According to Sky News a rescue helicopter crew filmed the video of above in a stretch of coastal area off of Teewah, Queensland. The Sky News article identifies the species as tiger sharks and reports that over a hundred sharks were spotted in the area when the video was shot. The sharks were encircling fish along the coast, according to the helicopter crew.

Thanks to Shark Diver’s Underwater Thrills Blog for the heads-up on this video.

The shark nets are already equipped with pingers designed to alert dolphins. The whale pingers will a “longer and louder noise” as compared to the dolphin pingers, according to Primary Industries Minister Tim Mulherin, who went on to note that the pingers are designed only to alert the whales of the presence of the nets not to scare them away.

Multiple prototypes will be fitted to the nets this week as a test run. The goal is to have the alarms on all the shark nets by August when younger whales are more likely to come in close proximity to the nets.

Some more non-monster great white sharks. At least, I don't think these are monster sharks.

The Courier Mail has pulled out all the stops with this story. It’s filled to the brim with sensationalism. The author throws in words like “terrifying,” “horrifying,” and “monster.” The story seems crafted to play up the fear angle that was also exploited when the initial shark-on-shark attack story broke, yet this story fails to contain any facts or evidence to support the theory of Specht and Hogben. There is no mention of the discrepancy in the size of the shark believed to be responsible for the shark-on-shark attack compared to the size of the shark Specht encountered. The estimated size of the shark involved in the October attack as being 5-5.2m (16.4-17′), according to Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries manager, Tony Ham. Ham’s team estimated the shark’s length based on the bite wounds to the shark carcass from the October attack. Specht, on the other hand, reported the shark he saw as being at least 4m (13.1′). Granted, the term “at least” does leave some wiggle room for the shark’s actual size, but we’re talking about a difference of at least 1m (3.3′).

Then there’s this whole issue of “monster” sharks. A 4m white shark is certainly a large shark when compared to the size of human, but for a species known to reach lengths of 6m (19.7′), it escapes me how the shark that Specht saw has achieved its “monster” status. Perhaps, the “monster” title is independent of size. However, if that were the case, it would seem that the “monster” status would have to be earned based on monstrous behavior. In the case of Specht, the only thing the shark reportedly did was swim in close proximity of Mr. Specht and some other surfers, which hardly seems to be monster-worthy activity. Despite the lack of any real confrontation between the shark and Specht, the Courier Mail article is adorned with a headline that mentions a “face-off” between Specht and the shark. Since there was fortunately no reported confrontation between the shark and Specht, we can only assume that the two were beginning a friendly game of hockey. Now, THAT would be a newsworthy shark 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.

White sharks are one of the three species that will be monitored by a Queensland government plan.

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.

“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.

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?