The lightly-publicized catch, made after a 90-minute battle during an obscure tournament, is a potential California record and one of the largest fish ever caught off the Golden State.It falls short of the International Game Fish Assn.'s all-tackle world record: a 1,221-pound mako caught off Chatham, Massachusetts, in 1994. But if approved by the California Department of Fish and Game, it will break the current record by nearly 40 pounds.
That process could take up to six months.
Sean Carlsen Gizatullin, the angler credited with the catch, told KTLA-TV, "It didn't lunge out or anything crazy like 'Jaws,' but it was still intense."
Vince Packer, captain of the 26-foot vessel on which the mako was landed, was more expressive.
He said in a phone interview that the speedy apex predator -- makos have been recorded swimming in bursts of up to 46 mph -- stripped line from Gizatullin's reel so fast that he had to gun the boat, alongside the fleeing shark, to keep it from spooling the reel.
"We were going 25-30 knots in the same direction the mako was swimming, and she was still ahead of us, taking line," Packer said. "It was the fastest fish I have ever seen. The whole time we fought the fish I was gunning the boat."The shortfin mako, 11 1/2 feet long and more than six feet around -- it had a freshly-killed seal or sea lion in its belly -- was ultimately subdued, but it was too large to be hauled completely aboard Packer's 26-foot boat.
The captain and crew tail-roped the mako and attempted to winch it aboard, but ended up returning to port with the shark's head still in the water.
The trip to the harbor, during which numerous problems were encountered, was such a slow journey that the team was disqualified for arriving 45 minutes after the final weigh-in call.
That cost the team, named Wickedsquid, a first-prize payoff of about $20,000. "But we still stole the show," Packer said, adding that the mako meat was donated to a homeless shelter, and that parts of the shark were donated to scientists.
"But I kept the jaws for a trophy," Packer said.
-- Photos: Sean Carlsen Gizatullin (top left) poses with teammates after catching giant mako shark off Oxnard last week. Bottom photo shows the mako's jaws. Images courtesy of Vince Packer
20 Comments
1-20 of 20
Posted by bkredfisher August 3, 2010 06:42pm PDTReply | Report Abuse
thats crazy too bad they missed the weigh in.
Reply by labpro3 August 3, 2010 09:20pm PDTReport Abuse
Wow, how exciting. I agree, it's too bad they missed the weigh in but nothing can take away what they accomplished together in landing this fish. Congratulations!
Posted by claytoaj August 4, 2010 04:47am PDTReply | Report Abuse
I'll never understand "sports" like these.
"Hey! We found something cool because it's bigger / longer / more oddly colored than others of its species! Let's kill it and butcher it and take it's jaw out to gruesomely hang on our wall!"
Reply by sara rogerson August 4, 2010 03:15pm PDTReport Abuse
how is claytoaj a fag he or she said nothing fag wise just that they dont understand the sport in killing sea life or any other type of life..>< and from your comment makes you sound like a texas hillbilly redneck
Reply by roark02 September 4, 2010 01:30pm PDTReport Abuse
clay we hunt to CONTROL the species to stop OVERPOPULATION read my post below its somewhere down their
Reply by kevin neal December 14, 2010 12:37pm PSTReport Abuse
Sharks are over fished just may other species. No point in doing it.
Reply by croberts89 December 15, 2010 07:28am PSTReport Abuse
@roark02 Actually, you hunt for fun. How dare you say you hunt to control overpopulation; what place is it of yours, to decide what overpopulation is? Calytoaj has a valid point; you find something a little different, that is magnificent in every way, and decide to butcher it and then show off about it. It is really sad. I'm no lefty, but I don't believe that these magnificent animals should be hunted. @sara rogerson.. I really wish people would learn that not everyone from Texas are hillbilly rednecks. I am from Texas.
Reply by ppo123 December 15, 2010 11:39am PSTReport Abuse
control the species??..............STFU!!!!!!!!!!........big time BullSH*& ! ...sick people who just wanna kill...!!!!
Posted by hioeniefoe August 4, 2010 12:44pm PDTReply | Report Abuse
I dont like fishing, dont like hunting too, but I dont have any problem with either, my problem is mass fishing, and shark finning, where they cut the shark's fin off and threw the body alive and let to die on the ocean floor, What kind of human being capable of doing that ??? ( dont answer me.. I know, I am a human too..)
