Are great white sharks and giant squid doing battle in the depths of the Pacific?
If so, there isn't any solid evidence to substantiate it, at this point.

A recent article that appeared online at the LA Times website suggests that great white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) and giant squid (species from the Architeuthis genus) might “battle” it out in the depths of the Pacific. The theory, which other media outlets are running with as if it were scientifically proven, seems entirely based on research of migratory patterns of white sharks being conducted by Michael Domeier.

The research has revealed that migratory patterns of the white sharks take them to an area of the Pacific where Domeier’s research team found “barely any fish or other prey that the sharks might be eating,” aside from the presence of “purple and neon flying squids” and sperm whales. Sperm whales have been documented feeding on giant squid and, according to the LA Times article, are known to feed in spawning areas of large squid. The article also notes that the team found the carcass of a giant squid that appeared to have been chewed on, “perhaps by various predators.”

To sum the theory up, it is based merely on the simlutaneous presence of great white sharks, sperm whales, and squid in the same geographic area, coupled with a lack of understanding of why the white sharks are traveling to this particular area. There is no documented observation of white sharks and giant squid doing “battle.” While it’s not an impossibility that a white shark might feed on a giant squid, there really isn’t much to substantiate that it happens, aside from speculation.

My biggest doubt about this theory is based on the lack of any reported documentation of great white sharks bearing the tell-tale markings of defensive injuries caused by giant squid. Sperm whales have been known to be scarred with “sucker marks” from giant squid, yet there does not appear to be any documentation of these types of wounds on great white sharks. The white sharks that Domeier has been tracking were tagged at Isla de Guadalupe and the Farallon Islands, so these are sharks that get quite a bit of attention from researchers and underwater photographers/videographers, so it seems unlikely that such wounds/scars would go unnoticed. In fact, the markings and scars on the white sharks at Guadalupe and the Farallons are often documented and used to identify specific sharks.

The fact that a giant squid carcass was found with bite marks doesn’t necessarily support the white shark versus giant squid theory, either, especially considering that the LA Times article suggests the possibility that the wounds were from “various predators.” The article fails to mention what species were responsible for the bite wounds and whether the bites caused the death of the squid or were postmortem. Even postmortem bite wounds from a white shark wouldn’t substantiate a “battle” between the giant squid and a white shark. White sharks are known to scavenge when the opportunity presents itself, which might be a necessity based on the apparent lack of typical prey items, as noted by the research team. The article also reports that a known predator of giant squid (sperm whales) had been observed in the area, so it wouldn’t be a big surprise, if a sperm whale was feasting on a squid carcass.

Perhaps, next week an article about a great white sharks versus sperm whales theory will hit the press.

Greg Skomal of the Massachusetts’ Division of Marine Wildlife said the sharks “hugged the coast” during their travels, unlike similarly tracked great white sharks in the Pacific, who often journey far offshore. Skomal also noted that the sharks reached depths of 1,500′ during the migration.

While nurse shark’s are bottom-feeders and are generally harmless toward humans, I still feel the need to give a “Kids, don’t try this at home,” warning, as the species has been known to occasionally latch on to divers when harassed or handled. Kudos to the diver in this video for clearing the shark of its unwanted accessory.

They really aren't the same year. I promise.

ABC News’, Shark Attacks Rise Worldwide But Drop In the U.S., wouldn’t exactly serve as a benchmark for statistical analysis on annual shark attack incidents. The article attributes a “rise” in global attacks to comparisons of reported attacks from 2008 (60) and 2009 (61). It also seems that the report can’t even distinguish between the 2009 and 2010 incidents, as evidence by the follow excerpt…

“In 2009, there were 61 total shark attacks, five of them fatal, including a 38 year old kiteboarder killed off the Florida coast last month.” – ABC News

Admittedly, I’ve been known to lose track of what day it is. However, I’m fairly certain that 2009 attacks would not include incidents from “last month,” which was February, 2010.

The article also goes on to mention a drop in U.S. attacks. This observation is also based solely on comparisons between overall incident reports between 2008 and 2009. George Burgess offers up a theory on reasons for this “drop,” although the article is polite enough to note that Burgess’ theory (much like the rest of the article) is “based on little scientific evidence.”

