Ronald Bailey | February 24, 2009
In the category that every dark cloud does sport a silver
lining, sort of, Reuters is reporting the good news that shark
attacks are way down this year. The bad news is that is because
fewer people can afford to take beach vacations. 
Shark attacks on humans dropped worldwide in 2008 to their lowest level in five years, apparently because the recession has curtailed seaside vacations, University of Florida researchers who compile the annual tally said on Thursday.
They confirmed 59 shark attacks on humans in 2008, down from 71 the previous year and the fewest since 2003.
"I can't help but think that contributing to that reduction may have been the reticence of some people to take holidays and go to the beach for economic reasons," said George Burgess, who directs the International Shark Attack File at the university.
"We noticed similar declines during the recession that followed the events of 2001, despite the fact that human populations continued to rise," he said in a reference to the Sept. 11 attacks.
The report notes that only four of the attacks last year were fatal and that sharks snack most often on surfers.
Whole story here.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
1: How will republicans take credit for this?
2: Do these numbers reflect Land Shark attacks?
Pro Lib you fool!!! They are simply reorganizing for the next assault!
You fuckers! You need to get your gangly, flailing asses in the water and take some of the heat off! We're getting eaten alive here!
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/saturday-night-live-season-1-land-shark/1415496980
Bullshit. The fact is that shark numbers are way down because of their losses in the war against underwater zombies.
I'm confused. The article says most shark attacks are on
surfers. Surfers don't surf because the economy is good. Surfers
surf because the waves are good.
Surfers don't need a job or an income to surf. The board is really
handy to have, but I don't think the lack of one would stop
them.
Of course, if this is true, then sharks will have to be laid off,
and the cycle will continue. Do they get anything from the
stimobamulus?
The fact is that shark numbers are way down because of their
losses in the war against underwater zombies.
It was the underwater zombie surge that turned the tide.
Maybe it has something to do with people being to afraid to do
stupid shit. Like the guy in Florida who was fishing in water up to
his chest and was keeping his catch pinned on his suit.
Nahhhhhhh. Dissident zombie sharks is way better!
Are underwater zombies fast zombies or slow zombies? The evidence points to kinda slow.
Warty wins the thread for his totally unexpected and
out-of-context Lucio Fulci reference.
For those of you who have not seen it, I give you: A
zombie fighting a shark.
Jeff P,
I think you mean that vomit is indistinguishable from chum. Zombies
aren't all that chum-like, especially since sharks unilaterally
declared peace on mankind.
Pro Lib,
I'm supposed to give thanks to Aquaman? I don't trust any man who
rides around on dolphins like water skiis.
Naga,
Why? What do you care about dolphins? Besides, your analogy is
inapt. They're more like twin jet-skis.
I thought for sure they would blame the drop on global warming, er, climate change. The real question is what happened to the polar bears.
The real question is what happened to the polar bears.
The real answer is sharks.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245