The Dorsal Fin

Microsoft has released a new commercial featuring the rather infamous “Zombie vs Shark” scene from Lucio Fulci’s 1979 film, Zombie (aka Zombi 2), in which a zombie attacks a tiger shark. Despite the fact that the shark in the video is clearly a tiger shark, the Microsoft ad mistakenly refers to the animal as a great white shark.

While the zombie has the upper-hand early on, the tiger shark ends up with the zombie’s upper-hand and upper-arm at the end of the battle. Unlike many other shark attack sequences seen in movies of this era, the shark scene in Fulci’s Zombie was filmed with an actual tiger shark. The zombie was reportedly played by the shark’s trainer. Below is the “Shark vs Zombie” scene in its entirety.

WCNT is reporting that a Hawaiian surfer was unharmed after what is believed to be a tiger shark took a bite out of his surfboard. Jim Rawlinson was surfing in Hanalei Bay when he was knocked off his board by the shark. According to Rawlinson, he fell off the board and landed on the shark’s back. After sliding off the back of the shark, he undid his surfboard leash to swim away. Apparently, the shark had the same idea, as Rawlinson said the next thing he knew the shark was gone.

The fact that the tiger shark left Rawlinson unharmed only further dispels the myth that tiger sharks do not necessarily “eat everything in sight.” According to the WCNT report, a marine biologist speculated that the tiger shark might have mistaken the surfboard for a sea turtle.

The WCNT anchor’s “lucky to be alive” statement might be going a bit overboard. At the very least, it’s probably safe to say that Rawlinson was lucky that neither one of his feet nor any other body part was situated on the part of the surfboard that was bitten.

Footage from the Australian Institute of Marine Science’s Baited Remote Underwater Video Stations (BRUVS) is making news in Australia’s The Courier-Mail. While The Courier-Mail article claims the video features a tiger shark “stalking” a sea snake, it certainly looks more like the tiger shark is “stalking” bait attached to the BRUVS unit, based on the footage. Regarldess, the footage (which appeared on the AIMS site back in August) is definitely worth a watch…

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.

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.