Ahh, this is rich. Man has only recently tagged and followed the movements of sharks. We are now only learning their migration patterns and such. For most of our history, sightings were the only way we could verify shark movements. Now we have GPS satellite technology on the case. So the assertion that sharks are going where they normally don't is somewhat boneheaded. We are now only finding out for sure where they go.

Oh, and when and where in the ocean does a shark swim? My guess is whenever and wherever the shark wants.

Your last statement:

Environmentalists often give off the vibe that the animals are much more worth saving and caring for than that menacing species known as the Tourist.

Well, as a native Floridian, I don't mind the sharks scaring that menacing species, the Tourist (see Carl Hiiasen's excellent Tourist Season).  Good one!

As for the rest of the article, oh the embarassment that someone at my beloved UF would say something like this.  Here is the guy's short bio.  Including his e-mail addy.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

*off topic*

This might've been already occuring for some time, but I noticed yesterday that Snore's "Inconvenient Truth" is in the bargain bin at the bookstore. One can only hope this is a sign that this idiotic fad is losing steam.

I wonder what Gore's next stunt is going to be. Because this whole farce had nothing to do with "saving the earth". It had everything to do with Gore getting people to pay attention to him. Maybe we'll see him on that celebrity dancing show.

I just emailed the dope at:

rluscombe@guardian.co.uk

Shark bites man. Talk about bottom-feeding for a non-story.

Did it ever cross your mind to challenge this statement?

'As the population continues to rise, so does the number of people in the water for recreation."

I would suggest that's a not very well thought out assertion, and is challengeable. Is it really "population" rise that increases the numbers of people in the water?

Isn't it that MORE people have the money and the leisure time to go into the water, which is not in any way a function of total population.

For example, there are a billion Chinese. Most of them poor peasants on a dollar a day.

You think they pop down to the beach for a swim. But if that billion suddenly had a massive increase of "middle-class" Chinese, with extra money and a 36 hour week, then think maybe more would go swimming at the beach?

But the whole argument is on such thin ice anyway.

Maybe there are MORE SHARKS?

Ever thought of that? No doubt you'd be first to say that more sharks = global warming, because well, that's the knee-jerk watermelon reaction to anything these days.

And what the hell does any of this have to do with the disputed theory/hypothesis of "manmade" global warming (sic).

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

The whole timing of the story is a little odd considering just a couple of weeks ago NASA came out with data telling us that the ocean's have cooled since 2003.

Sharks have been "attacking" humans for millennia, ever since mankind first stepped into the water. That's the thing about sharks, when their feeding they'll bite anything that moves, including each other, and few things that don't.

As for the reason sharks “cruse” the beaches; Sharks follow their prey. When the pray moves towards the beaches, so do the sharks. Humans are not the preferred targets; they’re just in the way. That’s why there are so FEW human attacks. Sharks prefer smaller, more plentiful prey like fish.