Science,policy,andthepublicdiscourseofshark “attack”: aproposalforreclassifyinghuman–sharkinteractions
ChristopherNeff & RobertHueter
# TheAuthor(s)2013.ThisarticleispublishedwithopenaccessatSpringerlink.com
Abstract TherearefewphrasesintheWesternworldthat evokeasmuchemotionoraspowerfulanimageasthe words “shark” and “attack.” However,notall “shark attacks” arecreatedequal.Undercurrentlabels,listingsof sharkattackmayevenincludeinstanceswherethereisno physicalcontactbetweensharkandhuman.Thedominant perceptionofintent-ladenshark “attacks” withfataloutcomesisoutdatedasagenerictermandmisleadingtothe public.Weproposenewdescriptivelabelsbasedonthe differentoutcomesassociatedwithhuman–sharkinteractions,includingsightings,encounters,bites,andtherare casesoffatalbites.Wearguetwocentralpoints:first,that areviewofthescientificliteratureshowsthathumansare “notonthemenu” astypicalsharkprey.Second,weargue thattheadoptionofamoreprescriptivecodeofreportingby scientists,themedia,andpolicymakerswillservethepublic interestbyclarifyingthetrueriskposedbysharksand informingbetterpolicymaking.Finally,weapplythese newcategoriestothe2009NewSouthWalesShark MeshingReportinAustraliaandthehistoryofsharkincidentsinFloridatoillustratehowthesechangesinterminologycanalterthenarrativesofhuman–sharkinteractions.
Keywords Shark . Sharkattack . Publicpolicy . Labeling . Discourseanalysis Riskperception
C.Neff(*)
DepartmentofGovernmentandInternationalRelations, UniversityofSydney,H04MerewetherBuilding,Room263, Sydney,NSW2006,Australia
e-mail:christopher.neff@sydney.edu.au
R.Hueter
CenterforSharkResearch,MoteMarineLaboratory, 1600KenThompsonParkway, Sarasota,FL34236,USA
e-mail:rhueter@mote.org
Introduction
Scienceplaysapowerfulroleindescribingandlabelingthe naturalworld,providingsocialmeaningforphenomenain nature.Newscientificnamesandexplanationsshapeour understandingasscientificdiscoveriesreplaceoldmyths andmysteries.Anexampleofthisprocessisourevolving knowledgeaboutsharksandsharkbitesonpeople.For centuries,thequestion “Whydosharksbite?” hasimplicitly alsoasked “Whatdosharkbitesmean?” Theanswersto thesequestionshaveimplicationsforthewayscientific discourseinformsthepublicandpolicymakers.Thesubject ofsharkbitesillustrateshowvividtermslike “attack” are difficulttoreplaceandhowinflammatoryrhetoriccanelicit knee-jerkpolicyresponses.Theissueisnotsimplywhatto callhuman–sharkinteractions;itisabouttheenduringresponsibilityofsciencetoadvanceitsthinkingwithoutleavingthepublicbehind.
Threelabelsstandouthistoricallyinthescientificaswell aspublictreatmentofsharkbitesonpeople.Thesearethe conceptofthe “man-eater” shark, “rogue” shark,andthe term “sharkattack,” allofwhichoriginatefromscientific studies.Thelingeringuseofthephrase “sharkattack” by mediaandgovernmentsourcestoreportonhuman–shark interactionshasledtoacriminalizationofsharkbites. Indeed,theuseofthe “rogue” sharkconceptsandintentladenwordslike “attack” cangivesharksaperceivedtraitof malicious “agency” andsupportgovernmentoverreactions tosharkbites.Inthispaper,weshowthatanobjective analysisconcludesthatsharkbitediscoursemustbe changedbothscientificallyandpublicly,andweproposea differentmodelforconsideration.Wesuggestthatshark “attack” terminologyisoutdated,andweoffernewcategoriesforscientistsandthemediatoreportmoreaccuratelyon theseevents.
Constructionoftheman-eaterlabel
ThescientificsystemofspeciesclassificationanddescriptionoriginatedbyCarlLinneaus(1758) thesamesystem thatidentifieshumansas Homosapiens wasthegenesis forthelabelof “man-eater” forthewhiteshark, Carcharodoncarcharias.Linneaus’ descriptionofthisspeciesincludednotingthat “itstrikes” (dorfoplano),hasteeth ofarmor(dentibusferrates),andwaslikelyresponsiblefor swallowingJonah(Linneaus 1758,p.235),whosestoryhad beenwidelypublishedinthe 1679 LectionesMoralesin ProphetamJonam byAngeloPaciuchelliandCharlesde Marimont.Linnaeus’ historicvolumesredefinedthescientificandsocialworld,andwhitesharksweresingledoutfor theirmotivationasaman-eater.
Fromthere,thestoryofthedangerposedbysharksgrew.In ThomasPennant’s 1812 volume BritishZoology,astatedcharacteristicofwhitesharkswastheir “greedinessafterhuman flesh” (p.140).In1845,SamuelGoodrichwrotethattheshark isthe “dreadofmankindintheseaswhereitisfound” (Goodrich 1845,p.317). “Man-eater” cametovirtuallydefinewhitesharks (JordanandGilbert 1880),butthelabelalsowasusedforother speciesinotherareas.Forexample,inHawai’i,theterm niuhi meaning “man-eater” wasusedinnativesongs,mostlikely referringtothetigershark(TitcombandPukui 1951,p.4).
InEurope,colonialexperiencesshapedunderstandingsof sharks.Britishbig-gamehunterSirSamuelBaker’sexpeditions inAsiaandAfricaledhimtoconcludethatindividualtigers, Pantheratigris,canbecome “maneaters” withinalocalarea (Baker 1890;Blanford 1891).Thisconceptofapredatorthat hasacquireda “tasteforhumanflesh” wasprojectedonto sharks.In1899,WilliamBrycewroteinthe BritishMedical Journal aboutsharkbitesonthreepeopleonthesamedayin PortSaid,Egypt.Henotedthat “manypeoplehaveexpressed theopinionthatitmusthavebeenonesharkwhichbitallthree boys,andIthinkthisverylikely” (Bryce 1899,p.1534).
