The Great Whites of the Gulf of Mexico

"We're going to need a bigger boat."

Those words bring instant recognition to most of us. The line was spoken by Police Chief Martin Brody, played by Roy Scheider, in the classic 1975 movie Jaws. The film, based on the Peter Benchley novel of the same name, was a huge hit and made everyone think twice about swimming in the ocean. I was ten years old when I saw the movie and was hooked. I read everything I could about great white sharks. My fears about entering the waters of the Gulf of Mexico eased as I learned that white sharks didn't inhabit our region. These predators preferred cooler waters and lurked in exotic places like the Great Barrier Reef of Australia, the coasts of South Africa, and the surf of northern California. No great whites prowled anywhere near the Texas coast. Right?

Wrong. The great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) is listed as a shark species inhabiting the Gulf of Mexico. White sharks cruise mainly the eastern portions of the Gulf but do range west of the Mississippi Delta down to at least the Corpus Christi and Padre Island shores. It is thought that their presence off the Texas coast is infrequent at best but it does occur. In fact, white sharks are present in Texas waters often enough to warrant recognition by the Texas Parks & Wildlife. If you visit the TP&W website you will find the following statement on possession and bag limits for sharks:

"For the allowable shark species, the bag limit will remain one shark per person per day, with a two-shark possession limit. In addition, a prohibited list (zero bag limit) will be established for the following 21 species: Atlantic angel, Basking, Bigeye sand tiger, Bigeye sixgill, Bigeye thresher, Bignose,Caribbean reef, Caribbean sharpnose, Dusky, Galapogos, Longfin mako, Narrowtooth, Night, Sandbar, Sand tiger, Sevengill, Silky, Sixgill, Smalltail, Whale, and White."

Satellite technology has helped dispel many of the myths regarding these awesome fish. It was long thought that white sharks spent their entire lives patrolling the same coastal areas. Tracking studies have now shown that is not always the case. In fact, scientists have discovered that whites spend much of the year in the open ocean and dive to depths of up to 2,000 feet. Some of these wide-ranging individuals occasionally make their way to the coasts of the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico.



Sightings in the Gulf, though rare, are not unheard of by any means. The Tampa Bay area of Florida seems to be a spot where the great white is seen from time to time. On January 23, 1994 a 15.5-foot white shark was caught 23 miles west of Indian Rocks Beach. The monster shark was estimated to weigh 2,200 pounds. Bob Spaeth, a Madeira Beach seafood dealer, who has worked with the commercial long-line fishing industry for years, has had several encounters. He said, " They will come up and eat a big grouper in one bite." He added, "We hooked one that must have been 18 feet long about 80 miles offshore. We got it alongside the boat and it scared me." Spaeth said the shark lingered near the boat for a minute or so, decided it had had enough and swam away, breaking 900-pound test line like it was kite string.
It is generally accepted that the great white shark can reach lengths approaching 20 feet and a weight of 4,000 pounds. Much larger sharks have been reported, however. The fact is no one really knows how large these awesome fish can get. What is not up for debate is that if you see one you will know exactly what it is. Anecdotal evidence suggests your chances of doing just that, seeing one, are increasing along the Gulf coast. As Bob Spaeth said after his 1994 encounter, "I think there are a lot more of them out there than people think."

There is very little argument that bulls, tigers, makos, and hammerheads pose more of a threat to Texas swimmers than white sharks do. But there is also no arguing that when the word "shark" is spoken it is the great white most people picture in their minds. It is no longer just irrational fear to think big whites just might be patrolling the coastal areas of Texas, at least occasionally. They are there.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water...

Review: National Geographic Bigfoot Special

I thought I would offer up my thoughts on the National Geographic Channel's special on bigfoot that aired last night.

I have to tell you that I had absolutely no positive expectations as to how the subject would be treated. In the past, National Geographic has all but mocked those who believe it possible that a large, upright, and undiscovered primate may exist in the forests of North America. If you saw the bigfoot episode of their Is It Real? program you know exactly what I'm talking about. The program I viewed last night, thankfully, bore no resemblance to the debacle that was the Is It Real? episode. I thought the program took a very objective look at the subject, sought the opinion of experts in their fields, and went where the evidence led them. That is all anyone could ask. That is what science is supposed to do.

I was a bit concerned right off the bat when the opening sequence centered around some engineers who were sent to digitally scan the Bluff Creek site where Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin filmed an alleged sasquatch 40+ years ago. The idea was sound enough, I suppose. Get a 3D rendering of the sighting location, digitally insert a sasquatch walking the same path as the Patterson-Gimlin subject, and, hopefully, be able to draw some conclusions by comparing the figure to static points of reference. My concern was that after forty years the site could not possibly look the same as it did when Patterson filmed the creature. Therefore, conclusions reached using this data might be flawed. I still wonder if this could not be so. It turns out the conclusions reached by these engineers did nothing but strengthen the case for the Patterson-Gimlin subject being a living animal and not a man in a suit.

Another sequence featured Bill Munns "upgrading" the Patterson film to hi-definition. He did this, much like Rick Noll did a few years back, by painstakingly photographing each individual frame of the film. Munns was working from a first generation copy of the film that had been in the possession of Roger Patterson's widow. His images produced one of the sharpest versions of the film yet seen. Clearly, massive muscles can be seen working just below the hair/fur of the subject. The muscles in the thigh, calf, traps, and even the achilles tendon could be seen clearly contracting and relaxing with each step the creature took. Limb proportions and "break points" like knee joints were also discussed. Munn's opinion, after studying the hi-res version of the film, is that the Patterson film subject was not a man in a suit but, instead, a live animal.

