Australia’s Courier Mail has an interesting and amusing story about the battle of “giant shark movie” clips that is currently raging on YouTube. The contenders are the trailer for Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus, and a short excerpt from Shark Attack 3: Megalodon (which the Courier Mail incorrectly refers to as a “trailer” for the film). When it comes to view count, the Shark Attack 3: Megalodon clip is the winner hands down with over 17.5 million views, compared to Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus’ 2.1 million views. In all fairness, the Shark Attack 3: Megalodon clip has been on YouTube for 2 years longer than the Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus. View counts aside, though, which is the king of the giant shark movie?

The tale of the tape goes something like this…

Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus features:

• Acting sensations Lorenzo Lamas and Debbie Gibson (oops, DEBORAH Gibson)
• State-of-the-art computer-generated special effects that look like they came right off your 1996-era Nintendo 64 (you know you want to click the link)
• A shark attacking the Golden Gate Bridge
• A giant octopus knocking a fighter plane out of the sky
• A shark attacking a passenger jet
• No seriously, A SHARK ATTACKING A FREAKING PASSENGER JET!!!

Shark Attack 3: Megalodon features:

• Dazzling special effects involving actual white shark footage with actors superimposed into the footage for incredible “realism”
• Some of the most infamous dialog ever featured in modern film
• No appearances by either Lorenzo Lamas or Debbie Gibson

With each film having such unique strengths, it’s hard to pick a clear-cut winner (although Giant Shark vs. Mega Octopus does have a shark attacking a passenger jet!!!). I guess the only solution is to let you judge for yourselves. I’m going to go watch the true king of YouTube videos.

According to the Virginia Pilot, the death of a Pennsylvania man, who was vacationing at North Carolina’s Outer Banks last September, has been ruled an accidental drowning, according to the final autopsy report. The initial autopsy indicated that the man had died as a result of shark bites.

In October, reports surfaced that the cause of death had been changed , but a statement from East Carolina University, where the autopsy occurred, said that the “continued uncertainty” would require that the case be further reviewed. According to the Virginia Pilot article, doctors reviewed the case with marine biologists and concluded that “death was likely not due to shark attack.”

Regardless of the cause of death, a loss of life is always tragic. Hopefully, now that the autopsy report has been finalized, the family and friends of the victim can have some closure in this case.

The Institute of Ocean Conservation Science (at Stony Brook University has posted a new video to their YouTube channel. The video was created by the American Museum of Natural History and focuses on research by the IOCS involving genetic tracking to identify the geographic origins of shark fins sold in Hong Kong. The goal of the research is aimed at aiding international trade agencies in determining how to protect fish species.

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.