CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17)

Acoustic tagging of large sharks – Potential for acoustic interference (CS 05-11-17) – Kim Allen independent researcher Citizen science overview This paper is one of a series of unfunded, independent research initiatives that question mainstream science, Animal ethics approaches and Governments’ apparent acceptance of “Validated” science in the area of wildlife electronic tracking.

Clearly, the Australian shark issue is extremely contentious as well as political and emotionally charged. Over $100 million has been expended by State and Federal governments in an attempt to find answers and make our beaches safer. Unfortunately, at no stage has a strategic approach been taken to identify the key disciplines of science that need to be considered, assessed, and applied. Significant investment has been directed into the construction and support of wide-scale acoustic receiver arrays and individual sensors as well as significant tagging of large sharks off our coastline for research and public safety.

Previous satellite archival tagging programs conducted by CSIRO gave us good insight into shark movements, however since this time despite significant investment minimal progress appears to have been made and the potential risks appear to have been ignored.

This CSIRO document clearly outlines the types of tags that are used for shark research, it also clearly defines the recommended protocols that should be used for shark tagging operations. From photographic details shared in the public domain it is clear that shark tagging operations undertaken by departments don’t follow these stringent protocols. (www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/2009/bradfordrw a.pdf )

It is extremely difficult for “Unqualified” Citizen scientists to challenge mainstream research particularly given the potential erosion of future funding sources if technical criticism is determined as valid.

When any document is presented as a purely scientific paper, it will be challenged by scientists and regulators/politicians who will always “Listen to the science” regardless of its validity. Therefore, this series of information papers attempts to present a clear evidence and fact- based overview of the situation and poses relevant questions.

Associated Citizen Science shark research papers – • Acoustic tagging of large sharks – Potential for behavioural changes (CS 06-11-17) • The effectiveness of acoustic tags for research and public safety (CS 03-11-17) • Shark repellents – The case for Australian standards certification (CS 11-09-17) • The effectiveness of above-water shark surveillance measures (CS 04-08-17) • The challenges of reliable underwater shark detection (CS 22-09-17)

CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17)

Document purpose

Highlighting the fact that the “Precautionary Principle” is sometimes not considered when potentially damaging research interventions are used. Seeking the suspension and possible cessation of acoustic tagging for shark research and public safety. Highlighting the deficiencies and disparities of Animal ethics approvals across States and Territories. Ensuring that the existing Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes 8th edition is revised to accurately reflect the number of electronic devices used by researchers and the potential environmental impacts that they may have. Highlighting the need for underwater frequency management and monitoring, particularly in sensitive marine parks where scientists appear to undertake the most marine wildlife tagging. Demonstrating that there is a requirement to sometimes “Challenge” and not just “Listen to” the science!

Undertaking research on wildlife is regulated in different ways across state and territory borders depending on whether the species is listed under the Animal welfare act (for that state or territory), there is also consideration applied if the species is protected under the Federal EPBC act. Finally, any research activities should seek and procure Animal ethics approval from a relevant panel informed by the Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes 8th edition1 which should cover all potential risks and consequences of any research interventions.

Unfortunately, in the case of the “Tracking the movement of wildlife”, section 3.3.40 simply states “When devices are used to track the movement of wildlife, the weight, design and positioning of attached devices must minimise interference with the normal survival requirements of the animal”. Clearly given the advent and development of numerous electronic devices used extensively in the field by researchers these guidelines fall well short and provide no guidance or background to animal ethics panels to influence their judgements when approving research programs.

In the case of large shark tagging programs, there are many significant potential issues arising. This document attempts to illustrate and unpack the key potential issues surrounding the use of long-term ultrasonic tracking tags on large sharks off Australian beaches.

CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17)

Introduction

To understand the implications of using high-power ultrasonic pingers (tracking tags) for research purposes it’s important to consider the issues presented in the marine environment.

What is an

A Coded acoustic tag is an electro-mechanical device that emits sequenced high frequency pulses every 60-90 seconds for up to 10 years. These pulses are pre-programmed to represent a unique ID code like a telephone number to identify the aged animal.