Posted by dorianfalk August 4, 2010 05:24pm PDTReply | Report Abuse
I've been watching Shark Week, and the Discovery Channel keeps running their own PSAs emphasizing that sharks are all threatened or endangered, especially large species like the mako because they don't reach maturity until they are several years old so they can't reproduce at the rate they are being killed. Apex sea predators are also not recommended to eat because they are highly contaminated with mercury. So even though I live in Texas, vote Republican most of the time, and am anything but a "hippie", I still think this unfortunate creature should have stayed in the ocean.
Reply by roark02 September 6, 2010 04:07pm PDTReport Abuse
well still it was a good catch
Posted by highspeed August 5, 2010 08:58am PDTReply | Report Abuse
Not all sharks are endangered. I know it is hard to believe but sometimes what people say on TV is not true. 80% of shark species are doing fine and even thriving. Yes, some species are threatened but not because of recreational fishermen like these guys bringing home a trophy. Pollution kills more sharks than recreational fishermen.
Don't judge or condemn others for things you don't understand. It's called tolerance.
Reply by wireflight August 6, 2010 03:25pm PDTReport Abuse
The hallmark of incompetence is a fundamental lack of calibration: the incompetent person assumed that he or she has a more complete and accurate understanding than he or she, in fact, actually has.
Consequently have arisen popular and destructive egalitarian notions; the harm caused thereby is exacerbated by laws and policies based on lies and faulty premises, and it is compounded by media efforts to promote that sort of incompetence.
The failure of the unwise to think critically is principally responsible for the misguided policies and practices of those among them attempting to protect nature from legitimate efforts to safely understand and manage natural resources.
Tolerance untempered by reason is arguably much more unwise than visceral intolerance; regardless, it is no less unwise than its opposite.
Posted by photofrankie August 5, 2010 01:05pm PDTReply | Report Abuse
I'm sorry, but with all the finning and the pollution in the waters that everyone just turns a blind eye to, how could you have the conscience to then fish for shark? If you don't care about being part of the solution, why be part of the problem? That's like knowing that theres only a few hundred bengal tigers because of hunting in India, but then you take a trip to India for the sake of hunting a bengal tiger. Yes, a lot of other people are to blame, but why are you helping? I don't know if the Mako shark is endangered but all shark are in trouble if people continue finning and polluting the waters. Why increase the problem?
Reply by claytoaj August 6, 2010 12:24am PDTReport Abuse
" If you don't care about being part of the solution, why be part of the problem? "
Yes! Exactly!
Reply by roark02 September 6, 2010 04:05pm PDTReport Abuse
fishing isnt a problem and you only hunt things you can not endangered stuff cause thats against law
Posted by highspeed August 5, 2010 01:27pm PDTReply | Report Abuse
Blind eye? Recreational fishermen are one of the largest funding sources to preserve the fish in our waters. I'm part of a club that routinely stocks fish in the waters off california. These stocking programs have proven to be more effective than most other conservation methods including banning fishing. This is one of the most common "misunderstood" aspects to the hunting/fishing issue...sportsman are a big reason you get to see that deer in the field or that fish in the sea. It comes down to supporting the practice of game management or not. Game mgmt has proven to be successful in both maintaining healthy populations of wildlife for sport and also re-introducing species.
Recreational fishing is a great sport and keeps kids off the streets. Support it, and support game mgmt. Go after china and the like, boycott their products, don't drive their cars, or listen to their music. American sportsman are role models to the world.
Posted by roark02 September 4, 2010 01:28pm PDTReply | Report Abuse
WHY DOES EVERYONE WANT TO BAN FISHING AND HUNTING!?! I mean we are CONTROLING populations of animals like for example: If we didnt hunt= Overpopulation of deer deer eat all the grass and food eventually because since their are so many they will eat all of it before the plants can regrow then they go extinct because of lack of food then the wolves go exctinct because their MAIN source of food is DEER so they die out and it works its way up the chain. But if we hunt= the deer are controlled enough grass and plants for all of them to eat and the wolves eat too. DO YOU SEE MY POINT?!?!?!
Reply by roark02 September 4, 2010 01:29pm PDTReport Abuse
i think i see my own point =D
Reply by jmac14181 December 15, 2010 03:51am PSTReport Abuse
Makos are not overpopulated...yes you have a vaild point (about deer) but this is about the ocean, not Southern Georgia...if you wanted to talk about how Lion fish are taking over the tropics and we need population control on that...it would have made a better point.