HistoricalaccountsatthistimeintheUSAoftendiffered, withscientistsarguingthatdangeroussharkscouldonlybe foundinwarmersouthernwaters.Areportinthe NewYork Times in1865recountedthestoryofPeterJohnson,afishermanaboardaschoonerinLubec,Maine,whowasbittenbya shark “thatmusthavebeenofthespeciesknownas ‘maneater’” (NYTimes 1865).Yetthereportnotesthat “maneaters” are “commoninlowlatitudes” and “seldom,ifeverattack mankind” (NYTimes 1865).In1916,interestinsharkbehavior rosedramaticallyfollowingaclusteroffatalsharkbitesinNew Jersey.Initially,FredericAugustusLucasoftheAmerican MuseumofNaturalHistorystatedthatitmustnothavebeen asharkbecause “sharkshavenosuchpowerfuljaws” (Webster 1962,p.87).Helaterconcludedthathewaswrong,andthe sharkinquestionmusthavebeendementedor “mad.”
InAustralia,oceanswimmingduringthedaywasillegal fromthelate1830suntil1902,duetoconcernsaboutpropriety
(Neff 2012),andthefirstreportedsharkbitewasnotdocumenteduntil1915,atanoceanbeachinSydney(Maxwell 1949).FatalincidentsfollowedatSydneybeaches,yet responseswerelimited.NewSouthWalesFisheriesexpert DavidSteadofferedastatementonsharkbehaviorin1929, notingthat “sharksdonotpatrolbeachesontheoff-chanceof occasionallydevouringhumanprey” (NSW 1929,p.2).Asa result,anAustraliangovernmentreportatthetimereferredto mostcasesoffatalsharkbitesasshark “accidents” (Neff 2012).
However,moresharkbitesensuedinAustralia,anda 1933studybySydneysurgeonSirVictorCoppleson attemptedtoreconcilethecompetinginternationaltheories. CorrespondencefromtheUSAurgedhimtoaddressthis disagreementandtowarnthepublicofpossible “shark rabies” (Copplesonarchives 1964).Copplesonconcluded thatthe “evidencethatsharkswillattackmaniscomplete” (Coppleson 1933,p.466).Followingpublicationofhis article,theterminologyinAustraliachangedtofavorthe moredominantshark “attack” language,whichportrayed certainsharksas “mankillers” (Coppleson 1933).Yet,the questionofhowtolabeldifferenttypesofsharkbiteswould persist,allowingtheperceptionthatallsharkbiteswereof the “man-eatingattack” variety.
In1949,AustralianauthorC.BedeMaxwellconcluded thata “sharkconsciousness” wasbeginningtoemerge,and shewrotethat “‘accidents’ isthecorrectwordtousein connexion[sic]withsharktragedies” (Maxwell 1949,p. 182).Aglobalawarenessofsharkswasbeginningtotake shapewiththedeploymentofhundredsofthousandsof troopsacrossthePacificinWorldWarII,bringingmore sharksandpeopleintocontactthananyprevioustimein humanhistory.TheUSNavyproduceda “SharkSense” brochuretodissuadetheconcernsofpilots;however,the sinkingofthe U.S.S.Indianapolis in1945,resultingin60–80fatalitiesbysharks(SisnerosandNelson 2001),brought thesubjectofsharksandsharkrepellentstotheforefrontof governmentattention(Caldicottetal. 2001,p.447).
Priortothe Indianapolis disaster,achemicalsharkrepellentcalled “SharkChaser” hadbeendevelopedanddistributed toUSmilitarypersonnelatsea(SisnerosandNelson 2001). Therealizationthatthisrepellentwasonlypartiallyeffective ledtheOfficeofNavalResearch(ONR)andothergroupsto focusfurtherontheproblem.DecadesofONR-sponsored researchfollowed,resultingingreatadvancesinourknowledgeofsharkphysiology,behavior,andecology(Gilbert 1963;HodgsonandMathewson 1978).In1958,a “Shark ResearchPanel” comprisingPerryGilbert,SidneyGaller, JohnOlive,LeonardSchultz,andStewartSpringerwasestablishedbytheAmericanInstituteofBiologicalSciences (AIBS),spurringanewdiscourseoncategorizinghuman–sharkencounters(Gilbert 1963;Caldicottetal. 2001).
Thatyear,ameetingentitled “ConferenceontheBasic ResearchApproachestotheDevelopmentofSharkRepellents”
washeldinNewOrleans,sponsoredbyAIBS,Tulane University,ONR,andtheNavyBureauofAeronautics. Theconferenceincluded34scientistsfromaroundthe world.Shark “attack” classificationsweresuggested, withfourcategoriesoutlinedinareportbyLeonard Schultz(Schultz 1963).Theseincluded: “unprovoked sharkattacks,” inwhichsharks “makecontactwiththe victimorgear;”“provokedsharkattacks” thatinvolve injuring,catching,orannoyingsharks; “boatattacks” thatinvolvecontactwithboatingequipment;and “air andseadisasters” (Schultz 1963).Totracktrendsin human–sharkinteractionsaroundtheworld,theShark ResearchPanelestablishedtheSharkAttackFile,later knownastheInternationalSharkAttackFile(ISAF), currentlycuratedattheUniversityofFlorida.
TheSchultz(1963)reportadvancedourthinkingabout sharkattackinseveralways.Bitesorrammingonboats wereseparatedoutfrombitesonpeople,reducingthenumberofperceived “attacks” thatoccurredeachyear.The specialcasesofairandseadisasterswereidentifiedas unusualcircumstancespossiblyevokingsharkbehavior nottypicalofthatseenoffoceanbeaches.Mostimportantly, “provoked” responsesbysharksthathadbeenantagonized byswimmers,divers,orfishermenwereseparatedfrom “unprovoked” attackbehavioronwhatwasperceivedto beaninnocenthumanvictim.Thisprovokedvs.unprovokedcriterionisstillusedintoday’sISAF.
Duringthesamepost-WWIIperiod,peoplebeganusing oceanbeachesforrecreationatanincreasingrate,asleisure timeandpersonalandpublictransportationallroseafterthe mid-1940s.IntheUSA, “vacationtravelboomed…and beachesontheEast,West,andGulfcoastswereparticularly populardestinations” (Harper 2007,p.37).Thisexpansion occurredinAustraliaandSouthAfricaaswell.Davies (1964,p.141)statedthatinSouthAfrica,the “increased usageoftheseaisrelatedtosuchfactorsasincreasing population,improvedmethodsoftransport,shorterworking hours,andtheincreaseofleisuretime.” Asaresult,the growingpopularityofoceanswimming,surfing,snorkeling, andscubadivingbroughtmorepeopleintopotentialcontact withsharkseveryyear.
