brilliant doco on the ocean's super predator

[Ken Gargett]

3pm on the ABC for aussie viewers tomorrow - brilliant doco on the search for the ocean's super predator. no spoilers but it is based on an event that happened a while back. scientists had tagged a big great white with a radio/info thingee. they were getting the info when it was chased and eaten. the predator crapped out the radio thing. this is the story of the hunt to find out what kills and eats a big great white. but in the search, they come across an amazing phenomenon in the ocean not known before.

i've seen it several times and it really is one of the best docos i have watched. if you are not around, tape it. a must.

[garbandz]

surprising outcome.....informative for sure...........

[stogieluver]

What is the name of the documentary? Wondering if it may possibly be shown in the U. S.

[El Presidente]

What is the name of the documentary? Wondering if it may possibly be shown in the U. S.

The Search For The Ocean's Super Predator

[fookite]

My money is on some kind of huge, disgusting catfish.

[Guest scsi]

it's a Kraken of course!

[Dozerhead]

This better not be a mockumentary like that Megalodon crap on shark week a couple of years back!

[Ken Gargett]

This better not be a mockumentary like that Megalodon crap on shark week a couple of years back!

no, serious doco. really worth watching if you have any interest in wildlife, nature, anything like that. and a bit scary

[Dozerhead]

Actually, I'm kind of a big geek for stuff like that. I did a search and it's not coming up anytime soon on my satellite here in the states, but I will keep a periodic look out.

[Jeremy Festa]

Remember when the story first came out.

Will watch for sure!

[Ken Gargett]

Actually, I'm kind of a big geek for stuff like that. I did a search and it's not coming up anytime soon on my satellite here in the states, but I will keep a periodic look out.

it is a few years old. i think i have seen it 2-3 times over the last few years.

[Fuzz]

Mystery solved. It was Mecha Shark!

[Ferrero]

For anyone interested you can watch it through this link below. As everyone else has said, great doco and intense stuff.

http://putlocker.is/watch-the-search-for-the-oceans-super-predator-online-free-putlocker.html

[ayepatz]

Cool. Loved the coverage of the killer whale pod.

[wabashcr]

What is the name of the documentary? Wondering if it may possibly be shown in the U. S.

There was a different version of the same story that occasionally runs on the Smithsonian channel. I've not seen the Aussie version, but the generally agreed upon conclusion as to what happened to this shark is a bit of a letdown.

[Fugu]

I've seen that documentary (or a different one based on that story) before elsewhere. Admittedly choreographed quite enthrallingly. The core conclusions drawn from the data logger recordings, however, are nothing short of hilarious.

For the sake of the “hot” story they saw what they wanted to see in the data. Not living up to scientific standards. And too much sensation mongering, if you ask me. The reality will have been less dramatic (mind you the study was undertaken around 2003 and it still draws it’s circles).

[Ken Gargett]

I've seen that documentary (or a different one based on that story) before elsewhere. Admittedly choreographed quite enthrallingly. The core conclusions drawn from the data logger recordings, however, are nothing short of hilarious.

For the sake of the “hot” story they saw what they wanted to see in the data. Not living up to scientific standards. And too much sensation mongering, if you ask me. The reality will have been less dramatic (mind you the study was undertaken around 2003 and it still draws it’s circles).

if i recall, the search was over about ten years. that has been condensed into the hour so inevitably much more dramatic than reality. looking forward to seeing it again and i will try and take a more critical look at how they treat the data and the science.

as for the conclusion, i found that to be probably the most chilling of the options. just scary what is out there.

[Fugu]

if i recall, the search was over about ten years. that has been condensed into the hour so inevitably much more dramatic than reality. looking forward to seeing it again and i will try and take a more critical look at how they treat the data and the science.

as for the conclusion, i found that to be probably the most chilling of the options. just scary what is out there.

Ken, I am not denying that there is work they did, which was absolutely worthwhile doing (and the docu probably being worthwhile watching don't want to play the debbie-downer here). I am challenging the original findings on which they base the whole story. The pop-up tag data interpretation is just false (as far as can be judged from the presented data), at least there is a lot of much less spectacular possibilities. I might go into more detail if of interest, but for the moment wil leave it to this link for a brief critical assessment.

Paul

[Bill Hayes]

Thanks Ken. I have hit the record button. I think I have seen something similar before but won't detail it in case it spoils it for others. Cheers.

[Ken Gargett]

Ken, I am not denying that there is work they did, which was absolutely worthwhile doing (and the docu probably being worthwhile watching don't want to play the debbie-downer here). I am challenging the original findings on which they base the whole story. The pop-up tag data interpretation is just false (as far as can be judged from the presented data), at least there is a lot of much less spectacular possibilities. I might go into more detail if of interest, but for the moment wil leave it to this link for a brief critical assessment.

