news article "Killer shark is a Cornish nasty" by John Coles from The Sun is far from accurate and unbiased. Here's the text from the article:
PROUD fishing pals pose with the killer shark they caught - off CORNWALL. Electrician Ricky Nethersole, 38, hooked the 7ft 9ins blue shark four miles off Land's End. He and friend Tony Everitt then battled 30 minutes to haul the 186lb beast on board, helped by skipper Robin Chapman and crewmate Sam Narbett. Ricky, from Wokingham, Berks, said modestly: "It was a bit of a handful. I've been trying to get a decent-sized shark for five years - and now I've finally got one." The shark was released unharmed after the snap. Robin, who said it was the biggest he had seen in eight years running fishing trips, added: "She swam away quite happily." Four people are known to have been killed by blue sharks worldwide.
One commenter named Ricksharkkiller states:

believe me it swam away happily although we were suprised it did with out its fins!
To me, that was just exemplary of the media not getting facts straight at all. Even if blue sharks have killed four people, that is not an appropriate ending to any news article. It is certainly a fact that should be completely ignored, but John must like to emphasize it.
I attempted to post my own comment only to never get it published... I wonder why? Here's my delightful comments:
Oh, thank you so very much, Mr. John Coles for that interesting inspiration! CALL UP THE MEDIA! We need an advertisement all around the world stating that, "Four people are known to have been killed by blue sharks worldwide." and sponsored by *The More You Know*. I'm sure that more people were horridly disintegrated by acid. Back to the subject, who in the world entitles a fish story as, "Killer shark is a Cornish nasty"? Does that ring a bell for any of you? Me neither. Since when would anybody make a headline about President Obama stating, "Killer black man is a Communist"? Who exactly knows that right after this 'snap' was shot, that animal was happily let go in absolute mirth? There has been a few people that have stated, 'I think the shark is dead.' and I agree... Since when are three people able to hold up a shark without it trying to get free or biting someone to do so? Would any human who was pushed in a deep pool and couldn't swim just get out of the pool, smile, and thank the person that threw them into the pool in the first place? Do people who are the subject to pranks thank the prankees afterwards? I'm thinking that they did kill the shark. In no way would any shark be pleased with a situation like this. I'm sure that they may have thrown the animal back after the picture, but they did have time to measure the animal beforehand which suggests they could have spent much more time beforehand with the animal. I was wondering, why was it that Ricky and Tony "battled" this animal? Since when is fishing a battle? Since when is a shark a "beast"? The only beasts in the world belong to the department of cryptozoology. To me, Ricky seems to just want the credit for catching this animal... Why in the world would anybody want to catch a shark anyways? For the explicit fun of it? I'm also wondering why Robin thinks that the shark swam away happily. I'm really strongly doubting that any shark swam away unharmed and happy; "Ricksharkkiller" stated previously that "it swam away happily although we were suprised it did with out its fins!" So John Coles is telling us that Rick the Electrician let the shark go harmlessly and happily, though Ricksharkkiller states that it swam away without its fins. Either the entire story that John Coles wrote up is completely absurd or the story is absurd and Rick & Friends killed the shark, finned it, and sold the fins for a profit. Pick the one you think best fits, like a nice cubic regression. Thank you, The Sun, for this interesting propaganda and yellow journalism--it is greatly appreciated.

---> Calvin Requin <---

---> Calvin Requin <---