Thecriminalizationofsharkattacks
Theyear1950sawtheinventionofboththebikinibathingsuit andthe “rogueshark” theory,thelatterseekingtoexplain shark “attacks” andguidegovernmentresponses.Coppleson presentedthetheoryfollowinguponhisresearchinAustralia toexplorethemotivationsbehindsharkbites.Hearguedthat theonlysharksthatbithumanswere “rogue” sharksthathave developedatasteforhumanflesh(Coppleson 1950; Coppleson 1959).Thisnarrativebuiltonthelone,man-
eatingpredatorconceptfromthelatenineteenthcentury. Copplesonsuggestedthatothersharksbehave “normally” andarenotlikelytobite,andsohereclassifiedallshark “attacks” asthoseperpetratedby “rogue” sharks.Inthe1950 AustralianMedicalJournal,hewrote:
Thecontinuedpresenceofman-eatingsharks,the attacksinsequenceandcessationofattacksoncea particularsharkiscaught,suggeststheguilt,notof manysharks,butofoneshark.Itsuggeststhepresence ofavicioussharkwhichpatrolsacertainareaofthe coast,ofariverorofaharbor,forlongperiods.
Thisanalysisgavesharkshumanagencyandmoved themfromunseen “monstersofthedeep” toapotentially moreterrifyingimageasresidentserialkillerslurkingin waitforhumanprey.Copplesonthusconcludedthat “sucha sharkmustbehunteduntilitisdestroyed” (Coppleson 1950, p.8).Itisthisperceptualchangeinthetreatmentofshark behaviorthatconstitutesthecriminalizationofthishuman–animalinteraction(Michalowski 1985).
Whilesharksarenottraditionalcriminalsandsharkbites areunconventionalcrimes,thischaracterizationisconsistent withthewayactionsandgroupsreceivebenefitsorburdens. Jenness(2004,p.150)notesthatcriminalization “targetsa setofactivitiesperceivedtobeattachedtoasocialgroup deemed ‘inneedofcontrol’ bythoseinapositiontostimulate,defineandinstitutionalizecriminallaw.” Inthiscase, sharks’ swimmingisnolongerconsideredinnocentbehavior;instead,thispatrollingorcruisingconstitutesathreat.In DavidWebster’sbook MythandManeater (1962,pp.50, 67),thischangecanbeseenassharkbitesonpeopleare labeledasa “molestation” and “assaults.” Inresponseto theseconceptsofsharkbehavior, “sharkcontrol” programs areenactedbynationsaroundtheworld.Sharkbiteshave beentreatedasiftheywerecrimesintheUSA,South Africa,Australia,andelsewhere.DuringthespateofincidentsinNewJerseyin1916,arequestforactionwas discussedduringaWarCabinetmeeting(Webster 1962). Followingaseriesoffourfatalsharkbitesin13daysin 1957alongtheNatalSouthCoastofSouthAfrica,rogue sharkswereidentifiedastheculprits(Davies 1964,p.71). Inresponse,theSouthAfricanNavywasenlisted,anda frigate,the S.A.S.Vrystaat,wassentfromCapeTowntodrop morethansixty100-lbdepthchargesneartheshorelineoffthe SouthCoast(Davies 1964).IntheUSAin1961,fearofshark attacksledtodirectedlonglinefishingforsharksoffthecoast ofNewJersey(Carlsonetal. 2008).InAustralia,cullingnets wereaddedtoQueenslandbeachesin1962(Gribbleetal. 1998).Thesemeasureswereconsistentwithcurrentscientific understandingofsharks.Indeed,Davies(1964,p.65)wrote thatthe “BluePointer[apreviousnameforwhitesharks]isa voraciousandaggressivespecieswhichattackshumansand
evensmallboatswithlittlehesitation.” Theprevailingattitude atthetimehadbecome “theonlygoodsharkisadeadshark” (GruberandManire 1991).
Bythetimethebest-sellingnovel Jaws andthesubsequentblockbustermovieappearedin1974and1975,respectively,thecriminalizationofsharkbiteswasnearly complete:the “man-eater” labelimpliedanintent-driven monsterthatwasseekinghumanprey.Therarediscoveries ofhumanremainsinsidesharksreinforcedthisimageand validatedscientists’ worstfears(Maxwell 1949).Therogue sharktheoryappearedtoprovideascientificbasisformalicioussharkbehavior,fromwhichtherecouldbeonlyone outcomeinhuman–sharkinteractions:thefataloutcome resultingfrombeinghunted,killed,andeatenalivebya shark.WhenPeterBenchley’sbookappeared,thestoryofa roguesharkterrorizingaseasidetownbroughtthegraphicfear ofcriminalsharkshometomillions.Theenactmentofantisharkpoliciesincludingsharkhunts,sharkderbies,andbeach netsbecamepunitivemeasuresfortheperceivedpublicgood. Recreational “monsterfishing” forsharksskyrocketedafter 1975,andshark “kill” tournamentsintheUSAbecamemore popularthaneverbefore(Hueter 1991).Morerecently,real sharkhuntsmirroringthefictionalresponsein Jaws havebeen usedfollowingclustersofsharkbiteincidentsinEgypt, Russia,theSeychelles,Mexico,RéunionIsland,and WesternAustralia(NeffandYang 2012).
Jaws wasaworldwidephenomenonandframedaclear story:humanswereontheshark’smenu.RisktheoristPaul Slovic(2004)notedthatforhazardslikesharkbites,images, words,andsymbolscanbetriggerstopaintapictureof scaryoutcomes.Hefurtherstatedthat “[w]ehavefoundthat everyhazardhasauniqueprofileofqualities(muchlikea personalityprofile)thatinfluencesperceptionandacceptanceofitsrisk” (Slovic 2004,p.985).After Jaws,theshark “attack” profilewaslinkedtotheunforgettableimagesof thefilmandreinforcedone,andonlyone,vividanddreaded outcome.Allshark “attacks” wereperceivedasequal,and whereversharksroamed whichisoffmostswimming beachesoftheworld goingintotheoceanmeantyouwere riskingyourlifetothebloodthirstyjawsofashark.
Why “sharkattack” isthewrongnomenclature
Asalabelforabroadarrayofhuman–sharkinteractions, “sharkattack” isanerroneouscharacterizationforanumber ofreasons.Shark “attack” languageunreasonablyamplifies socialperceptionsofrisk.Itprovidesaheuristicmodelthat facilitatesmentalshortcutstoconnectwordswithimages andfeelings(Slovic 2004).Aloadedphrasesuchas “shark attack” compoundstheperceptionsofothercrimesandoutcomes,similarlytotheterm “homeinvasion.” Such “perceptuallycontemporaneous(PC)offenses” cancause
potentialvictims’ imagestocascadeintoperceptionsabout otherevents(Warr 1984, 1987).Forexample,thefearofa robberyisamplifiedbytheperceivedconnectionithaswith beingassaulted,raped,ormurdered.Likewise,theterm “sharkattack” doesnotelicitthoughtsofminorscrapesor bites;instead,itconjureshorrific,bloodyscenesofbeing consumedalivebyanevilpredator.
