friendfinder
Shark Attack
ISAF Statistics for the World Locations
with the
Highest Shark Attack Activity (2001-2012)
WORLD (N=812) | FLORIDA (N=271) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
YEAR | Total Attacks | Fatal | Non-fatal | YEAR | Total Attacks | Fatal | Non-fatal | |
2001 | 76 | 4 | 72 | 2001 | 34 | 1 | 33 | |
2002 | 66 | 3 | 63 | 2002 | 29 | 0 | 29 | |
2003 | 56 | 4 | 52 | 2003 | 29 | 0 | 29 | |
2004 | 66 | 7 | 59 | 2004 | 12 | 0 | 12 | |
2005 | 58 | 4 | 54 | 2005 | 17 | 1 | 16 | |
2006 | 59 | 4 | 55 | 2006 | 21 | 0 | 21 | |
2007 | 71 | 1 | 70 | 2007 | 31 | 0 | 31 | |
2008 | 53 | 4 | 49 | 2008 | 28 | 0 | 28 | |
2009 | 67 | 7 | 58 | 2009 | 19 | 0 | 19 | |
2010 | 82 | 6 | 76 | 2010 | 14 | 1 | 13 | |
2011 | 78 | 13 | 63 | 2011 | 11 | 0 | 11 | |
2012 | 80 | 7 | 73 | 2012 | 26 | 0 | 26 | |
AUSTRALIA (N=141) | SOUTH AFRICA (N=47) | |||||||
YEAR | Total Attacks | Fatal | Non-fatal | YEAR | Total Attacks | Fatal | Non-fatal | |
2001 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 2001 | 4 | 0 | 4 | |
2002 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 2002 | 3 | 0 | 3 | |
2003 | 8 | 1 | 7 | 2003 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
2004 | 13 | 2 | 11 | 2004 | 5 | 1 | 4 | |
2005 | 10 | 2 | 8 | 2005 | 4 | 0 | 4 | |
2006 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 2006 | 4 | 0 | 4 | |
2007 | 13 | 0 | 13 | 2007 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
2008 | 9 | 1 | 8 | 2008 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
2009 | 22 | 0 | 22 | 2009 | 6 | 4 | 2 | |
2010 | 14 | 1 | 13 | 2010 | 8 | 2 | 6 | |
2011 | 13 | 4 | 9 | 2011 | 5 | 2 | 3 | |
2012 | 14 | 2 | 12 | 2012 | 4 | 3 | 1 | |
Australian 2012 Shark Attack Summary | ||||||||
HAWAII (N=52) | CALIFORNIA (N=38) | |||||||
YEAR | Total Attacks | Fatal | Non-fatal | YEAR | Total Attacks | Fatal | Non-fatal | |
2001 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
2002 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 2002 | 4 | 0 | 4 | |
2003 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 2003 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
2004 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2004 | 6 | 1 | 5 | |
2005 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 2005 | 3 | 0 | 3 | |
2006 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
2007 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 2007 | 4 | 0 | 4 | |
2008 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
2009 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2009 | 4 | 0 | 4 | |
2010 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 2010 | 4 | 1 | 3 | |
2011 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2011 | 3 | 0 | 3 | |
2012 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 2012 | 5 | 1 | 4 | |
SOUTH CAROLINA (N=37) | NORTH CAROLINA (N=29) | |||||||
YEAR | Total Attacks | Fatal | Non-fatal | YEAR | Total Attacks | Fatal | Non-fatal | |
2001 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 2001 | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
2002 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 3 | 0 | 3 | |
2003 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
2004 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
2005 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 2005 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
2006 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 2006 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
2007 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 2007 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
2008 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 3 | 0 | 3 | |
2009 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
2010 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 2010 | 5 | 0 | 5 | |
2011 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 4 | 0 | 4 | |
2012 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 2012 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
BRAZIL (N=27) | BAHAMAS (N=9) | |||||||
YEAR | Total Attacks | Fatal | Non-fatal | YEAR | Total Attacks | Fatal | Non-fatal | |
2001 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 2001 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
2002 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 2002 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
2003 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
2004 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 2004 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
2005 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
2006 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2006 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
2007 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
2008 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
2009 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2009 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
2010 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
2011 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
2012 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Last Updated February 11, 2013
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/statsw.htm
Species of shark implicated in confirmed unprovoked attacks around the world, 1580 - 2012
