Though the number of shark attacks in Florida are increasing, it doesn't mean sharks are becoming a growing menace. There is no clear reason for the attacks.

Shark!

Lately it seems that no one can write or say the word without adding an exclamation point. It is the summer of the shark. Blame a lack of real news, blame the media, blame the sharks. None of that blather, however, helps the timid bather trying to decide whether it is safe to go in the water.

Sharks killed two people in the past week, a 10-year-old boy off Virginia Beach and a man off North Carolina's Outer Banks. The man's companion was critically injured. Sharks have attacked 29 people in Florida so far this year, 20 of those off Volusia County beaches.

Some of the attacks have been chillingly dramatic, the stuff of movies. On July 6, a bull shark in shallow water at a Pensacola beach severed an 8-year-old boy's arm. The boy's uncle wrestled the shark to the sand and retrieved the arm, which was later reattached. On Aug. 4, a 36-year-old Wall Street banker was swimming in the Bahamas when a shark attacked, severing the man's leg above the knee. He had just enough strength, before passing out, to write his room number in the sand so his wife could be notified. By anyone's definition, those stories are newsworthy.

But are they also examples of a growing menace off our beaches? Most marine scientists say no, but they are not always convincing. They say the number of shark bites and fatalities vary from year to year but show no trend, except for this: As more people go to the beach, there will be more chance encounters with sharks. That is apparently what is happening in Florida. There were 22 shark attacks in 1998, 25 in 1999, 38 in 2000 and 29 so far this year.

Theories on the cause of increased attacks abound. Some say there are more sharks because of limits put on shark fishermen, while others blame shark fishermen, who attract sharks to shallow water with chopped-up fish. Still others say we've overfished their natural prey, so sharks are hungry.

Dr. Robert E. Hueter, director of shark research for the Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, calls such theories "oral legends." "There is no evidence for a rebound in population of sharks, or that they are coming in closer to shore, or that there are too few bait fish for them to eat, or too many, or that a particular kind of sunscreen provokes an attack," Dr. Hueter says. Asked about bull sharks, thought responsible for more than one fatal attack, Dr. Hueter grows less comforted by science. "The bull shark is the most dangerous animal in the coastal waters of the Southeast," he says darkly.

No wonder beachgoers are confused. Common sense tells us that there are more encounters between shark and man, and the numbers tend to bear that out. We need some assurances.

Instead of blaming the media for bad publicity (sharks always get bad press), or blaming swimmers for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, state and local officials should spend their energies supplying some answers. Are there more sharks close to shore? Are shark fishing and bathing at the same beach a safe mix? Would renewed fishing of dangerous shark species alleviate the threat? Has overfishing of other species depleted the sharks' normal food supply? Are there preventive measures that can be taken at beaches where numerous attacks occur?

As long as the ocean is part of the natural world, there will be risk, no matter how slight, in venturing into the water. But Florida and other places that lure visitors to their beaches have a responsibility to make the experience as safe as possible.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page