Asaresult,thegenericterm “sharkattack,” whichisused tolabelamultiplicityofhuman–sharkinteractions,ismisleadingtothepublic.Reportsofshark “attack” makelittle distinctionbetweenminoreventsandfatalincidents.Bites fromnon-threateningsharkslikethewobbegong,which accountfor5.5%ofallshark “attacks” inAustraliasince 1900(NSW 2009),arenotdistinguishedfrommoreserious bitesbyotherspeciesofsharkswhenalleventsarelabeled shark “attacks.” Theterm “sharkattack” caneveninclude eventswherethereisnophysicalcontactwithaperson.For example,sharkssimplymakingcontactwithkayaksmaybe countedandreportedas “attacks” (NSW 2009).Clearly, whenthephrase “sharkattack” isused,thepublicisledto concludethatthismustinvolvedirectcontactresultingin majorinjuriestothe “victim.”
Inaddition,sharkattacklanguagehasbeenpoliticized, andtheshark “attack” labelissometimesusedforpolitical purposeswhensharkbitesoccur.Thewords “sharkattack” cancreateaperceptionofapremeditatedcrime,lowering thepublic’sthresholdforacceptingsharkbiteincidentsas randomactsofnature.Thenarrativeestablishesvillainsand victims,causeandeffect,perceptionsofpublicrisk,anda problemtobesolved.AsharkfatalityinWesternAustralia in2011ledthelocalshirepresidenttostatethat “[a]lotof peoplesaythewateristheshark’sterritory,butIthinkif theycanfindtheshark(responsible)theyshouldgetridof it.” Andheadded, “[i]ftheyhave attacked [ouritalics]a humaninoneofthoseareastheymaywanttodoitagain” (Hickey 2011).Policiesthatrespondtoshark “attacks,” therefore,maybemoreunderstandableandacceptableto thepublicwhentheyrelyonfamiliarstereotypes,evenif theyhavenorelationshiptowhatactuallytakesplace.In short,apatternexistsinwhichthedesignationofashark “attack” raisesmediaattentionthatprovokesagovernment response,evenwhentheeventmaynotbeseriousorgovernable(NeffandYang 2012).
Itisnotsurprising,therefore,thattheselectionofpolicy responsescaninclude “huntingthesharkdown,” drawing fromthemovielegend.Thisreactionraisesanimportant finalpoint,thatthe “rogue” sharktheoryisunsupportedby scientificdata.Althoughsharksmayhaveampleopportunitytofeedonhumans,theincrediblerarityofincidents suggeststhatsharkbitesinmostcasesrepresentwhat amountstoatacticalandbiologicaldeadendforthesharks. Raisingpublicawarenessofthisinvolvesconceptualizing thescientificdatainawaythatmakesthisclear,evenas
dramaticandsometimesfatalincidentsoccurandarepublicized.Fatalsharkbitesin2010–2012,inSharmElSheikh, Egypt,theSeychelleIslands,RéunionIsland,andoff WesternAustralia,broughtbackstoriesof “rogue” sharks, yetthepost-Jaws erasciencestandsfirmonthisissue: sharkshavenotputhumansontheirmenu.
Movingawayfromshark “attack” language
In1974,DavidBaldridge’sgroundbreakinganalysisof sharkbitedata,conductedatMoteMarineLaboratoryin Florida,introducedthefirstoutcome-basedapproachto categorizehuman–sharkinteractions.Anumberof Baldridge’sconclusionsrancountertoCoppleson’s.For example,BaldridgedidnotsupportCoppleson’sargument thatwatertemperaturewastheprimarydependentvariable linkingsharkfeedingbehaviorwithsharkattackpredictability.Baldridge(1974)statedthat “thecorrelationbetween warmwaterandsharkbitesisareflectionofwhenpeopleare morelikelytogointothewater,notwhensharksareexcitedto feed” (p.17).Inaddition,BaldridgeconfirmedSpringer’s (1963)hypothesisthat,beyondacertainwatertemperature, sharksshowaninverserelationshipbetweenfeedingand temperature.Baldridge(1974)statedthat “therealsharkattackseason” wouldbethattimewhenlocalwatersarewarm enoughforhumanswimmers(above70°F)andnottoohotfor sharks(lessthan85°F)(Baldridge 1974,p.18).
Overthepast30years,manysharkbiologistshavededicatedthemselvestounderstandingsharkbehavior,includingbitingandfeedingpatterns.In1984,TimothyTricasand JohnMcCoskersuggestedthatwhitesharksmightmistake humansforsealsincertaincircumstances,resultingina “biteandspit” behaviorthatcouldexplainwhyhuman fatalitiesdonotalwaysoccurinwhitesharkattacks (TricasandMcCosker 1984).SamuelGruberreviewedthe analysesbyBaldridge(1974)andNelsonetal.(1986)and decideditisunreasonabletodrawconclusionsaboutwhy sharksbitewithoutlookingatthetotalityofsharkmotivation andbehaviorandecosystemconditions(Gruber 1988,p.10). Hestatedthatthecontributingfactorsforsharkbitesinclude random “opportunity,”“interference” withreproductiveactivity,defensivenessagainstathreatorcompetition,andtrespassingintoashark’sspace.Gruberconcluded “themajorityof caseswheresharksactaggressivelyagainsthumansareprobablymotivatedbysocialfactorssuchasfear,aggressionorsex andareentirelyunrelatedtofeeding” (Gruber 1988,p.12).
Thisdiscussionrevealsaprimaryshortcomingofthe Schultz(1963)categorizationof “provoked” vs. “unprovoked” sharkattacks.Itiseasytoclassifycasesofdivers spearingsharks,grabbingtheirtails,orattemptingtoride them,orfishermenhookingsharksandpullingthemintotheir boats,as “provoked” incidents.Whatisnotsoeasytojudgeis
ifaswimmerwhopassesveryclosetoashark “mindingits ownbusiness” is,orisnot,provokingthatsharktorespondto aviolationofitspersonalspacebybitingtheintruder.Thisand otherexamplesunderscorethefailingsofmotivation/intentladencategoriesofhuman–sharkinteractions,suchasthe Schultz(1963)provoked/unprovokeddistinction,ratherthan anoutcome-basedsystem.Wesimplydonot,andprobably cannot,understandenoughaboutthespecificsofsharkbehaviorinallcasestoclassifythemotivesandintentionsof everybitingsharkinaclear,objectiveway.