USE THIS TABLE WITH CAUTION! Positive identification of attacking sharks is very difficult since victims rarely make adequate observations of the attacker during the "heat" of the interaction. Tooth remains are seldom found in wounds and diagnostic characters for many requiem sharks (family Carcharhinidae) are difficult to discern even by trained professionals. That said, this list must be used with caution because attacks involving easily identified species, such as white, tiger, sandtiger, hammerhead and nurse sharks, nearly always identify the attacking species, while cases involving difficult to identify species, such as requiem sharks of the genus Carcharhinus, seldom correctly identify the attacker. Thus the list is skewed to readily identified species. A number of requiem sharks in the genus Carcharhinus likely are involved in many more attacks than they are credited in this list and, if the list could reflect that reality, Carcharhinus bites would push such species as the sandtiger, hammerhead and nurse sharks towards the bottom of the list. Nonetheless, the white, tiger and bull sharks are the "Big Three" in the shark attack world because they are large species that are capable of inflicting serious injuries to a victim, are commonly found in areas where humans enter the water, and have teeth designed to shear rather than hold. Realistically, almost any shark in the right size range, roughly six feet (1.8 meters) or greater, is a potential threat to humans because, even if a bite is not intended as a directed feeding attempt on a human, the power of the jaw and tooth morphology can lead to injury. --- George H. Burgess, ISAF
Last updated: February 19, 2013
© International Shark Attack File
Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida
ISAF Statistics on Attacking Species of Shark
Species of shark implicated in confirmed unprovoked attacks around the world, 1580 - 2012
USE THIS TABLE WITH CAUTION! Positive identification of attacking sharks is very difficult since victims rarely make adequate observations of the attacker during the "heat" of the interaction. Tooth remains are seldom found in wounds and diagnostic characters for many requiem sharks (family Carcharhinidae) are difficult to discern even by trained professionals. That said, this list must be used with caution because attacks involving easily identified species, such as white, tiger, sandtiger, hammerhead and nurse sharks, nearly always identify the attacking species, while cases involving difficult to identify species, such as requiem sharks of the genus Carcharhinus, seldom correctly identify the attacker. Thus the list is skewed to readily identified species. A number of requiem sharks in the genus Carcharhinus likely are involved in many more attacks than they are credited in this list and, if the list could reflect that reality, Carcharhinus bites would push such species as the sandtiger, hammerhead and nurse sharks towards the bottom of the list. Nonetheless, the white, tiger and bull sharks are the "Big Three" in the shark attack world because they are large species that are capable of inflicting serious injuries to a victim, are commonly found in areas where humans enter the water, and have teeth designed to shear rather than hold. Realistically, almost any shark in the right size range, roughly six feet (1.8 meters) or greater, is a potential threat to humans because, even if a bite is not intended as a directed feeding attempt on a human, the power of the jaw and tooth morphology can lead to injury. --- George H. Burgess, ISAF
Species | Common Name |
Non-fatal Unprovoked |
Fatal Unprovoked |
Total |
---|---|---|---|---|
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos, | grey reef | 7 | 0 | 7 |
Carcharhinus brachyurus, | bronze whaler | 18 | 1 | 19 |
Carcharhinus brevipinna, | spinner | 16 | 0 | 16 |
Carcharhinus falciformis, | silky | 3 | 0 | 3 |
Carcharhinus galapagensis, | Galapagos | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Carcharhinus leucas, | bull | 66 | 26 | 92 |
Carcharhinus limbatus, | blacktip | 28 | 0 | 28 |
Carcharhinus longimanus, | oceanic whitetip | 7 | 3 | 10 |
Carcharhinus melanopterus, | blacktip reef | 11 | 0 | 11 |
Carcharhinus obscurus, | dusky | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Carcharhinus perezi, | Caribbean reef | 4 | 0 | 4 |
Carcharhinus plumbeus, | sandbar | 5 | 0 | 5 |
Carcharhinus spp., | requiem | 23 | 7 | 30 |
Carcharias taurus, | sand tiger | 29 | 1 | 30 |
Carcharias spp., | lamniform | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Carcharodon carcharias, | white | 198 | 74 | 272 |
Galeocerdo cuvier, | tiger | 71 | 29 | 100 |
Galeorhinus galeus | tope | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Ginglymostoma cirratum, | nurse | 10 | 0 | 10 |
Heterodontis portusjacksoni, | port jackson | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Isistius brasiliensis, | cookiecutter | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Isurus oxyrinchus, | shortfin mako | 11 | 1 | 12 |
Isurus spp., | mako | 4 | 0 | 4 |
Lamna nasus, | porbeagle | 2 | 0 | 2 |
Negaprion brevirostris, | lemon | 10 | 0 | 10 |
Notorhynchus cepedianus, | sevengill | 5 | 0 | 5 |
Odontaspis spp., | sand | 9 | 0 | 9 |
Orectolobus macalatus, | spotted wobbegong | 4 | 0 | 4 |
Orectolobus spp., | wobbegong | 11 | 0 | 11 |
Prionace glauca | blue | 9 | 4 | 13 |
Rhinobatos spp., | guitarfish | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Sphyrna spp., | hammerhead | 17 | 0 | 17 |
Triaenodon obesus, | whitetip reef | 5 | 0 | 5 |
Triakis semifasciata, | leopard | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Trygonorrhina fasciata | southern fiddler | 1 | 0 | 1 |
TOTALS | 35+ species | 590 | 149 | 739 |
Last updated: February 19, 2013
© International Shark Attack File
Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida
© International Shark Attack File Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida |
Subscribe to:
Posts
(Atom)
Join shareasale.com, Earn Cash!
fr
Do you promote or advertise anything online? If you do, Click here now to discover a bullet-proof formula for increasing the response to all of your ads and promotions ... and details on how to literally double your profits. |
0 comments:
Post a Comment