The Dorsal Fin

The Courier Mail is starting off 2010 with a spin-off story involving the “monster” great white shark reportedly responsible for a shark-on-shark attack on another great white back in October. As everybody knows, sequels generally don’t live up to the original, but that hasn’t slowed down the Courier Mail. According to the article, surfer Russell Specht survived a “terrifying” encounter with a “monster” white shark off of Main Beach, North Stradbroke Island (Queensland, AUS). The article also states that Specht, local lifesavers, and boardriders fear that this was the same shark responsible for the “horrifying” shark-on-shark attack in October. Specht, who described the animal as approaching “like a submarine,” estimated that the shark was at least 4m (13′) in length. Four other surfers were with Specht when someone spotted the shark (or “monster” as it is referred to in the article). Specht’s mates immediately headed toward the beach leaving him alone in the water with the approaching shark. Specht said the shark passed directly underneath him, as he sat motionless on his board, at a depth of about 1m (3.3′) before veering off and swimming away.

The article goes on to mention that the co-ordinator of Surf Life Saving Queensland Gold Coast services, Stuart Hogben, supports Specht’s suspicions that he saw the same great white shark responsible for the shark-on-shark attack in October. However, neither Hogben nor the article’s author make mention of any evidence as to why they believe this is the same shark, other than to say that Hogben witnessed several sharks in the 2-3m range about 200-300m offshore of the island’s surf side, during a helicopter flight last weekend.

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.

Kudos to Rory Gibson of Australia’s Courier Mail, for his article, Hysteria over shark risk to swimmers unfounded. His commentary on the media and public reaction to the story about a photo of mauled great white shark caught on a drum line last month is both entertaining and poignant. Gibson points out, in a very tongue-in-cheek nature, that relatively low risks of shark attacks on humans, and stresses the need for conservation of the great white shark as a species. He is also critical of the Queensland shark control program, which “indiscriminantly kills a creature listed as vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.” Gibson suggests a moratorium on shark nets and drum lines until a non-lethal solution for managing white shark populations can be devised. Check out the entire article at the Courier Mail.

NBC Today has thrown their hat into the ring in what appears to be an attempt to outdo the level of sensationalism found in some of the other reports of Queensland’s supposed “Monster Shark.”

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.

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.