A lurking monster... a beast... scourge... villain... the mysterious killer of the deep... There is no end to the overtly emotional and dramatic language that is often used to describe sharks, but one of the most pervasive terms is the 'rogue shark'. This idea describes a problem individual, that maliciously hunts down human beings within its territory and devours them in cold blood. So where does this idea come from? Does it have any basis in fact? And can our belief in a rogue individual actually affect sharks out in the wild?
Rogue's Gallery
Prior to the 1950s there was no real, ingrained fear of sharks in the public consciousness and, in fact, there was a prevalent belief that sharks didn't attack human beings at all. On the contrary, in many different cultures, all around the world, sharks were actually revered or worhsipped as deities. To learn more you can check out The Shark, The Myth, The Legend. However, in the 1950s, general opinion about sharks began to shift, as scientists sought to understand the motivation behind shark bites (Francis, 2012; Neff & Hueter, 2013).
The pervasive myth that a specific shark intentionally bites multiple human beings began with a man named Victor Coppleson during the 50s. In his work, Coppleson attributed all shark bites only to 'rogue sharks' that had developed a taste for human flesh. He suggested that the majority of sharks are normal, but a particular shark will choose to attack people within its territory and therefore, strings of attacks along one shoreline should be attributed to that one specific, troublesome individual (Coppleson, 1950; Coppleson,1959; Neff & Hueter, 2013).
This idea of the 'rogue shark' was then made especially famous upon the release of Peter Benchley's book and the subsequent blockbuster movie - Jaws - in the 1970s (Francis, 2012; Pepin-Neff, 2019).
"Built on the lone, man-eating predator concept... [Coppleson] reclassified all shark “attacks” as those perpetrated by “rogue” sharks"
Going Rogue
However, the idea of a 'rogue shark' has been formally (and very thoroughly) debunked by scientists in several different ways. Firstly, there is no evidence to show that strings of shark bites (such as those attributed to the Matawan shark in 1916) can be linked back to one specific shark (Neff & Hueter, 2013).
Additionally, through inspecting the contents of sharks' stomachs and via more advanced methods, like "stable isotope analysis", there is extensive proof that no species of shark regularly incorporates human flesh into their diet (Neff & Hueter, 2013).
In fact, in situations where a person is injured by a shark, it is incredibly rare for them to actually be consumed. In reality a shark normally makes one, sometimes two bites, and then abandons the person, as they have determined that they are not palatable. To learn more about this check out Myth Busted: Sharks DO NOT See Humans as Prey. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that 'rogue sharks' do not 'get a taste for human flesh' (Neff & Hueter, 2013).
"[Coppeston] gave sharks human agency & moved them from unseen “monsters of the deep” to a potentially more terrifying image as resident serial killers lurking in wait for human prey"
Filthy Rogue
The 'rogue shark' concept is problematic because it can have real-world consequences for sharks. It was this idea - at the centre of the Jaws franchise - that had a long-term effect on many people's perceptions of sharks. leading to such significant shark cullings that the movie actually contributed to the declines of some threatened species of sharks. The phenomenon was so significant it was even given a name: The 'Jaws Effect' (Neff & Hueter, 2013).
Exacerbating the issue is the continuous dissemination of inflammatory reports of 'rogue sharks' in the media; presenting sharks as a horror movie villain. This is actually very dangerous because it has the power to shift people's perception of animals. Subsequently, over time, the public's fear and scorn can have the power to affect government policies about shark prptection and conservation (Coppleson, 1959; Neff & Hueter, 2013).
Put simply, the 'rogue shark concept' is ludicrous because it anthropomorphises the intent of sharks; implying that they have some kind of malicious intent or animosity against people. This is simply nonsense. Sharks are not territorial and they only attack their prey when they are hungry - not out of revenge or spite. It's only human beings that do that! (Coppleson, 1959; Neff & Hueter, 2013).
“What I now know, which wasn’t known when I wrote Jaws, is that there is no such thing as a rogue shark which develops a taste for human flesh...[and] for all their power [sharks] are amazingly fragile... [they] are no longer the villains, they are the victims."
Peter Benchley, author of Jaws, 2000
References
Clua EE & Linnell JD (2019). Problem individuals among sharks: a response to Neff. Conservation Letters, 12:2, e12641. Access online.
Coppleson V (1950). A review of shark attacks in Australian waters since 1919. The Medical Journal of Australia, 2:19.
Coppleson V (1959). Shark attack. Angus and Robertson: Australia.
Francis B (2012). Before and after 'Jaws': Changing representations of shark attacks. Great Circle: Journal of the Australian Association for Maritime History, 34:2. Access online.
Neff C & Hueter R (2013). Science, policy, and the public discourse of shark “attack”: a proposal for reclassifying human–shark interactions. Journal of environmental studies and sciences, 3. Access online.
Pepin‐Neff CL (2019). A response to Clua and Linnell. Conservation Letters, 12:2. Access online.
Webster D (1962) Myth and the man-eater: the story of the shark. Angus and Robertson: Australia.
West J & Zoo T (2014). Shark attack theories. Australian Shark Attack File. Report. Access online.
By Sophie A Maycock for SharkSpeak
Comments