Reply by ivchp944 December 15, 2010 07:02am PSTReport Abuse
Controlling of animal populations? Deer? If we had not interfered in the first place and killed all the predators there would be no issue because animal populations control themselves quite well. Wolves? Where? I don't believe there are any on the East Coast. In fact, there are very, very few left in the US because we killed them all (they are such a threat to mankind or to the select sheep).
Regarding deer eating grass... all I ever see is people mowing lawns, lawns everywhere... that grass gets thrown away, no animal benefits from it. The plant species can't reproduce because of all that mowing (and not just lawns). That, among many other reasons, is a reason for plant extinction. roark's "argument" is, at best, excessively simplistic.
Reply by croberts89 December 15, 2010 07:33am PSTReport Abuse
Actually, ALL animals and fish would be perfectly fine without hunting or fishing around. There woulnd't be an overpopulation of any one species (unless a predator of that species is completely wiped out) because the natural foodchain, excluding the human race, is perfectly built to control ratio-to-ratio species.
Posted by daniel johnston December 14, 2010 12:57pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
what jerks. I'm not in favor of sharks but shark killing for no reason other than sport? come on! Just think, what did you prove? Sick people that have to kill something to feel accomplished.
Posted by kharrow December 14, 2010 01:58pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
I am against any kind of hunting. Who would want to kill an innocent animal just for fun?!
Reply by richard todd December 14, 2010 02:29pm PSTReport Abuse
We dont kill "innocent" animals just for fun. Its called management and conservation. Take a look at the issues before you condem them out of hand because the movie Bambi makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.
By the way, how much leather do you own? Enjoy those nice shoes, the leather wrapped interior and steering wheel on your gas guzzling SUV? How do you like your steak cooked? Did you enjoy that yummy sandwhich from KFC or BK? Those animals are slaughtered by the thousands daily purely for your enjoyment. Cattle sheep and pigs are electricuted or hit it the head with a hammer type decvice. Many are still alive when they are butchered. Quit being a hypocrite.
Reply by richard todd December 14, 2010 02:29pm PSTReport Abuse
We dont kill "innocent" animals just for fun. Its called management and conservation. Take a look at the issues before you condem them out of hand because the movie Bambi makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.
By the way, how much leather do you own? Enjoy those nice shoes, the leather wrapped interior and steering wheel on your gas guzzling SUV? How do you like your steak cooked? Did you enjoy that yummy sandwhich from KFC or BK? Those animals are slaughtered by the thousands daily purely for your enjoyment. Cattle sheep and pigs are electricuted or hit it the head with a hammer type decvice. Many are still alive when they are butchered. Quit being a hypocrite.
Reply by ivchp944 December 15, 2010 06:49am PSTReport Abuse
Really? People don't kill animals just for fun? Sure, all those hunters that run around on the weekends and shoot at all kinds of animal (oftentimes injuring them subjecting them to an agonizing deaths) feel that it's such a chore and they do mankind a favor...
Management and conservation? What, ever, have we successfully managed or conserved? We have accelerated species extinction to an obscene degree and have encroached upon every environment... .
BTW, kharrow is talking about hunting in case you missed that. Since when are cows hunted? News to me.
Another BTW, there is no reason for name calling - everyone, including you, is entitled to an opinion. I disagree with you but don't have to call you names because of it. And for the record, yes, it is possible to survive without meat, in particular the kind coming from animals that people shoot...
Reply by wizard111 December 15, 2010 12:32pm PSTReport Abuse
Doesnt matter if you shoot and kill a animal to eat it, or you go to the grocery store and buy it. The results are still the same rather you pull the trigger or pay someone else to do it doesnt make you any different.
Posted by wizard111 December 14, 2010 02:45pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
What a bunch of tree huggers!!!! Now if this shark would have attacked someone everybody would be on here congratulating them. People dont kill animals just for fun. This shark was used to help feed homeless people. Whats the difference in going fishing or going to the fish market?????????????????????? EXACTLY so STFU!!
Reply by croberts89 December 15, 2010 07:48am PSTReport Abuse
I never understood why it is called a "shark attack"! Us, human beings, tred into their home, where they hunt, eat, and live. We intrude on there grounds. When they defend themselves, it should not be called an "attack. In fact, we should take out "shark" in "shark attack" and call it "human attack", when we kill them in there own home. I mean, come on now; we call it a home invasion when other people break in. We call it an attack if they do bodily harm.... it is just plain stupid to call sharks defending there territory, an attack.