Morerecently,severalfactorshavedrivenanalternative narrativetothehuman–sharkinteractionstory.Theseinclude: (a)theemergenceofsharkconservationbiologydemonstratingtheworldwidevulnerabilityofsharks,includingwhite sharks;(b)adeclineinsharkbitefatalityratesduetobetter firstrespondermedicalcare;and(c)anincreasedawarenessof thediversityofhuman–sharkoutcomes,evenwhenshark bitesoccur.HenemanandGlazer’s(1996)articledocumentingnewlegalprotectionforwhitesharks,successfullyimplementedinCaliforniain1994,wasentitled “Morerarethan dangerous” andnotedthatasharkbitevictimwroteinfavorof protectiondespitehavingbeen “mauled” byawhiteshark(p. 485).AnalysisbyCaldicottetal.(2001)highlightedthe increasingsurvivalratesfromsharkbites,upto87%(p. 449).Theauthorsofthatstudyidentifiedanumberofshark bitesituationsincluding “hitandrun,”“sneakattack,” and “bumpandbite” (Caldicottetal. 2001,p.449).
Effortstofocusonthediversityofoutcomesfromhuman–sharkinteractions,evenwhensharkbitesoccur,haveincreasedovertime.ImmediatelyfollowingtheUSeastcoast’s so-called “SummeroftheShark” in2001,oneoftheauthors (RH)recommendedthatmost “sharkattacks” shouldmore correctlybereferredtoas “sharkbites,” inthesamewaythat wedistinguishanaggressivebutnonfatal “dogbite” froma serious,sometimesfatal “dogattack.” Thisauthorparticularly focusedthismessageonthenewsmediaanditsoveruseofthe term “sharkattack” thatresultedinamisledandsometimes panic-strickenpublic.Otherscientistsalsohavebegunto advocateforachangein “sharkattack” language.Cliff (1991)usedamodifieddefinitiontocalculatesharkbitesin SouthAfrica.RecentresearchbyLentzetal.(2010),using datafromtheISAF,ledtothedevelopmentofa “sharkbite severityscoringsystem” thatidentifiesfivelevelsofsharkbite injuries,fromminortofatalwounds,providingaleapforward inclinicalassessmentsofsharkinjuries.Extendingintothe popularculture,inher2011book DemonFish,journalist JulietEilperinsoughttofindamiddlegroundbyreferringto sharkbitesas “strikes” (Eilperin 2011).
Observationsofsharksinproximitytohumanswimmersin theoceandemonstratethattheanimalsdonotusuallytakean interestinpeople.SightingsbyNewSouthWalesFisheries staff,includingVicPeddemorsandAmySmoothey,have revealedthatbullsharksregularlyswimclosetohundredsof
humanswimmersinSydneyHarbourandignorethemall (ABC 2011).InCapeTown,SouthAfrica,theShark Spottersprogramhasreviewedmorethan1,100sightingsof whitesharksswimmingaroundsurfersandnearbathers. Batherswerealertedandgotoutofthewater,andthevisiting sharksswamaway(SharkSpotters 2012).Thisstoryrepeats itselfinPortStephens,Australia,wheresharkbiologistBarry Brucehasstudiedjuvenilewhitesharksthatconsistently ignorepeopleinthenearbysurf(Gilligan 2012).Theseobservationspointtotheneedforamoresophisticatedpublic educationeffortonthesubjectofsharkaggression(andnonaggression)towardshumans.Oneexampleofsuchaneffort canbeseeninbeachsignageusedbythecityofPortLincoln inSouthAustralia.Thesignsidentifyvaryinglevelsofconcernwhenwhitesharksareinlocalwaters,usingsighting categoriesof:(a)sharksawayfromshore,(b)sharksinshore, and(c)emergencysituationswherehumansandsharksare veryclosetogether.
Clearly,classifyingvirtuallyallcontactbetweensharks andhumansassomeformofshark “attack” misrepresents thefactsandmisinformsthepublic.Itisinvalidonboth scientificandpublicpolicygrounds.Differentlanguageand categoriesofhuman–sharkinteractionsareneeded.
Categorizinghuman–sharkinteractions
Toaddressthisproblem,weproposeanewsystemoffour categoriesforscientists,themedia,policymakers,andthe publictouseinclassifyinghuman–sharkincidents.Webase thiscategorizationonoutcomesratherthanmotivationsor intent.Theremovalofimpliedintentfromshark “attack” discourseattemptstoprovideaunifiedmodelforreporting interactions,illustratethediversityofoutcomes,decriminalizesharksinthemindofthepublic,andcreateamore objectiveunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweenhumans andsharksinsharedoceanspaces.Thesecategoriesare:
1. Sharksightings: Sightingsofsharksinthewaterin proximitytopeople.Nophysicalhuman–sharkcontact takesplace.
2. Sharkencounters: Human-sharkinteractionsinwhich physicalcontactoccursbetweenasharkandaperson,or aninanimateobjectholdingthatperson,andnoinjury takesplace.Forexample,sharkbitesonsurfboards, kayaks,andboatswouldbeclassifiedunderthislabel. Insomecases,thismightincludeclosecalls;ashark physically “bumping” aswimmerwithoutbitingwould belabeledasharkencounter,notasharkattack.A minorabrasionontheperson’sskinmightoccurasa resultofcontactwiththeroughskinoftheshark.
3. Sharkbites: Incidentswheresharksbitepeopleresulting inminortomoderateinjuries.Smallorlargesharks
mightbeinvolved,buttypically,asingle,nonfatalbite occurs.Ifmorethanonebiteoccurs,injuriesmightbe serious.Underthiscategory,theterm “sharkattack” shouldneverbeusedunlessthemotivationandintent oftheanimal suchaspredationordefense areclearlyestablishedbyqualifiedexperts.Sincethatisrarely thecase,theseincidentsshouldbetreatedascasesof shark “bites” ratherthanshark “attacks.”
4. Fatalsharkbites: Human–sharkconflictsinwhichseriousinjuriestakeplaceasaresultofoneormorebites onaperson,causingasignificantlossofbloodand/or bodytissueandafataloutcome.Again,westrongly cautionagainstusingtheterm “sharkattack” unless themotivationandintentofthesharkareclearlyestablishedbyexperts,whichisrarelythecase.Untilnew scientificinformationappearsthatbetterexplainsthe physical,chemical,andbiologicaltriggersleading sharkstobitehumans,werecommendthattheterm “sharkattack” beavoidedbyscientists,government officials,themedia,andthepublicinalmostallincidencesofhuman–sharkinteraction.