Paul

ta for that. i'm sure it was pumped up for the audience and some "contenders" were obvious non-starters. whatever it was in the end, scary how big some of those monsters grow.

biggest shark i ever saw was late 70s at the end of the shelf on the swains, in the barrier reef - so about 100-150 k's offshore. a hammerhead pushing 30 foot. the two deckhands i was with, fortunately in a reasonably large boat, were gobsmacked. they'd never seen anything like it. was like watching a large truck gliding through the waters.

i figure that if i have seen one that big, then there must be plenty of bigger ones out there. be way too much of a coincidence for me to have happened on the biggest.

[El Presidente]

offshore. a hammerhead pushing 30 foot. the two deckhands i was with, fortunately in a reasonably large boat, were gobsmacked. they'd never seen anything like it. was like watching a large truck gliding through the waters.

i was surfing many years go off Moffat headland with my brother Rick. The water below us went black. A school of I can only guess 50+ Hammerheads swimming underneath. I went straight in on the next wave. Rick stayed out. I still have nightmares.

[Ken Gargett]

Ken, I am not denying that there is work they did, which was absolutely worthwhile doing (and the docu probably being worthwhile watching don't want to play the debbie-downer here). I am challenging the original findings on which they base the whole story. The pop-up tag data interpretation is just false (as far as can be judged from the presented data), at least there is a lot of much less spectacular possibilities. I might go into more detail if of interest, but for the moment wil leave it to this link for a brief critical assessment.

Paul

hi paul

(potential spoilers for others).

first, please don't think this is trying to have a crack at what you have said. i really would be interested to hear more.

all that said, having watched it again and re-read the link, i'm a bit at a loss. it does seem that there might be two versions so i can only speak to the aussie one.

the article mocks the filmmaker for saying the search for an answer has overtaken his life. he spent ten years chasing an answer - i don't get why they have a problem with that.

how many discoveries, feats of exploration etc etc would not have occurred other than for someone obsessed with the answer?

the article says "To Riggs, that meant Shark Alpha must have been gobbled up by a sea monster". unless they saw a very different version, that is complete crap. he says no such thing. he concludes that the overwhelming evidence is that the shark was killed by a larger shark. pretty much what all their experts say is the likely result. he does the rounds checking out other possibilities but dismisses them all. as for scientific value, i don't think the bloke is a scientist himself and i don't think he ever claims to be one but he brings in some of the world's top experts, from australia and overseas. it doesn't go deeply into the science but i m not certain that was ever his intent, and if he did, probably would have rendered the thing unsaleable.

the article quotes two "experts". one is a researcher from the other side of the world who opens by saying he doesn't know the story. that is either seriously lazy journalism or they could not find someone to support the conclusions they wanted. a researcher the best they could do?

the other is a bit more creditible (that said, i have no idea how he or his institute is regarded and we'll never know if there is more to it). i've subscribed to their email so keen to see what they do.

anyway, i tracked down the "critical commentary" from "Carlos Duarte, director of the University of Western Australia's Oceans Institute". i have to say, it revealed a lot. a lot about the journos attacking the program. they have completely misrepresented what he said, to suit themselves.

just what was this "critical commentary". it was in an article by this bloke in the daily news email called 'the Conversation', which is something else i have long subscribed to. you get a real mix here but some really serious stuff at times. what he said, in an article about the shark cull in Western Australia, was critical of doco makers using populist titles to their shows to attract the sensationalist value. absolutely nothing about the content or scientific value of this show. it gets the briefest mention. this was the quote, "global mass media have flocked to Western Australia to produce documentaries with revealing titles. There’s National Geographic’s “Australia’s Deadliest: Shark Coast”, whose summary reads “WA’s pristine coastline has been ravaged by a deadly predator…” or our own ABC’s “The Search for the Ocean’s Super-Predator”, which summary starts “In the depths of Australia’s Southern Ocean a Great White Shark is savagely attacked by a far larger mystery predator…".

after that intro, the show then goes into the science and chase and search etc etc and rules out killer whales and giant squid, both of which are in the area. and they conclude it was a larger shark. (much of the most interesting stuff is the discovery of the giant squid in the region, perhaps the largest ever found, the way the killer whales dine on them and the marine hot spot.)

in other words, these journos have been completely dishonest in their reporting. big surprise.

but leave them aside, i'm interested that you speak of 'less spectacular possibilities' - does that mean you don't see it as likely that a larger shark is the most likely culprit. it really does seem like we are talking about two shows.

as far as i can see, and i have no expertise, the shark was chased into the depths (i would suggest that one possibility that was not properly covered was that the chase might have been by a killer whale which may have killed the shark and then chunks, including the tracker, were eaten by other large sharks). it was killed there and eaten, almost certainly by a larger shark or possibly sharks (though it seems unlikely that a shark that large would have been happy having others join it for dinner). a few days later, the tracker was crapped out and found.

if you have other theories, i'm really interested. ditto anyone else.