Acoustic pinger tag External attachment – Surgical implant

Construction of acoustic tag

The tag is powered by a Lithium polymer battery that energises some electronics (oscillator) to power a ceramic “transducer” that acts like a loudspeaker. This transducer physically vibrates to create the ultrasonic pulses at 69,000 cycles per second (69KHz). CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17)

The power levels of these tags ensure that receiver units can detect them up to 400-500 metres away, of course depending on the hearing sensitivity of certain marine mammals these tags could be heard much further away.

In summary – The use of these coded tags with a 10-year battery life in the open ocean should deserve special attention!

Sound in the ocean

Unlike land-based species, marine animals place a high degree of dependence on sound for communicating, predation and navigation. Sound travels around 5 times faster underwater than it does on land. So, its clear to see that anything related to sound underwater requires careful consideration in relation to marine ecology.

On land, we have strict regulations regarding radio frequencies and how they are used, in fact we have a government agency2 managing and policing allocated frequencies. Interestingly, land-based species don’t user or rely on these frequencies to survive this is mainly in force for safety and providing structure to ensure that communications remain reliable.

Unfortunately, underwater there are no such rules and regulations to monitor and control emissions that can and do have significant impacts on marine species (particularly marine mammals).

A range of impulsive noise emitting sources are always considered including defence , seismic surveys, pile driving, dredging and vessel noise. However, the advent of acoustic tags which introduce a periodic noise emission for up to 10 years has not been considered by the regulators.

Ultrasonic acoustic tracking tags have been used extensively by research scientists and fisheries agencies for over a decade. Australian researchers are one of the major users of this type of technology for shark (and other marine species) research.

It’s important to consider that acoustic tags are electro-mechanical devices that are either attached to or implanted into large sharks for research purposes.

Over the last few years, government agencies have attempted to re-purpose and promote this research approach as an enhanced public safety measure to make our beaches safer.

CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17)

The issues to consider

Prior to the production this document, all avenues were explored including comprehensive collaboration with marine experts to debate and validate concerns raised.

For many years tagging has served a useful purpose, mainly through the use of plastic numbered tags that were recovered from time to time allowing coarse scale movement and other research data to be collected.

On-land, radio and GPS tracking have been successful providing valuable insights into animal movements. Unfortunately, radio waves don’t travel well underwater, so these types of tracking have not been successful. Therefore, the two technologies considered are acoustic and satellite tags. In the case of satellite tags, they are used in two ways to provide periodic positioning of tagged animals.

Over the years acoustic tagging of small fish in freshwater environments has been extremely successful. This has been for the following reasons: • The detection ranges are typically small – Across a for example • Freshwater sound propagation is much better than salt water • High frequency tags can be made much smaller than the lower frequency tags meaning they can be inserted in smaller fish. • The typical frequency used around 400KHz is too high to have any potential for interference with any other wildlife.

When ocean-based long term acoustic tracking was considered, the frequency range selected was around 70KHz which although propagating well through open water also happens to reside in the auditory range of many marine species. There appears to have been little or no consideration of this fact when this frequency was selected and adopted as the standard for long term coded tagging programs.

Questions arising

Advances in Nano technology are delivering major advances in the field of miniaturised electronic tracking and monitoring devices. Unfortunately, in a quest for more data to inform research publications these new technologies are being embraced by scientists to inform new research programs.

Animal ethics approval processes and protocols have existed for many years and have been focussed on conventional areas of research for laboratory and wildlife animal specimens.

• What consideration was given to the possibility of interference with marine species able to hear the frequency used by acoustic tracking tags?

CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17)

• Given that Acoustic deterrent devices work and use the frequencies incorporated for acoustic tracking tags why wasn’t this considered?

• Why hasn’t the Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes 8th edition been amended to consider and advise on the hundreds of electronic tagging devices now available to scientists?

• Given the significant problems identified in relation to poor collaboration between tagging researchers (10,000 Mystery tags / 40% of all detections unknown tags) haven’t authorities enforced rules and regulations in this area?

• Sensitive marine parks are home to many charismatic marine organisms, researchers are using acoustic tags on these species and introducing significant long-term high- energy noise into these pristine and sensitive environments, why is there no policing applied to these practices?