Applyingthesecategoriestoexistingdata
AustraliaandtheUSAprovidevaluablecasestudiesforthis analysisofsharkattackterminology,asthesenationslead theworldinthenumberofreportedshark “attacks” (ISAF 2012a).TheUSstateofFloridawasgroundzeroforthe “SummeroftheShark” in2001,whiletheAustralianstate ofNewSouthWales(NSW)anditscapitalSydneysawits own “SummeroftheShark” in2009.Thecasestudies belowexaminelegaciesfromtheseepisodes.InNSW, thegovernment’s2009reportonshark “attacks” is evaluatedusingournewcategories;inFlorida,the state’sglobalreputationasahotspotforshark “attacks” is reconsidered.
Casestudy1:NewSouthWales
InAustralia,NSWhasthelongestcontemporaryhistoryin respondingtohuman–sharkinteractionsandissecondin reportedshark “attacks,” with237ascomparedwith Queensland’s245(ASAF 2012).Followingaseriesofincidentsin2009,thestategovernmentreleasedthe2009New SouthWalesSharkMeshingProgram(SMP)Report.A quantitativeandqualitativeanalysisisreviewedinthe report’sTable7,entitled “Detailsofunprovokedshark attacksbyregioninNSW,1791toMarch2009” (NSW 2009,pp.28–33).Weusedthistable,whichclassifies200 sharkattacksinthestatebetween1900and2009(NSW 2009,p.33),totestourproposedmodel.
Wereclassifiedthegovernmentreportcharacterizationsof shark “attacks” underour “sightings,encounters,bites,and fatalbites” categoriesbasedondetailsprovidedinthereport. Thesedetailsincludednotationsregarding:(a) “outcome,” (b) “activity,” (c) “suspectedspecies,” and(d)whetherthebeach waspartofthesharknetprogram “atthetime” oftheincident (NSW 2009,pp.28–33).Incaseswherethedetailsappear limited,themostconservativelabelwasused.
Ofthe200identifiedshark “attacks,” 38resultedinno injury.Reclassifyingtheseincidentsasonesharksighting and37sharkencountersreducesthenumberofreported shark “attacks” inNewSouthWalesby18.5%(Table 1). Inadditiontoreconsideringnoninjuryincidents,wecanalso reclassifynonfatalinjuriesfromrelativelybenignspecies, namelythewobbegongshark(Orectolobus spp.),asshark “bites.” Thisreducesshark “attack” numbersbyafurther 5.5%(or11bites)between1900and2009.
Afullapplicationoftheproposedclassificationsoffersa newnarrativetoscientists,policymakers,andthemedia. First,thetotalnumberofpotentialshark “attacks” recorded inNewSouthWaleswatersisreducedby72%between 1900and2009,by94%between1959and2009,andby 96%between1979and2009(Table 1).Thenumberoffatal sharkbitesdeclinedsignificantlybetweenthefirst59years ofthestudy(47fatalities)andthelast50yearsofthestudy (9),perhapsduetoimprovementsinemergencymedical careorbetterswimmereducation.Next,19%ofthesocalled “attacks” between1900and2009arebetterclassified as “encounters,” whichappearstoreflectincreasesinthe numberofrecreationalwateruserschoosingtosurf,kayak, bodyboard,andpaddleboard.Lastly,therelativelysimilar numbersofsharkbitesovertime 38from1900to1959 (0.6bite/year),24from1959to1979(1.2bites/year),and 44from1979to2009(1.5bites/year) reinforcesafundamentalriskdynamicthatispresentwhenenteringthewater. Thus,viewingthedatainthesecategoriesprovidesan instructivepictureforbeachsafetyeducatorsandsuggests emergingtrendsthatmayprovidevaluableinformationto usergroups.Wearguethatconsideringfuturereportingof shark “attack” datainthismannerprovidesamoreinformativeandhelpfulstorytothepublicandplacesthedemand forpolicyresponsesinpropercontext.
Casestudy2:Florida
Floridaisoftenlabeledthe “SharkAttackCapitalofthe World” forthenumberofincidentswithsharksthatoccur offFloridabeaches.TheISAFlists637confirmedcasesof unprovokedshark “attacks” inFloridawatersbetween1882 and2012(ISAF 2012b).Ofthese,11(<2%)resultedin fatalities.Incaseswherethetypeofsharkcouldbeidentified, abouthalfinvolvedspeciesnotassociatedwithfatalattacks (blacktipshark, Carcharhinuslimbatus,20%;spinnershark, Carcharhinusbrevipinna,16%;nurseshark, Ginglymostoma cirratum,7%;sandtiger, Carchariastaurus,6%).These speciestendtoinflictsmallbitesorscrapesonahand,foot, arm,orlegthatdonotresultinlife-threateningwounds.About onequarterofFloridaincidentsinvolvedspeciesmoreassociatedwithfatal “attacks” (bullshark, Carcharhinusleucas, 20%;tigershark, Galeocerdocuvier,5%;mako, Isurus spp., 1%)(ISAF 2012c).
Applyingourapproachtotheclassificationofshark incidentsinFlorida,therefore,only11wouldbelabeledas “fatalsharkbites” overaspanof129years;theother626 wouldbereclassifiedaseither “sharkencounters” or “shark bites” withperhapsasmallfractionqualifyingas “shark sightings.” Inthisway,thenumberofrecordedshark “attacks” inFloridawouldbereducedby98%.Thisapproachwouldfacilitateamajorshiftinmediareporting basedonoutcomes,includingminorinjuriesandbitesfrom non-threateningspecies.Floridacouldnolongerbelabeled astheworld’ssharkattackcapitalcomparedtootherareas withgreaternumbersoffatalities,includingpartsof Australia,SouthAfrica,Réunion,andBrazil(ISAF 2012a).
Incontrast,theshark “attack” labelhasbeenwidelyadoptedinmediareportingonFloridaincidents.Duringthesummerof2001,Florida’sseasonalpatternofshark–human interactionsincludedaclusteringofrelativelyminorshark “bites” bymostlysmall-ormedium-sizedsharksonsurfers andswimmersofftheFloridaeastcoast.Priortotheseoccurrences,amediastormeruptedaroundoneveryseriousshark bite,byamoredangerousbullshark,onan8-year-oldboyin theFloridapanhandleregion.Theboy’sarmwasremovedand hesuffereddebilitatinginjuriesduetobloodloss,buthedid notdiefromtheincident.Prolongedattentiontotheboy’s
RecategorizationsofAustralian sharkattacks(1900–2009)
Proportionofincidents between1900and2009
Proportionofincidents between1959and2009
Proportionofincidents between1979and2009
Sightings1(<1%)1(<1%)1(1%)
Encounters37(19%)30(29%)29(38%)
Bites106(53%)68(65%)44(57%)
Fatalsharkbites56(28%)6(6%)3(4%)
Total20010577
story,combinedwithreportingofthelessseriousbitesin FloridaandsomeunusualfatalitieselsewhereontheUSeast coast,resultedinheadlinesinnewspapersandmagazines reinforcingthelabelofFloridaasaglobalshark “attack” hot spot.Intheend,thenumberofincidentsinFloridain2001 wasaboutthesameasin2000and2002 34ascompared with37and29,respectively withonlyasinglefatality recordedinFloridain2001(ISAF 2012a).