And yes, multiple “news” sources have tried to play up the danger of this event due to the aquarium being “shark-filled.” In reality, a leakage at an aquarium filled with over 2 million gallons of water and over 400 sharks does have catastrophic potential, but the danger is due to the 2 million gallons of water, not the sharks in it.

The details seem fairly limited from Martin Memorial public response to this incident, due to a policy that prohibits discussing personnel issues. Coty was quoted as saying, “We have determined that these inappropriate actions were taken by good people who exercised poor judgment.”

The TCPalm.com article also had the following tribute video for the victim.

Unfortunately, it seems that orcas have become just as susceptible to media sensationalism as sharks. This ABC clip is a prime example…

The clip plays out more like a guy announcing a pro-wrestling match than it does a news story. This is an incredibly tragic story, as such, it needs to be handled objectively with journalistic integrity, instead of being covered like it was a monster truck rally.

This photo (click the link, as I don’t have the rights to display it here) is accompanied by the caption, “Saved … Shark Angel frees creature from net.” Sadly, the “creature” in the photo, a sand tiger shark, appears well past the point of saving and looks to be quite dead. In fact, what appears to be the same shark can be seen in the Shark Angels video below.

Photo caption blunders aside, I have to give credit to The Sun for taking a step in the right direction, when it comes to steering away from the fear angle and featuring a story about conservation.

The video addresses the effects of overfishing and finning on shark populations. Unfortunately, the feature is plagued with the “magic number”, claiming 100 million sharks are killed each year, which is not backed by any solid research (research-backed estimates put the number in 26 million to 73 million range, which is staggering in its own right).

Magic numbers aside, the feature does bring up valid points, including how the media has helped to contribute to misconceptions about the dangers of sharks toward humans. Ian Gordon points out that most people know very little about shark behavior and biology. He also notes that he has been around sharks for 30 years and if sharks were as dangerous as many people believe, he would likely be dead by now.

A California man went head-to-head with a zombie shark and lived to tell about it. Well, not really.

In what can only be likened to the “Balloon Boy” story of shark “news,” a California man has survived, based on his own account, what could only be described as a harrowing encounter with a mako shark. Dale Kobetich told Surfline.com that a mako shark circled him for 20 minutes and charged him at one point. Kobetich even managed to snap several photos of the shark to document his ordeal, including a close-up shot when shark charged him (you can view them at the Surfline.com article by clicking the “next” link at the top of the story).

At first glance, this may seem to be just a run of the mill story about some guy over-exaggerating a harmless encounter with a shark while doing a little underwater photography. However, I can assure that it’s not. You see, what Kobetich does not mention in the original Surfline.com article is that the mako shark featured in his photos is deader than dirt, which can mean only one thing…it’s a ZOMBIE SHARK!!!

Or…it could mean that Kobetich fabricated the whole story after buying the shark from a Newport Beach Pier fisherman for $70 and dragging its carcass out into the water for a photo shoot, as he has since admitted to Surfline.com. Kobetich claims that he did it, so that people could “take it for the art of the photographs” and not for any kind of notoriety or financial gain. Personally, I don’t view photos of dead shark carcass as art, but maybe that’s just me.

While Kobetich’s hoax seems harmless enough on the surface, the reason it rubs me the wrong way is that he played on people’s fears toward sharks, which perpetuates misconceptions that people who are not familiar with sharks may have. Some of the comments accompanying the original Surfline.com article show that at least some of the readers bought into his story hook, line and sinker, as there are people discussing his bravery and courage. Kopetich also suggests in the original article that he was in imminent danger, due to the presence of the mako. This assumption of danger along with the account that the small mako circled him for 20 minutes is a pretty good indication that even an experienced underwater photographer, like Kopetich, can buy into stereotypes about sharks that are largely based on fiction. To me, that’s the most pathetic aspect of this “story.”

Thanks to the Underwater Thrills: Swimming With Sharks blog for pointing out this whopper of a fish story.