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.

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?

The Courier-Mail recently posted a story titled, Monster shark spreads fear off Queensland coast, focusing on a supposed "monster" white shark, which is so large that it was able to nearly bite a 3m (approximately 10′) white shark "in half" (with two bites on alternating sides, that is). The 3m shark was bitten after it was "snared on a baited drumline." The Courier-Mail posted this picture of the 3m white shark with the bite marks from the larger shark. The article goes on to estimate the size of this "monster" to be 5m (approximately 16.5′) or more. The article also refers to the shark as a "giant" great white, when not repeatedly referring to it as a "monster shark."

Let’s take a step back into reality, shall we? 5m is not outside of the range of what would generally be considered a normal length for an adult white shark. It is hardly a "giant," relatively speaking, when it comes to white sharks. So, who is spreading the fear about a monster off the coast of Queensland? Is it the actual shark or the over-the-top sensationalized reporting about the shark?

The article goes on to discuss the controversial topic of shark nets. Aside from the unnecessary sensationalism, one thing about the article that did strike me as interesting was that it mentioned that Vic Hislop (great white shark "hunter") does not support the use of shark nets due to the overall damage they cause to the marine environment, and that he supports methods to "scare away sharks rather than capture and kill them." This comes as a bit of surprise considering some of Hislop’s statements about sharks, which were featured in a recent Edit International article.

The official National Geographic YouTube Channel posted a video today documenting a rescue effort to help an injured sand tiger shark. The approximately 10′ (3m) female sand tiger had a fishing gaff embedded in her throat.

While the video itself plays on the drama and danger of the situation, it still manages to do a fairly good job of avoiding portraying the shark in a negative manner. Unfortunately, it seems that whoever wrote the description of this (otherwise shark-conscious) video simply could not resist the urge to add some negative hype. The video description currently reads…

A rescue team performs emergency surgery on a MAN-EATING Sand Tiger Shark – but they have to catch it first.

Is it really necessary (or even accurate) to refer to a sand tiger shark as “man-eating?” Sand tigers are generally regarded as being non-aggressive around humans and simply do not have a history of being “man-eaters.” While this kind of over-the-top hype seems commonplace among The Discovery Channel’s recent shark-related programming, I still expect better from National Geographic.

The Daily Star (a UK "news" source) has really outdone itself with its story, Killer on a Beach, a report about a thresher shark washing ashore at Hayle Beach in Cornwall. The story is so over-the-top with ridiculous sensationalism that it would be funny, if it weren’t so pathetic. The "Killer on a Beach," title almost seems tame compared to the secondary title, "A SHARK that can decapitate a human with the lash of its tail has been found on a British beach." While there is an unconfirmed anecdotal account of a fisherman being decapitated by a breaching thresher, the source of this story probably also knew a kid in elementary school who ate Pop Rocks, while drinking Coke, and exploded. I suppose it’s possible to be decapitated by the tail of a thresher. If somebody took the time and effort they could probably decapitate a human with that plastic knife that comes with the Play-Doh Fun Factory (perhaps, Hasbro should add that as a warning). The Daily Star goes on to describe the thresher’s tail (caudal fin) as "razor-sharp." I’d invite the Daily Star Staff reporter to try to shave with the tail of a thresher. The article also notes that the thresher is a "close relative" of the great white shark, and it even goes so far as to include a photo of a great white shark merely swimming along, with the caption of "Lethal shark on the rampage."

Congratulations, The Daily Star, you are truly special!

Note: It is generally accepted that the common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) is not considered to be aggressive toward or dangerous to humans, although divers are cautioned to treat thresher sharks with respect (this is a general rule with all aquatic life). Injuries (non-decapitating ones) to divers have been documented as a result of being struck by the thresher’s whip-like tail, which can occur if the shark is provoked.