• Although unknown, any interference with an apex predator should attract special attention for safety purposes, particularly when tagging attachment/implanting occurs in proximity to popular beaches. The use of acoustic tags has not been studied in any detail, why not?

CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17)

The Scientific facts

Acoustic telemetry - Advantages Hussey et al.3comprehensively review the research outcomes of acoustic and satellite telemetry of aquatic fauna, and—supported by dozens of examples— Their paper clearly paints an attractive picture that would lead funders to make further investments into this field of research endeavour. The only challenges the authors discuss relates to “coordination of monitoring across large- spatial scales (ocean basins), data sharing, and data assimilation”, but telemetry studies are not without risk and animal responses to tags might lead to biased results. Acoustic telemetry – Early findings on adverse effects Previous studies have reviewed tagging-related stress, lesions and inflammation45, as well as drag and changes in swimming behaviour caused by external tags, with or without biofouling67. Having researched and investigated these programs this paper provides comments on the potential risks that acoustic tags may pose in terms of animal welfare, ecological relationships and the environment in general.

Acoustic telemetry – The potential for trophic interference Welfare issues may arise when the tagged host can hear or sense its own attached or implanted tag pinging several times every minute for up to ten years (Fig. 1). In fact, the same frequency used to deter dolphins (e.g., www.futureoceans.com/products/future-oceans-70-khz-dolphin-pinger) is also used to tag shark species that are one of their predators (http://vemco.com/products/v7-to-v16-69khz ). Clearly, acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) are used successfully8 in various applications, ultrasonic frequencies are effective in reducing injuries and mortalities, it is therefore essential that this is concerned in relation to the potential unintended consequences of using these frequencies for shark tagging. Finally, there’s the welfare risk of an untagged predator eating tagged prey hence ingesting an audible tracking pinger. Depending on size, ingested tags have been found to remain within pinnipeds for week9. Clearly, where the ingested is within the hearing range of the predator the potential effects of a tag that is transmitting a coded sequence every 60-90 seconds could be extremely distressing.

CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17)

Figure 1: Potentially acoustic tags may pose a welfare issue if the tagged animal, or its prey or predators can hear the tag. Ecological effects could result from interfering with natural, trophic relationships. With batteries lasting up to 10 years and tags detectable at up to over 1 km in range (http://vemco.com/range-calculator/), in areas of frequent or dense tagging, changes to the local may be seen—even beyond the hosts’ deaths (Eg. Ningaloo marine park) The ultrasound frequencies of common tags are in the hearing range of many marine taxa, some of which interact trophically (Fig. 2). While hearing in marine mammals is relatively well understood10, other marine taxa are understudied. Less than 1% of fish have been tested; fish are typically assumed insensitive to ultrasound, yet some (species of clupeids1112) have evolved ultrasound detection. With so few species studied, it still remains unclear how many other species of predators or prey may be sensitive or react to ultrasound. Research has previously focussed on pressure wave sound propagation, it is clear however that in some marine taxa (particularly sharks) motion from sound sources may be detected at lower levels13. Research in this area has continued for some time in relation to the differences between pressure wave and particle motion detection is sharks14 which would determine frequencies that are detectable by sharks. Unlike many bony , sharks do not possess swim bladders or other structures that can convert acoustic pressure into a displacement stimulus and are, therefore, thought to be able to respond only to the particle motion component of sound (acceleration, velocity, or displacement) not the pressure component, although this remains to be demonstrated conclusively 1516. CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17)

