The Dorsal Fin

Apparently, the term "monster shark" is hip these days. Another story of a supposedly “monster shark” has hit the news media less than a week after the story of a “monster shark” off the Queensland coast caused a media storm of it own.

A Daily Telegraph article titled, Monster great white shark caught in South Africa not yet fully grown, reports about another supposed “monster.” This time the “monster” is unfortunately a white shark that died as a result of being entangled in a shark net on August 31, 2009 near Mossel Bay (Western Cape, South Africa). According to the report, the shark was an adolescent female measuring 4.3m (14′) in length. Those familiar with white sharks would hardly consider this to be an exceptionally large white shark, but for some reason some in the media have deemed it a “monster shark.” For some reason, The Daily Telegraph is reporting that the news that this is an adolescent shark is “frightening,” despite the fact that white sharks are known to grow considerably larger than the shark involved in this story. In fact, a much larger white shark was caught in the same area in 2002, according to the report. No word on whether or not that white shark met the requirements to be classified as a “monster.” Then again, “monster shark” might not have been a cool buzzword in the media back in 2002.

Some of the media outlets out there need to come back to Earth, because they are clearly way over the top, when it comes to these “monster shark” stories.

In related news, IOL News, is reporting that the dissection of the shark caught in Mossel Bay has been filmed by Windfall Films for the UK documentary series, Inside Nature’s Giants.

According to various media sources, including The Manila Times, The Philippine Star, and an Associated Press video, a whale shark (Rhincodon typus) was found floating in Manila Bay and later died. As has been the case with another shark story in the news this week, the size of the whale shark varies depending on the source, although the general range seems to be between 14′-18′ (4.25m-5.5m). According to the Philippine, the animal will be buried, by officials of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, in Pangasinan. The cause of death of the animal has not yet been determined.

The Brisbane Times is reporting that the Queensland government will be spending $125,000 on a five-year program to tag and monitor bull, tiger, and white sharks in an effort to "reduce the risk of attacks." Acoustic tags will be used to report data to monitoring stations when tagged sharks are nearby. Shark control program manager, Tony Ham, said that they expected to tag 150 sharks in three years (which seems like an odd statement, considering that the article reports the duration of the study to be five years).

In addition to the shark monitoring aspect, the Queensland government will also invest in new and improved acoustic alarms to alert whales and dolphins of the existence of shark nets." The new alarms will use a longer lower pitch signal at a louder volume to give cetaceans a more advanced warning of the nets. The shark nets have come under criticism due to whales and other marine life becoming entangled in them.

ABC World News has an interesting video regarding the mauled shark photos from Queensland that have recently hit the media. The video, titled “Shark vs. Shark: Real or Hoax?” can be found accompanying the article, Shark-on-Shark Attack Frightens Australia’s Gold Coast. It features a photo of the mauled shark accompanied by the following commentary:

“Take a look at this. It’s supposed to be a photo of a shark with a bite taken out of it by another shark. This was allegedly taken in Australia. Sounds slightly fishy to us, but you can be the judge of that.”

While the details of the story certainly seem sketchy at best, considering the varying reports on the mauled shark’s size, the fact that there are photographs from multiple angles of the mauled shark seems to indicate that something took two large "bite-shaped" chunks out of the shark in the photos. It’s certainly possible that somebody with some serious spare time on his/her hands was busy in PhotoShop creating multiple angles of a hoax image, but I’m going to go ahead and give the images the benefit of the doubt of being "undoctored", unless somebody proves otherwise.

Original image of mauled shark
Image of mauled shark from second angle

All that being said, I don’t believe in “monster” sharks (nor “monster” orcas, for that matter). The existence of white sharks (or orcas) in the oceans that are large enough to make large bite wounds like those seen in the photos is neither impossible nor even improbable for me to believe in. It’s no secret that they exist. I just don’t believe that being large classifies an animal as a monster. I’m also not convinced, based on those two photos, of just what exactly caused the wounds to the mauled shark.

Multiple media outlets have jumped on the "Monster Shark" story out of Queensland. Oddly enough, the size of the "Monster Shark," which reportedly has not actually been seen by anybody, seems to vary depending on who is reporting the story.

Mother Nature Network estimates the shark being 15′ (4.5m) in length and lists the smaller shark that was reportedly bitten by the "monster shark" as being 9′ (2.75m). Despite listing the larger shark at 15′, MNN still refers to the animal as both "gigantic" and a "monster." The article’s headline, states that the shark "terrifies" the locals, although the local quoted in the article merely makes mention of being cautious.

A Sky News report (overflowing with "monster" usage) posted by YouTube user SharkAndAnimals reports the larger animal to be over 5m (>16.5′) and that the smaller shark was 3.7m (>12′).

The Daily Mail article ups the ante (we can always count on the Daily Mail), estimating the larger shark at up to 20′ (>6m). The beauty of the Daily Mail article is that it reports the smaller shark as being 10′ (3m) early in the article, then refers to the smaller shark as being 14′ (4.25m) in the caption of a photo of the mauled shark. Of course, I would expect nothing less from an article that refers to Vic Hislop as "an internationally-recognised authority on sharks."

The 7 News video below, which adds to fear-filled reporting, was embedded in the Daily Mail article.

I sincerely have a hard time taking a "shark expert" seriously, when he makes statements to the effect of, great white sharks "will eat anything." While that kind of fear marketing might help Mr. Edwards sell more of his shark attack books, it’s far from an accurate description of typical white shark feeding habits. However, with "shark experts" proclaiming such inaccuracies as fact, it’s no wonder that the news crew was able to find a woman on the beach, who believes that if a white shark would attack a snared smaller white shark, then it would definitely attack the woman’s daughter, since she is smaller than the mauled shark.

Oh well, journalism was never about getting the facts straight…or was it?