The Dorsal Fin

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.”

WPTV is reporting that an investigation has been launched to determine if the victim of last week’s fatal shark attack off of Stuart, Florida was photographed by hospital employees at Martin Memorial hospital in violation of HIPPA.

Chief marketing communications officer, Miguel Coty, noted that while it is not uncommon for photos to be taken for documentation and educational purposes, the investigation is focused on why and for what purpose the photos were taken. Coty also stated that upon completion of the investigation, if it is determined that a violation of privacy occurred, it would be responded to with “swift and appropriate measures.”

As a quick follow-up to today’s earlier story about the great white shark attack that wasn’t, here’s a brief interview with Paul Welsh, the man who was bitten by a wobbegong shark. Interestingly enough, this footage was shot between the time that Welsh was bitten by the wobbegong and the time that he was “rushed” to the hospital, as some media outlets reported. Despite several reports from various media outlets yesterday regarding a white shark attack, at no point does Welsh mention a great white shark, and it almost sounds as if his son mentions something about a “stingray” in the background, which a wobbegong could understandably be confused with (unlike confusing a great white shark with a wobbegong). Cheers to Mr. Welsh for his positive attitude, and here’s to a speedy recovery from his injuries.

The Sun Sentinel is reporting that George Burgess, Florida Program for Shark Research Director, has determined that the species involved in yesterday’s fatal shark attack off Stuart Beach, FL was a member of the requiem family, which includes tiger sharks, bull sharks, blacktip sharks, and spinner sharks. Burgess examined the bite wounds on the victim and determined that an 8-9′ shark of the requiem family was responsible for the two fatal wounds. Burgess said his examination definitively ruled out the great white shark, a member of the Lamnidae family.

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.