Figure 2: Audiograms of selected marine fauna (http://www.dosits.org/science/soundmeasurement/soundsanimalshear/) and source levels and frequencies of common acoustic tags; all data in terms of sound pressure, noting that some species (fish) are sensitive to particle velocity—a related and often unmeasured quantity. Tag levels that are above an audiogram are potentially detectable by the corresponding species. Turtle hearing has not been measured above 1 kHz, and is believed to be non-functional at higher frequencies. The otter is likely unable to detect common 69 kHz tags. The black and red dots represent the measured received levels at detection threshold of Vemco V16 tags by a sea lion and a seal respectively17. Under typical transmission loss conditions, pinnipeds are expected to hear these tags over > 200 m and odontocetes over > 1 km18. Signal detection depends on the level, frequencies and temporal characteristics of the source, the sound propagation environment including ambient noise, and the hearing abilities of the listener. For brief sounds, such as pings from tags, auditory integration times need to be considered when estimating tag detection. Some tags emit brief, broadband pulses at the onset and end of each ping, essentially extending the spectrum of acoustic energy well below and beyond the ping’s tone19. Also, beat frequencies from ping repetition are much lower than ping frequencies and hence may be detectable by species sensitive to lower frequencies. Last but not least, tissue (bone) conducted signals may be detectable over a broader range of frequencies than implied in typical audiograms where the sound source was placed in front of the animal. For example, 69 kHz tags are audible when held against the cheek, even though our individual human audiograms stop below 12-16 kHz.

CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17)

Fig. 3. Time series of a 10 ms ping from a 69 kHz tag (left) and spectrogram of nearly three ping sequences (of 9 pings/sequence); sampling frequency 192 kHz, NFFT = 214, Hamming window, 50% overlap Researchers in the telemetry field are well aware of many risks associated with their research activities, and undergo various permit applications and ethical reviews. It is clear that the introduction of long-term ultrasonic attached and implanted research devices deserves further consideration form an animal ethics and environmental perspective. The review by Hussey et al. 20 shows how widespread telemetry studies are conducted, both geographically and taxonomically. As we gain more insight into each species’ response, the number of negative impacts from tagging may be small compared to the overwhelming knowledge attained, but there may be situations (e.g. threatened species or locations of large tagging effort) with potential risk that needs to be carefully assessed beforehand. It is hoped that the suggestions are helpful for agencies assessing bio-acoustic impacts and animal ethics of these various research programs. The ultrasonic sequenced stream of pulses occurs every 60-90 seconds, although the length of transmission may not be considered of significant duration for tracking and ultimate predation or avoidance, clearly in a low-noise environment the ping sequences may illicit a startle response21 Another key issue to consider relates to surgical insertion of the acoustic tag into the host’s abdomen. In the case of a large shark, the tag will effectively be implanted adjacent to the liver which accounts for approximately 20% of the shark’s body mass which will act as an acoustic impedance refracting and absorbing the tag signal into the liver mass and squalene fluid. The potential consequences of this approach appear to have been ignored and no reference appears to be available on this issue. Vemco the tag manufacturer has stated that they have not undertaken any insertion loss testing of acoustic tags on large animals, despite continued requests from researchers it would appear that no such testing has taken place.

CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17)

The potential issues arising may include but not be limited to:

• Changed and unpredictable behaviours may be experienced in the host shark. • The signal attenuation could see significantly reduced detection ranges for acoustic receivers, this could lead to missed detections on research “curtain” arrays and point-based VR4G Real time warning receivers. Although there are a range of coded acoustic transmitter tags and receivers being used globally by researchers, the Vemco V16 (69KHz) tag is the main used in most countries for shark research activities. Of concern is the fact that the global repository for acoustic tag IDs reports over 10,000 mystery tags (https://members.oceantrack.org/search mystery tag ) that are transmitting in the ocean! Furthermore, our own IMOS research organisation acknowledges that 1.1 million tag detections accounting for 44% of total detections are unknown tags. This situation clearly illustrates that there is poor collaboration between research groups deploying these acoustic tags in the environment.

Source: The Australian Acoustic Tagging and Monitoring System in practice – Deployments, projects and data management – Huveneers and Harcourt One of the greatest concerns regarding high-density deployments of long-term acoustic tags relates to sensitive bio-diverse marine parks. These locations are home to numerous charismatic species attractive to researchers who often conduct intensive electronic tagging studies on target animals.

CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17)

Ningaloo marine park in Western Australia is one such example where hundreds of acoustic tags have been deployed on/in marine taxa for research purposes. The potential issues arising are as follows:

• Given that many of the tagged animals remain in the marine park area the tags will transmit for up to 10 years, the collective wide-scale noise emissions of all these tags could have significant implications for local marine wildlife. • The clusters of receivers located in the marine parks clearly demonstrate the local site fidelity demonstrated by many of the tagged animals. • If a tagged animal dies, the lithium battery powered tag could find itself lodged in the sensitive constantly transmitting as a beacon for years to come as the external plastic casing erodes to allow the leaching of lithium on to the coral reef. • The trophic landscape of these marine parks will see prey-predator activity occur which will inevitable see tag transfer occurring between species therefore providing potential erroneous data outputs as the inadvertently tagged animal passes a receiver. In summary, every acoustic tag is generating a loud ping sequence every minute for up to 10 years, depending on local conditions this noise emission could travel for up to a kilometre and be heard by other marine species. This is truly in a pristine bio-diverse marine environment, it would appear however that there are no rules and regulations in place to monitor and police this situation. Imagine hundreds of people shouting their telephone number every minute for 10 years! Discussion

Clearly, the potential ecological cascade effects of acoustic tagging (and in particular surgical implantation) have not been well considered meaning that regulations and protocols are not in place or observed when such a wide-scale research practice is evolving. Calls for more complete and rigorous reporting in surgical telemetry practices have already been made22 it would appear however that little progress has been made. Given the tens of thousands of electronic tracking tags attached to and implanted into marine organisms there will obviously be issues arising that need consideration. Already, researchers are starting to realise23 the potential for problems, particularly in the re-capture of animals that have already been electronically tagged It is proposed that an additional dimension to each risk assessment that takes into account the potential for unintended acoustic impacts be considered.

CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17)

Future tagging programs should consider a flow chart of questions to develop a risk matrix for EVERY case:

• Is the tag likely going to be audible to the host? • Is it audible to its predators or prey, or other marine taxa? • What is the conservation status of these animals? (Note that many tagging studies are done on vulnerable, threatened or endangered species.) • Is the or environment considered sensitive? • Do we have a register of acoustic tags already deployed in the area (important for marine parks)? • What is the projected life span of the target host when considering that the V16 battery life could be up to 10 years? (This is important in sensitive marine parks where the dead host could place a constantly pinging tag on the sea bed for years to come) Selecting 69KHz as the most suitable frequency for long-term acoustic tag studies appears not to have considered all the potential implications and issues arising. Clearly, higher frequencies will have less adverse effects, however the signal propagation will not be as effective as 69KHz, it is therefore worth reconsidering whether long-term acoustic tagging should be continued (particularly for sharks).

1 www.nhmrc.gov.au/book/australian-code-care-and-use-animals-scientific-purposes-8th-edition-2013 2 www.acma.gov.au/theacma/australian-radiofrequency-spectrum-plan-spectrum-planning-acma 3 N. E. Hussey, S. T. Kessel, K. Aarestrup, S. J. Cooke, P. D. Cowley, A. T. Fisk, R. G. Harcourt, K. N. Holland, S. J. Iverson, J. F. Kocik, J. E. Mills Flemming and F. G. Whoriskey, " telemetry: A panoramic window into the underwater world," Science 348 (6240), 1255642 (2015). doi: 10.1126/ science.1255642 4 M. Moore, R. K. Andrew, T. Austin, J. W. Bailey, A. Costidis, C. George, K. Jackson, T. Pitchford, S. Landry, A. Ligon, W. McLellan, D. Morin, J. Smith, D. Rotstein, T. Rowles, C. Slay and M. Walsh, "Rope trauma, sedation, disentanglement, and monitoring-tag associated lesions in a terminally entangled North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis)," Marine Mammal Science 29 (2), E98-E113 (2013). doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2012.00591.x 5 M. L. Dicken, A. J. Booth and M. J. Smale, "Preliminary observations of tag shedding, tag reporting, tag wounds, and tag biofouling for raggedtooth sharks (Carcharias taurus) tagged off the east coast of South Africa," ICES Journal of Marine Science 63 (9), 1640-1648 (2006). doi: 10.1016/j.icesjms.2006.06.009 6 M. van der Hoop, A. Fahlman, T. Hurst, J. Rocho-Levine, K. A. Shorter, V. Petrov and M. J. Moore, "Bottlenose dolphins modify behavior to reduce metabolic effect of tag attachment," The Journal of Experimental Biology 217, 4229-4236 (2014). doi: 10.1242/jeb.108225 [5] T. T. Jones, K. S. Van Houtan, B. L. Bostrom, P. Ostafichuk, J. Mikkelsen, E. Tezcan, M. Carey, B. Imlach and J. A. Seminoff, "Calculating the ecological impacts of animal-borne instruments on aquatic organisms," Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4 (12), 1178-1186 (2013). doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12109

