Clarke points out that her best estimate in 2000 was that 38 million sharks per year were being traded worldwide through fin markets, but that the range could be anywhere from 26 million to 73 million. She also points out that many conservation organizations cite that commercial fishing operations kill millions of sharks each year but rarely is her best estimate of 38 million used. Rather, the figures of 73 million (her top-end estimate) or 100 million are used instead.

The 100 million statistic was initially published in a 1997 Time magazine article. The article titled “Under Attack” stated that “30 to 100 million” sharks were harvested each year for their meat, fins, jaws, hides, and internal organs. However, Clarke says she can find “no scientific basis” for the figure.

Clarke goes on to say that her own figures are often misquoted as representing the number of sharks “killed for their fins” or “finned alive.” She notes that no one actually knows how many sharks are killed for their fins or are finned alive and dumped back into the ocean, because the data simply is not available.

When bringing up the question of why the actual number is important, Clarke offers that misuse or “selective and slanted” use of information devalues the impartial work done by researchers to obtain the data. She also warns that misrepresentation and exaggeration of facts can undermine and discredit otherwise worthwhile shark conservation efforts. Additionally, Clarke points out the accurate catch numbers are needed in order to properly manage long-term shark population sustainability.

Clarke finishes her commentary with some guidelines to being a better “science consumer.”

To read Clarke’s commentary in its entirety, head on over to SeaWeb.org.

There are actually some fairly impressive kite boarding videos on YouTube. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. According to the title and the video information, the video above purports to show a great white shark attack a kite surfer, when in reality it’s just a garbled mix of surface and underwater shots with a couple of snippets of white shark footage spliced in. Throw in some really bad acting and “blood” in the water, and you’ve got your supposed shark attack video. To the video creator’s credit, the transitions into and out of the white shark footage are fairly smooth.

CBS12, this is not an award for outstanding journalism.

Another media outlet has their own great white shark related report regarding yesterday’s tragic attack off of Stuart, Florida. This one is has an even more misrepresentative headline than the Palm Beach Post “report” from earlier today. CBS12.com features a story with the headline, Expert: Great White Shark could have been behind fatal attack. The report features statements from Gary Gross, a biology professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University, who is quoted as saying, “Great whites in our area are very uncommon. They are mostly in deep waters where it’s colder. There has never been an attack here by a white shark.” In fact, the only other mention of white sharks by Professor Gross in the report deals with large sharks mistaking a kite surfer for a turtle, in which Gross is quoted as saying such a scenario is a “white shark situation.” However, Gross goes on to speculate that the attacking shark was “likely a bull shark.” (Currently, there is also no evidence to support or oppose the theory that the sharks involved in the attack were bull sharks.)

CBS12 really seems to be stretching things here. The headline suggests that Gross has indicated that he believes a white shark could be behind yesterday’s attack. However, the statements from Gross within the article suggest that he does not think that great white sharks were involved. Perhaps, a more representative headline would have read, Expert: Highly unlikely great white shark involved in attack. Of course, that might not draw nearly as much attention. It seems that media outlets have realized that great white sharks seem to draw more attention than other shark species, and the mass number of stories running with the great white shark theory (which isn’t backed up by any evidence in this particular case) just goes to show that sometimes the number of viewers/readers a story draws can overshadow truly objective reporting.

At the end of the day experts weighing in on the species involved or not involved is still nothing more than speculation, until some more details and evidence regarding the attack is available.

Juvenile great white sharks (Carcharodon Carcharias), though rare, can be found off the coast of Florida during the winter months, along with several other shark species.

The Palm Beach Post has a cleverly crafted article with a headline “possibly” identifying the species involved in yesterday’s fatal shark attack of a Stuart, Florida kite boarder. The headline, Expert: Young great white sharks possibly involved in fatal Stuart attack, is followed up with the statement credited to Grant Gilmore noting that “young great white sharks — the fish of Jaws notoriety — are among suspects in Wednesday’s fatal attack off Stuart’s coast.” However, if you read far enough into the article, it states that Gilmore would NOT guess which species was involved, since the only available information about the attack was early news reports.

The article goes on to discuss yesterday’s shark attack and mentions three other species common to the area that are cited as being “known to attack humans” but notes that these three species (bull sharks, tiger sharks, and great hammerhead sharks) prefer warmer waters and tend to leave the area in the winter.