[Souperchi]

I found it on you tube as well. Will watch tonight

[Fugu]

Ken, no offence taken at all, I appreciate it how you are going into the details of the media coverage (well, you are a practicing journalist yourself), and I’d like to discuss it. Have also seen this version now on the web.

Please excuse a long answer to a long question. We could have done per PM, but perhaps others may like to follow or chime in in that discussion if interested.

First of all let me say that I totally agree with you regarding some of the poor-form media coverage, which is partially in no way better and using similar “tricks” as the documentary does. Main point or technique here to criticise is the omission of facts for making a better argument / better fitting the picture.

But I’d rather not go into all this media hype, which will lead us nowhere, but instead rather go directly into the presented data from the tag. Because this is where the story started, and where everybody tries to fit in the subsequent findings, in order to get it in line with a somehow precast picture – The giant animal that must have swallowed this 3-m shark lady.

And here, indeed, I found a slight difference to the other docu I saw, in where it was reported that the tag, after going down to the seafloor lay motionless (no pressure/depth alteration) for quite some time prior to the steep temperature rise. Unfortunately, I can’t find that version on the web anymore, neither is any sound scientific report to be found, not to mention a peer reviewed scientific paper on the whole issue (if anyone would have or could direct me to that, I would very happily reassess my statements!)

So, what are the facts we are presented with?

1. We are being told that the shark had been equipped with this pop-up device, which (usually) takes position when surfacing (most probably using some sat-nav system like Argos, perhaps in combination with GNSS), ambient temperature and pressure (dive depth)

2. At one point, at “4 a.m. Xmas eve”, after a long journey up and down along the southern coast of Australia, the tag (I will be talking about the tag, not the fish), now near the original deployment site, suddenly quickly descended (“plunged”) rapidly to a depth of 580 m, presumably the seafloor at that position.

3. The film animation shows us a downward trajectory along the shelf slope

4. The temperature reading during that time was 46 Degrees F (7.8°C) = ambient water temperature (quite stable if you ask me - no stratification of the water body there? Anyway, minor issue here)

5. Then, after a – to us undisclosed – period of immobility, the temperature started to become erratic (this info I have taken from another website, where someone asked the bloke some questions) and then stabilized to somewhere about 78 degrees F (25.6 °C). We don’t know nothing about the inertia (time lag) of the temperature sensor, again perhaps a minor issue.

6. Thereafter it rose up to shallower depths and remained within a depth range of betw. the surface and 330 feet (100 m) for another eight days before being released and then popping up to the surface.

“It was obviously eaten. What’s gonna eat a shark that big, what could kill a 3-m Great White?” Dave Riggs asks in the film at that point. Implying that the whole animal must have been “eaten” and even claims gigantism of said predator due to genetic defects (guess not in the film, but cited in later interviews, however, I wasn’t able to verify the authenticity of the statements), instead of simply discussing the more obvious.

To interpret these patterns and findings, there is absolutely no need to assume a giant or even a larger predator!

As other scientists have mentioned, a rather normal-sized shark could have ripped out a piece during a fight, or Ken, as you quite logically and reasonably point out, it could have even been effected by an orca (group?) attack.

A ripped out piece could then simply have sunk to the seafloor, without any “chasing down”. After settling on the seafloor, it lay there for a while (unfortunately, no info available as to for how long), before being swallowed (I’d rather not say “eaten”, see below) by either the same or another animal. Or, if it was the same shark it might have dived down with the chunk (and not the whole fish) in its jaw before finally tearing it apart and swallowing it later, undisturbed by any conspecifics, at greater depth. Or, the shark was killed(even by a boat could theoretically be an option – depending on the depth from where the “sudden plunge” started, but – again – no precise info given….) and sank – still complete – injured or dead to the seafloor.

So far so good, needs no giant predator to explain that, don’t you agree?

I will go even further and say, in the case the pop-up device had been mounted to a kind of base mount (which is done sometimes, but we don’t know here), it were even conceivable that it had been ripped out of the shark without killing the animal, just the plain instrument (prerequisite: negatively buoyant in that state). After dropping to the seafloor it could have been ingested by another animal.

Some questions which you might wish to ask at this point:

Question: But the shark must have actively been chased down, no other predator is swimming that fast?

Answer: Depending on the form and mass of a ripped out chunk, it could sink quite rapidly. Alternatively, a shark keeping the chunk in its mouth could have had the same effect. However, we are not presented with any facts, any sinking/diving rates. Neither to be found elsewhere.

Q: But the animation film clearly presents us a chase down the shelf slope.