7 T. T. Jones, K. S. Van Houtan, B. L. Bostrom, P. Ostafichuk, J. Mikkelsen, E. Tezcan, M. Carey, B. Imlach and J. A. Seminoff, "Calculating the ecological impacts of animal-borne instruments on aquatic organisms," Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4 (12), 1178-1186 (2013). doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12109 8 G.McPherson “Acoustic methods to mitigate bycatch and depredation by marine mammals on commercial fishing operations in Australian waters”

9 A. M. Wargo Rub, L. G. Gilbreath, R. L. McComas, B. P. Sandford, D. J. Teel and J. W. Ferguson, Estimated survival of adult spring/summer Chinook salmon from the mouth of the to Bonneville CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17)

Dam, 2011, Fish Ecology Division, Northwest Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, USA, (2012). 10 W. W. L. Au, A. N. Popper and R. R. Fay, (Eds.), Hearing by Whales and Dolphins, (Springer, New York, 2000), pp. 485. 11 D. A. Mann, Z. Lu and A. N. Popper, "A clupeid fish can detect ultrasound," Nature 389, 341 (1997). doi: 10.1038/38636 12 Dennis T. T. Plachta, Jiakun Song,Michele B. Halvorsen, and Arthur N. Popper “Neuronal Encoding of Ultrasonic Sound by a Fish”

13 Craig A. Radford1, John C. Montgomery1, Paul Caiger1 and Dennis M. Higgs “Pressure and particle motion detection thresholds in fish: a re-examination of salient auditory cues in teleosts”

14 A.V.Van Den Berg, A.Schuijf “Discrimination of sounds based on the phase difference between particle motion and acoustic pressure in the shark”

15 Hart, N., & Collin, S. (2015). Sharks senses and shark repellents 16 Sophie L. Nedelec, James Campbell2, Andrew N. Radford1, Stephen D. Simpson and Nathan D. Merchant “Particle motion: the missing link in underwater ”

17 K. A. Cunningham, S. A. Hayes, A. M. W. Rub and C. Reichmuth, "Auditory detection of ultrasonic coded transmitters by seals and sea lions," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 135 (4), 1978-1985 (2014). doi: 10.1121/1.4868371 18 A. E. Bowles, S. L. Denes and M. A. Shane, "Acoustic characteristics of ultrasonic coded transmitters for applications: Could marine mammals hear them?," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 128 (5), 3223-3231 (2010). doi: 10.1121/1.3493438 19 A. E. Bowles, S. L. Denes and M. A. Shane, "Acoustic characteristics of ultrasonic coded transmitters for fishery applications: Could marine mammals hear them?," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 128 (5), 3223-3231 (2010). doi: 10.1121/1.3493438 20 N. E. Hussey, S. T. Kessel, K. Aarestrup, S. J. Cooke, P. D. Cowley, A. T. Fisk, R. G. Harcourt, K. N. Holland, S. J. Iverson, J. F. Kocik, J. E. Mills Flemming and F. G. Whoriskey, "Aquatic animal telemetry: A panoramic window into the underwater world," Science 348 (6240), 1255642 (2015). doi: 10.1126/ science.1255642 21 Ronald A. Kastelein, Sander van der Heul, Willem C. Verboom, Nancy Jenning, Jan van der Veen, and Dick de Haan “Startle response of captive North Sea fish species to underwater tones between 0.1 and 64 kHz”

22 Jason D. Thiem Mark K. Taylor Sarah H. McConnachie Thomas R. Binder Steven J. Cooke “Trends in the reporting of tagging procedures for fish telemetry studies that have used surgical implantation of transmitters: a call for more complete reporting”.

23 N. Hammerschlag, S.J. Cooke, A.J. Gallagher and B. J.Godley “Considering the fate of electronic tags: interactions with stakeholders and user responsibility when encountering tagged aquatic animals”