AcontentanalysisofnewspaperreportingwasalsoconductedbydownloadingAssociatedPress(AP)articlesfrom Factiva,anonlinenewsservicedatabaseandresearchtool. Akey-wordsearchfor “sharkattack” showed48articles appearedduringthisFloridaepisode,betweenJuly8,2001 andAugust25,2001.Articleswerecodedmanuallyand restrictedtothoseAPstoriesappearinginFloridanewspapersduringthisperiod,whichincludedoneincidentinvolvinganAmericanintheBahamas.Noneoftheshark bitesreportedduringthisintervalwerefatal.Resultsshow theword “attack” wasusedintheheadlinesofarticles79% ofthetime(38of48)andwasusedatotalof201timesin thetextofthe48articles,oronceevery159words,withan averagestorylengthof498words.Giventhedisconnect betweenreported “attacks” andactualfataloutcomes,new labelsshouldbeadoptedbymediaoutletstoproperlyinformthepublicoftheoverwhelmingnumberofhuman–sharkinteractionsthatarenotlifethreatening.
Inall,ournewcategoriesmovethedialogforwardina numberofimportantways.Theseclassificationsaremore scientificallyaccuratebecausetheyfocusonanalyzingoutcomesratherthanintent,whichrarelycanbeknown.The variationsinoutcomesfromsharkbitessignalamorecomplexrelationshipthansimply “sharkattacksswimmer,” a complexitythatshouldbeidentifiedforthepublic.Our categorizationaccomplishesthisandalsoprovidesauniformmethodforinformingthepublic.Iteliminatesvariationsinreportingbasedonlimitedunderstandingand outdatedterminology.Ourcategoriesalsoprovidedatathat canbeusedbypolicymakerstoimprovebeachsafety programsandrespondtotheincreaseduseofpersonal watercraft(e.g.,increasesinkayakuseresultinginmore sharkencounters).Mostimportantly,ourproposedchange inshark “attack” reportingalterstherepresentationofall sharkbitesasthesame.Itchallengesthepowerfulstereotypesthatconjurevividimagesandreactionsregardlessof thereality.Asaresult,thiscreatesspacefornewconsiderationsofoceansafetyandresponsestosharkbiteprevention basedonamoreaccurateperceptionofreal-worldevents.
Conclusions
Wesuggestthatourproposedterminologypaintsamore accurateandlessinflammatorypictureofthesharkriskfor
NewSouthWalesandFloridabeachgoers.Thesameprinciplewillnodoubtapplytomanyotherareasaroundthe world.Theinclusionofsightingsandencountersinparticularallowsfortheconsiderationofinteractionswithsharks thatdonotresultininjury.Iftheonlymeasuresavailablefor humansandsharksarerecordsoftragiccircumstances,then adecidedlyone-sidednarrativewillresult.
Thispaperhasofferedareviewofthescientificand socialconstructionsofsharksas “man-eaters” or “rogue” animalsandof “attack” categorizations.Wearguethatthe phrase “sharkattack” ismisplacedscientificallyandmisleadingtothepublic.Inaddition,weproposecategoriesthat offeramorebalancedapproachtohelpeliminatebiasesin publicunderstandingandpolicyoverreactions.Inshort,this isacalltoscientists,publicofficials,andthemediato reconsidertheirdiscourseonthesubjectofsharksandto improvetheaccuracyofinformationprovidedtothepublic. Theselectionoflanguageregardinghuman–sharkinteractionsisnotanissueofsemanticsorsimplyplayingwith words.Thetimehascometocodifyourcontemporary understandingofhuman–sharkinteractionsintonewcategoriesthatmovebeyondthe “Jaws effect” andacknowledge thepublicvalueofabalanced,outcome-basedapproach.
Acknowledgments Anearlierversionofthispaperwaspresentedat the2012AustralianPoliticalScienceAssociationConference.Wewish tothankChristineWard-Paigeforherinsightsonthesetopicsand AssociateProfessorRodneySmithandforhiscommentsonearlier drafts.FundingtosupportthisresearchcomesfromtheSydneyAquariumConservationFund,theUniversityofSydneyFacultyofArtsand SocialSciences,thePerryW.GilbertChairinSharkResearchatMote MarineLaboratory,andtheSaveOurSeasFoundation.
OpenAccess ThisarticleisdistributedunderthetermsoftheCreative CommonsAttributionLicensewhichpermitsanyuse,distribution,and reproductioninanymedium,providedtheoriginalauthor(s)andthe sourcearecredited.