Despite the tendency for these species to leave the area in the winter, tiger shark sightings were reported just last week at Riviera Beach, approximately 35 miles north of yesterday’s attack. In addition, a shark which at least one news source identified as a great hammerhead, was also caught on Riviera Beach last week. That same report indicates that bull sharks are common in the area this time of year.

While there is nothing dishonest, per se, about the story’s headline identifying a “possible” suspected species, the nudging of the reader towards the idea that great white sharks (“of Jaws notoriety,” no less) were behind the attack is fairly prominent, despite no evidence being available at the time of the report to indicate the species. So, while the article is not necessarily dishonest, I find it a bit misleading at best. Other news agencies are eating up the Palm Beach Post article and running their own similar stories, including the LA Times article,
Young great white sharks may have killed Stuart surfer, expert says.

While it may turn out that great white sharks were, in fact, involved in this tragic attack, running headlines based on a few statements suggesting a possibility that great white sharks were the culprits is simply irresponsible reporting. Given the limited information that was available when the statements were made, speculation by news agencies falls outside of the realm of objective reporting, and is irresponsible journalism, at best, especially considering the fact that the expert who was questioned on the subject specifically stated that there was not enough information to even guess the species.

Congrats NY Daily News!

The claim that Ross “fended off” the shark with the oar is about as accurate as saying that a pickpocket victim fended off his assailant with a wallet.

The NY Daily News also earns extra special points for using the “We’re gonna need a bigger boat,” reference in a hard news story.

The Today Show segment goes all-out with unrelenting Jaws references, the Jaws soundtrack, and some of the more ridiculous interview clips from other reports (including my favorite, “If they’re going to grab something as big as another shark, they’re definitely going to grab my daughter.”. The Today Show on-air personalities even join in on the Jaws-based hysteria, at the end of the segment. To the Today Show’s credit they do mention that the shark in Jaws is “mythical.” I’m glad they are at least aware that it’s just a movie.

One would think that a reputable network news program like NBC today would have at least taken the time to research the story before running wild with it, but apparently that wouldn’t have put a damper on the whole 20′ great white shark angle.

Fortunately, the good folks over Underwater Thrills: Swimming with Sharks decided to take the time to contact various agencies in Australia about the story and were told by Tony Ham, The Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries manager, that the shark in photo was “a confirmed 3.3 meter (10′) white shark, caught by our contractor, he measured the primary bite mark at 50 centimeters.” However, Ham went on to say that his team estimated that based on the bite marks, the feeding shark was in the 5-5.2 meter (16-17′) range. Even the Courier Mail who first ran the image of the mauled shark on October 24, have marveled at how the feeding shark seems to have magically grown since the story first broke.

Now, I’m only speculating here, but I think that NBC’s Today show probably has a larger operating budget than the Underwater Thrills: Swimming with Sharks blog. So, why is it that a shark blog was able to track down some legitimate information about this story, while a media giant seemed to be incapable of looking past a overly-sensational depiction of the story? My opinion is that NBC’s Today show was simply looking for a shock and awe story, so journalistic responsibility was cast aside for some good old fashioned fear, which really seems to draw in an audience, for some reason.

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?

Believe it or not, this is just a wild animal. It's not actually a monster.

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 deserves an award!

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.

Real-life great white sharks, like this one and the ones recently spotted near Chatham, are often times confused with the large, fake, mechanical shark featured in the movie, Jaws, by some media outlets.

ContactMusic’s article, “Jaws sightings close Massachusetts Beaches,” is about as utterly ridiculous as they come. Just to clarify the headline, multiple sightings of great white sharks near the coastline are what prompted the closing of several Chatham beaches, not sightings of the movie Jaws. The article goes so far as to say that the recent white shark sightings near Chatham, Massachusetts are "terrifying residents of nearby Martha’s Vineyard" (where Jaws was filmed). Say what? Was there any reporting done to substantiate the terror has fallen upon the residents of Martha’s Vineyard? It seems that the good people of Martha’s Vineyard wouldn’t be too fazed by white shark sightings, considering that there have been white sharks reported around the Vineyard repeatedly in recent years. I guess the white sharks around Chatham are more fear-inducing than the ones that were in closer proximity to Martha’s Vineyard in the past.

Thanks for spreading unnecessary fear, ContactMusic. Now, back to reality.