A: The animation implies a trajectory, which may or may not have been provided by the device, since a horizontal geographic position could only be taken when at the surface. Unless other means were on board (such as e.g. 3-axis accelerometry which could facilitate a kind of reconstruction of the under-water trajectory), but which we are told nothing about. This shown trajectory might be purely for illustration (I’d rather not say fictional) and be simply derived from plotting depth over time. Therefore, the device could have likewise been dropped passively in the same spot where it had become detached from the shark. Let's assume it were indeed equipped with a 3D-Accel., then the high-res data would easily provide further insight, as to whether there was a fight at some point. Thereofre, I'd rather thiink that this sensor-option had not been on board.

Q: But which of the three discussed animal groups then you’d think could have accounted for the ingestion, you don’t believe it is a giant shark?

Answers:

1. Giant squid: No - No reports of elevated body temperature in squid (that I would know of) and very unlikely to be able to ingest the device as a whole due its particular mouthparts (beak). Ok, that has also been ruled out in the film quite quickly (but see below).
2. Orca – an easy and immediate No. Are not reported yet to dive that deep. And more importantly – would have very easily been identified from its particular dive pattern (regular surfacing for breathing) during the following 8 days. As well as the expected higher temp-level. Therefore, the question for the “killer whale” brought up in the film was purely for dramaturgical reasons, as it must have been clear from the first look at the data record – well….granted.
3. Shark. Most likely a Yes – due to the “behaviour”, and body temperature – BUT didn’t necessarily need to be a giant or even a large shark at all. A chunk of meat including the tag, as described above, could have been swallowed by any larger or even a smaller than 3-m shark. And it even need not be the same animal that was responsible for ripping it out in the first place.

Q: But given it was only the tag perhaps incl. a mounting base (therefore negatively buoyant) bar any flesh that had been ripped out and dropped to the floor – why would a shark want to “eat” that?!

Answers:

1. The electronics of that tag produces a magnetic field. Sharks are known for their highly developed senses for that. Evolution has given them the means for chasing prey even in the dark etc. by detecting the muscular activity of their prey species. This magnetic field could have caught the attention of another shark (whether giant, large or small)
2. Sharks have long been reported to swallow all kinds of non-digestible litter. So would be absolutely in the realms of the possible, no surprise at all.

There still remain a lot of questions to me, too, but as long as we are not presented with the original data, or at least a serious, documented analysis of it, but instead just this film footage, we have no chance to evaluate these statements and findings.

And that is the main issue here, when I say this doesn’t live up to any scientific standards.

All the statements made in the film could theoretically be in fact a valid case, I am denying nothing – but we are not given any proof for that at all, neither by this film or by any other supplementary statements.

And as for claiming the first record of giant squid in the area, that you mention, Ken, made by the team. Sorry, but that is bs. Again, could be, no arguing here, but not any proof given - mind you, a proof is a verified observation and not a guess:

We are simply shown a poor aerial photo showing a large, pale-coloured piece of “something” and a shark that is obviously preying upon or pulling with it. Could also be a leftover of a larger whale carcass that has been scavenged upon (there were a lot of feeding frenzies shown in the film). Later, we are shown an albatross feeding on a squid tentacle… huh, really??!! Normal food of these birds! The film making allusion to the giant squid, and this tentacle is a – well I won’t got so far and say “tiny” - but at least deriving from a smaller to intermediate sized species, certainly not a giant. Yes, they do not state it directly in the docu, but the dramaturgical setting and the closeness to the previous considerations lets the viewer suspect that this might in fact be a part of a giant squid – sorry, but this just isn’t honest journalistic documentation.

The whole film produces a dramaturgy catching for attention, no-holds-barred (hilarious the inclusion of the yarn spun by the two old whaler’s, just great ….). Understandable of course since this guy needs to sell his films, nothing wrong about that. And again – I am not saying this could not be the case. I am saying there are much more obvious and more simple explanations for it. Everything else still is speculation. While this all could be POSSIBLE – we are not presented with ANY PROOF supporting it.

Seriously, this film needs to be taken with a large grain, or let me say with a ‘chunk’, of salt. Smithsonian Institution presenting this in the way they did has lost a lot of its credibility to me.

Cheers

Paul

[Fugu]

the article quotes two "experts". one is a researcher from the other side of the world who opens by saying he doesn't know the story. that is either seriously lazy journalism or they could not find someone to support the conclusions they wanted. a researcher the best they could do?

the other is a bit more creditible (that said, i have no idea how he or his institute is regarded and we'll never know if there is more to it). i've subscribed to their email so keen to see what they do.

On rereading your post, Ken, let me just comment on this:

I can quite understand the statement of the expert saying "he doesn't know the story". Had better said doesn't know the "study", but in essence he is quite right. As long as not published scientifically it didn't happen.