References
ABC(2011)Sharkstrackedastheycruiseswimmingspots.ABCPM. AustralianBroadcastingCorporation.August25,2011. http:// www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3302316.htm.Accessed25 Aug2011
ASAF(2012)Latestfigures.Australiansharkattackfile,TarongaZoo. http://www.taronga.org.au/animals-conservation/conservationscience/australian-shark-attack-file/latest-figures.Accessed14Nov 2012
BakerS(1890)Wildbeastsandtheirways:reminiscencesofEurope, Asia,AfricaandAmerica.MacmillanandCo.,London BaldridgeHD(1974)ContributionsfromtheMoteMarineLaboratory. Sharkattack:aprogramofdatareductionandanalysis.1(2): AllenPress,Lawrence,KS.pp1–98, https://dspace.mote.org/ dspace/bitstream/2075/679/1/MTR%20A-1974.pdf.Accessed20 June2012
BlanfordWT(1891)FaunaofBritishIndia:mammals.Taylorand Francis,London
BryceW(1899)Threecasesofsharkbite.BrMedJ2:1534,Dec.2,1899
CaldicottD,MahajaniR,KuhnM(2001)Theanatomyofashark attack:acasereportandreviewoftheliterature.InjIntJCare Injured32:445–453
CarlsonJ,CortesE,NeerJ,McCandlessC,BeerkircherL(2008)The statusoftheUnitedStatespopulationofnightshark, Carcharhinussignatus.MarFishRev70(1):1–13
CliffG(1991)SharkattacksontheSouthAfricancoastbetween1960 and1990.SouthAfrJSci87(10):513–518
CopplesonV(1933)SharkattacksinAustralianwaters.MedJAust1 (15):449–466
CopplesonV(1950)AreviewofsharkattacksinAustralianwaters since1919.MedJAust2(19):680–687
CopplesonV(1959)Sharkattack.AngusandRobertson,Sydney CopplesonArchives(1964)Copplesonletters.NewSouthWalesStateLibrary DaviesDH(1964)Aboutsharksandsharkattack.ShuterandShooter, Pietermaritzburg
EilperinJ(2011)Demonfish:travelsthroughthehiddenworldof sharks.KnopfDoubleday,NewYork GilbertP(ed)(1963)Sharksandsurvival.D.C.HeathandCompany, Boston
GilliganJ(2012)Greatwhitesharknursery.AustralianGeographic. January25,2012. http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/ great-white-shark-nursery.htm.Accessed30Oct2012
GoodrichSG(1845)Illustrativeanecdotesoftheanimalkingdom. Bradbury,Soden,andCo.,Boston
GribbleN,McPhersonG,LaneB(1998)EffectoftheQueensland SharkControlProgramonnon-targetspecies:whale,dugongand dolphin:areview.MarFreshwRes49(7):645–651
GruberS(1988)Whydosharksattackpeople?NavalResRev40 (1):2–19
GruberS,ManireC(1991)Theonlygoodsharkisadeadshark?In: GruberS(ed)Discoveringsharks.Avolumehonoringthework StewartSpringer.AmericanLittoralSociety,14thedn.Special Publication,Highlands,pp115–121
HarperMM(2007)TheAmericanhomefront:anationalhistoric landmarkthemestudy.U.S.NationalParksService1–193. http://www.nps.gov/nhl/themes/homefrontstudy.pdf.Accessed14 Nov2012
HenemanB,GlazerM(1996)Morerarethandangerous:acasestudy ofwhitesharkconservationinCalifornia.In:KlimleyAP,Ainley DG(eds)Greatwhitesharks:thebiologyof Carcharodoncarcharias.Academic,SanDiego,pp481–491
HickeyP(2011)Mayorcallsforkillersharktobeculled. PerthNow October11,2011
HodgsonE,MathewsonR(eds)(1978)Sensorybiologyofsharks, skates,andrays.OfficeofNavalResearch,Arlington HueterRE(1991)SurveyoftheFloridarecreationalsharkfishery utilizingsharktournamentandselectedlonglinedata.MoteMarineLaboratoryTechnicalReport232A,Sarasota,FL ISAF(2012a)ISAFstatisticsfortheworldlocationswiththehighest sharkattackactivity(2000–2011)InternationalSharkAttackFile. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/statsw.htm (updatedJanuary30,2012).Accessed2Sept2012
ISAF(2012b)1882–2011mapofFlorida'sconfirmedunprovoked sharkattacks(N=637)Internationalsharkattackfile. http:// www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/GAttack/mapFL.htm (updatedJanuary30,2012).Accessed2Sept2012
ISAF(2012c)SpeciesinvolvedwithunprovokedsharkattacksinFlorida 1920–2011(N=97)Internationalsharkattackfile. http://
www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/FLspeciesattacks.htm (updatedFebruary10,2012).Accessed2Sept2012 JennessV(2004)ExplainingCriminalization:FromDemographyand StatusPoliticstoGlobalizationandModernization.AnnuRev Sociol30:141–171
JordanDS,GilbertCH(1880)Notesonsharksfromthecoastof California.ProceedingsoftheUnitedStatesNationalMuseum, 51–52
LentzAK,BurgessGH,PerrinK,BrownJA,MozingoDW, LottenbergL(2010)Mortalityandmanagementof96sharkattacks anddevelopmentofasharkbiteseverityscoringsystem.AmSurg 76:101–106
LinnaeusC(1758)SystemaNaturae.EditionSystemanaturaeperRegna trianaturae,secundumclasses,ordines,genera,species,cumcharacteribus,differentiis,synonymis,locis.10thEdition1:1–824 MaxwellCB(1949)Surf:Australiansagainstthesea.Angusand Robertson,Sydney
MichalowskiR(1985)Order,LawandCrime:AnIntroductionto Criminology.RandomHouse,NewYork NelsonD,JohnsonR,McKibbenJ,PittengerGC(1986)Agonistic attackondiversandsubmersiblesbygreyreefsharks Carcharhinusamblyrhynchos: anti-predatoryorcompetitive.Bulletinof MarineScience38(1):68–88
NeffC(2012)Australianbeachsafetyandthepoliticsofsharkattacks. CoastManag40:88–106
NeffC,YangJ(2012)Sharkbitesandpublicattitudes:policyimplicationsfromthefirstbeforeandaftersharkbitesurvey.Mar Policy38:545–547
NewYorkTimes(1865)Fightwithashark. NewYorkTimes Sunday, September17,1865
NSW(1929)SummaryofNewSouthWalesSharkMenaceCommittee’sreport.Report86206-a.NewSouthWales,Australia NSW(2009)ReportintotheNSWsharkmeshing(batherprotection) program[publicconsultationdocument].NewSouthWalesDepartmentofPrimaryIndustrieswebsite, http://www.dpi.nsw. gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/276029/Report-into-theNSW-Shark-Meshing-Program.pdf.Accessedon10March2012 PaciuchelliA,CDeMarimont(1679)LectionesmoralesinProphetamJonam PennantT(1812)Britishzoology,volume3.1812.WilliamEyres,for BenjaminWhite,London SchultzL(1963)Attacksbysharksasrelatedtotheactivitiesofman. In:GilbertP(ed)Sharksandsurvival.D.C.Heath&Co,Boston SharkSpotters(2012)Recentsightings.2012. http://sharkspotters.org.za/ recent-sightings.Accessed20June2012
SisnerosJ,NelsonD(2001)Surfactantsaschemicalsharkrepellents: past,present,andfuture.EnvironBiolFish60:117–129 SlovicP(2004)What'sfeargottodowithit?It'saffectweneedto worryabout.MissouriLawRev69:971–990
TitcombM,PukuiM(1951)NativeuseoffishinHawaii.Memoirno. 29.SupplJPolynSoc60:1–146 TricasT,McCoskerJ(1984)Predatorybehaviorofthewhiteshark, Carcharodoncarcharias,andnotesonitsbiology.ProcCalif AcadSci43(14):221–238
WarrM(1984)Fearofvictimization:Whyarewomenandtheelderly moreafraid.SocSciQ65(3):681–702
WarrM(1987)Fearofvictimizationandsensitivitytorisk.JQuant Criminol3(1):29–46
WebsterD(1962)Mythandtheman-eater:thestoryoftheshark. AngusandRobertson,Sydney