BBC – Earth News has posted a video of what is believed to be the first ever film footage of a living smalleye stingray (Dasyatis microps). According to the BBC report, the smalleye stingray is the largest known stingray and can reach widths of over 2m. The species has only been witnessed alive off the coast of Tofo, a beach located in southern Mozambique. The film was shot while filming a documentary about manta rays with Dr. Andrea Marshal of of the Manta Ray and Whale Shark Research Centre. The footage will air on BBC Two this Wednesday as part of the BBC series Natural World.

According to Monterey Bay Aquarium Sea Notes, a juvenile female white shark, which had been held in captivity at the Monterey Bay Aquarium‘s Outer Bay Exhibit, was successfully released back into the wild on November 4, 2009. The 5’5″ 100 lbs. white shark had grown a couple of inches in length while in captivity and had put on about 20 lbs. of weight. The white shark was captured in August and had been on display at the aquarium since August 26, 2009. Over the past weekend, the white shark was involved in multiple incidents of “aggressive behavior” toward other sharks in the exhibit, prompting the aquarium’s husbandry team to make the decision to return the animal to the wild. In addition to her safe release, the white shark was tagged with two electronic tracking devices, one of which will report real-time location data, the other will report temperature, depth, and location data in 6 months. According to Randy Hamilton, vice president of husbandry, the white shark’s health was “excellent” upon her release.

YouTube user SideOffVideo recently posted this quick video shot of the captive white shark at the aquarium, prior to her release.

A recent article in the NY Post features one of the photographs discussed in yesterday’s post about Amos Nachoum’s photos from an illegal cage-less commercial dive at Isla de Guadalupe. The article, “Hi there, will you be my chum?” makes the absolutely baseless statement that “great whites are so short-sighted they can hardly spot what’s right in front of them.” While it was once thought that white sharks had poor vision (it was also once thought that the Earth was flat), research has shown that white sharks have a highly developed visual system. Perhaps, the article’s author, Andy Soltis, should give this article about white shark vision a read.

As far as the bit about a white shark hardly be able to spot what’s right in front of them, I’d suggest going for a white shark dive. Anybody who has been close enough to see the blue iris of a passing white shark can tell you that a great white shark will often “track” you with its eye movements as it swims by.

Granted, the whole theme of the article seems to be rather whimsical, in nature. However, the NY Post’s somewhat tabloid status, doesn’t excuse it from posting/printing completely unfounded “information.”

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.

UK media outlets, The Sun, the Telegraph, and the Daily Mail, have all run photos from Amos Nachoum taken at Guadalupe this fall. The one photo in particular that seems to be drawing the most attention from the media outlets is head-on shot of a “smiling” white shark that the media outlets are comparing to the character Bruce, from Pixar’s Finding Nemo.

While the head-on shark photo may be the center of attention for the average viewer, I have a feeling that one of the other photos, which features an underwater photographer diving cage-less in close proximity with a white shark, will likely cause some shark diving operators to cringe when they see it. Amos’ decision to take recreational divers cage-less at Isla de Guadalupe recently drew sharp criticism from some shark diving operators, as well as shark diving blogs, including Underwater Thrills: Swimming with Sharks and The Best Shark Dive Ever, due to the fact that it is against the law to offer cage-less dives on a commercial level at Isla de Guadalupe. The appearance of these images in the mainstream UK media probably are not going to alleviate that criticism, as Mr. Nachoum’s media promotion of this illegal dive will likely serve only to further threaten legitimate dive operations at Isla de Guadalupe.

Following hot on the heels of the “monster shark” hysteria, The Sun refers to the white shark in the photo as “giant,” while the Daily Mail calls it “gigantic.” The actual length of the shark was reported as 14′ (4.25 meters) in length.

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.

Apparently, the term "monster shark" is hip these days. Another story of a supposedly “monster shark” has hit the news media less than a week after the story of a “monster shark” off the Queensland coast caused a media storm of it own.

A Daily Telegraph article titled, Monster great white shark caught in South Africa not yet fully grown, reports about another supposed “monster.” This time the “monster” is unfortunately a white shark that died as a result of being entangled in a shark net on August 31, 2009 near Mossel Bay (Western Cape, South Africa). According to the report, the shark was an adolescent female measuring 4.3m (14′) in length. Those familiar with white sharks would hardly consider this to be an exceptionally large white shark, but for some reason some in the media have deemed it a “monster shark.” For some reason, The Daily Telegraph is reporting that the news that this is an adolescent shark is “frightening,” despite the fact that white sharks are known to grow considerably larger than the shark involved in this story. In fact, a much larger white shark was caught in the same area in 2002, according to the report. No word on whether or not that white shark met the requirements to be classified as a “monster.” Then again, “monster shark” might not have been a cool buzzword in the media back in 2002.

Some of the media outlets out there need to come back to Earth, because they are clearly way over the top, when it comes to these “monster shark” stories.

In related news, IOL News, is reporting that the dissection of the shark caught in Mossel Bay has been filmed by Windfall Films for the UK documentary series, Inside Nature’s Giants.

According to various media sources, including The Manila Times, The Philippine Star, and an Associated Press video, a whale shark (Rhincodon typus) was found floating in Manila Bay and later died. As has been the case with another shark story in the news this week, the size of the whale shark varies depending on the source, although the general range seems to be between 14′-18′ (4.25m-5.5m). According to the Philippine, the animal will be buried, by officials of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, in Pangasinan. The cause of death of the animal has not yet been determined.

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.