Posted by trisha chiesa December 14, 2010 03:11pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
people have been fishing and hunting for as long as they have been alive, in fact, it is why they (WE!) are alive. I much prefer the freezer full of deer meat we eat to that gross, packaged, steroid-ridden beef you buy in the grocery store. god knows how many hands have touched it and where it has traveled to get to your dinner plate. different strokes for diff't folks. go vegan, but do not criticize the method in which i get my dinner on my table.
Posted by mwat935139 December 14, 2010 05:18pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
Great catch!! Worst tasting fish in the ocean, too bad it wasn't 1 thousand lb sword fish, bet they wouldn't have given that away.....
Posted by edwin farias December 14, 2010 05:40pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
There is no reason to kill this maginficent creature simply for the record.Why not keep a record of the largest human killed by a wild beast.
Posted by zu cristatus December 14, 2010 09:02pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
It is a shame such a large shark was taken. The maximum recorded length for the shortfin mako is 13 feet, only a foot and a half longer than this individual. Such large, successful individuals such as this fish should be allowed to continue to enrich the gene pool with their fitness.
In addition, considering the amount of energy it takes to produce such a top-level predator, mako flesh makes for an incredibly extravagant meal, to say the least. In essence, it is no different than consuming a lion or tiger.
Also, the shortfin mako population does not need man to cull individuals in order to prevent overpopulation; their IUCN Red List status is "Vulnerable". To see what this means, go here:
http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/39341/0
Posted by daniel johnston December 15, 2010 04:21am PSTReply | Report Abuse
Hey Richard,
Ok we eat animals killed for us. Did you eat that Shark? I truly hope you, for the rest of your life, dream of being eaten by a shark, just for his enjoyment. I've hunted, but eat what I hunt for. Growing up, a friend said if you shoot it you eat it. That's conservation, not bagging something just for your enjoyment.
Posted by ken007 December 15, 2010 04:54am PSTReply | Report Abuse
Have you READ: The Greatest White Shark Story Ever Told?
"My Friend Michale" a true story about the Real Jaws.
Posted by ivchp944 December 15, 2010 06:34am PSTReply | Report Abuse
There is absolutely no reason to kill such a wonderful animal like that Mako (or the tuna in one of the other stories). Absolutely agree with zu cristatus. We are a devestating species for everything else that lives on the planet and yet we are ignorant. If you kill something big you are a hero. What skill to shoot something from afar or pull something out of the ocean with all our modern technology. What fight? How did they fight the fish? Followed it until it was exhausted. Nobody paddled or rowed, nobody got in the water to fight it. It was no threat. Fantastic accomplishment, great work, congratulations. An re the "wizzard" - so in your opinion all environments that men may dwell in should be sanitized for our consumption. Give me a break! How about don't go into the ocean when there may be sharks around? Don't drive your car, you may get killed. How many people die because of sharks by comparison? Since when do other species not have the right to live? Well, I guess I am coming full circle here... "we are a devestating species...."
Reply by wizard111 December 15, 2010 10:59am PSTReport Abuse
Think about that when you are eating dinner tonight!!!
Posted by croberts89 December 15, 2010 07:39am PSTReply | Report Abuse
The main point here: not one human being has the right to decide what should live or die. However, if it is hunting and fishing to provide food for yourself or your family, it is perfectly fine. I do not agree with hunting and fishing for sport; it is cruel and should be punishable by law with no limitations except for that of nourishment.
Now, for those of you who disagree with the whole shabang, you need to look at it in another way. Animals who are carnivorous, kill other animals to feed themselves. So why is it wrong for Humans to kill animals to feed themselves? It is not.
Reply by wizard111 December 15, 2010 11:01am PSTReport Abuse
I agree...Many people fish and hunt for the sport as well as to provide food.
Posted by klavaza December 15, 2010 11:09am PSTReply | Report Abuse
Is this a record? Taking off from the water such a beautiful beast? How much is the weight of all those rednecks combined? That is a record, so much flesh for so little brains! A T. Rex, I am sure, was far more intelligent and sensible! Please, stop publishing idiocies like this, it only encourages feeble minded people to do obscenities of the same low tone.
Add a Comment