As is typical with these programs, the producers saw fit to bring in an actor, in this case one that stands 7'0" tall, to attempt duplication of the compliant gate exhibited by the Patterson-Gimlin subject. The actor was reasonably successful in this attempt. However, he had difficulty maintaining the proper posture even on a nice flat floor. One aspect of the whole compliant gate issue that I have never seen brought up on any television show on the subject is the step interval of the creature. My friend, and fellow TBRC member, Alton Higgins did a great analysis and presentation on this a few years back. Alton pointed out that this was one of the few, if not only, times in history where video evidence was backed up by tracks. The footprints left behind by the creature in the sand of Bluff Creek were measured and cast by Roger Patterson, Bob Titmus, and others. These castings have been studied by experts the world over. However, the step intervals, the distance between each individual footprint, were measured as well. As I write this, I do not remember the length of the creature's stride exactly but know it was in excess of four feet. I would submit it is impossible for a man, even one 7'0" tall to mimic the compliant gait of the Patterson subject, while navigating through and around a debris strewn creek bed, AND continually maintaining a stride length in excess of four feet while wearing a bulky gorilla suit. Anyone who doubts this should try it. It is impossible for a man to maintain a stride that long without jogging/running. The Patterson subject is clearly not running. One foot remains on the ground at all times. In my eyes, the step interval length is the nail in the coffin of the "man in a suit" theory. Why this important detail has not been discussed in any of these programs remains a mystery to me.

Now, on to that "man in a suit" theory. As has been done on other specials, the producers paid a visit to a special effects shop, in this case Jim Henson's Creature Shop, to see if an ape suit could be created to rival what is seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film. The state of special effects technology back in the late sixties was touched on as was the tired rumor that John Chambers, of Planet of the Apes fame, might have had something to do with the film. Basically, it was determined that the technology that existed at the time Patterson shot the film was not good enough to produce a suit so convincing and the "man in a suit" theory was all but tossed out as a possibility.

There was more information presented including the fact that hairs have been found in North America that exhibit the properties of a primate but are neither human nor ape. It was also mentioned that DNA had been extracted from a few such samples that did not match any known animal. I could go on but, hopefully, you get the idea.

I have to give National Geographic credit. This was by far the best program on the subject of sasquatch evidence I have seen, and I think I've seen just about all of them. The producers allowed the experts to follow the evidence wherever it led them and draw their own conclusions. National Geographic stopped short of coming out and saying that the evidence points to the sasquatch being a real live biological entity. They did, however, allow the featured experts, like Munns and Meldrum, to say it. This alone is a huge step in the right direction. Maybe, Henry Gee was right when he said, "Now, cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold."

I hope so.

P.S. - If you missed the program, it will air again on January 31. Check your local listings for times. It is well worth your time.

London Daily Telegraph Article on "The Explorers' Club"

There is a nice article in the London Daily Telegraph about scientists who spend their lives in search of new and/or rare species. The article deals with mainstream scientists searching for everything from new species of opossum to insects as well as cryptozoologists looking into the animals of legend such as the sasquatch, yeti, and Loch Ness monster. Dr. Jeff Meldrum of Idaho State University is mentioned prominently.

Surprisingly, the article does not make sport of the cryptozoologists. Kudos to Helena de Bertodano, the writer, for a nice job.

It is a good read. You can access the article here.

National Geographic Special on Bigfoot Airs Tonight

I just wanted to post a reminder that the National Geographic Channel is airing a new program on Bigfoot tonight at 7:00pm. The program features Dr. Jeff Meldrum and wildlife biologist John Mionczynski among others.

I am very curious as to the tone of the show. National Geographic has taken a tongue in cheek attitude toward the subject in the past.

I would invite your comments after watching the show. I will be curious to see if readers of this blog come away with the same impressions I do.

Ivory-Billed Woodpecker Photos Likely A Hoax

The claims of Daniel Rainsong concerning his photographic evidence of a living Ivory-Billed woodpecker are beginning to look more and more dubious.

As pointed out by a reader in the comments section of my original post regarding the alleged Ivory-Billed sighting, the leading ornithological experts mentioned in Rainsong's press release have yet to see the photographs of the bird. Van Remsen, curator of birds at Louisiana State University's Museum of Natural Science and adjunct professor of biological sciences at LSU, says Rainsong has visited him but produced no photos. "He would not show me his photographic evidence. He said he had to develop them." Van Remsen added, " I'll believe it when I see it."

Another expert mentioned in Rainsong's press release says he has not seen the alleged photos. Jerry Jackson is the author of the 2007 Draft Recovery Plan for the Ivory-Billed woodpecker says he has never heard of Rainsong. "I look forward to seeing them but his approach has me wondering." he said. "This seems to be the standard 'IB obsession' approach, similar to the last report we got with photos, which were of a photoshopped Pileated."

It is looking more and more like Mr. Rainsong's claims are dubious at best. Based on Rainsong's conversation with Van Remsen, he had not yet developed his photos. How could Rainsong have known he had definitive photographic evidence of a living Ivory-Billed woodpecker if he had not yet developed his film? I also find it a bit unusual that a film camera was used by a, supposedly, serious birder and researcher at all. Also, if Rainsong truly felt he had captured the Ivory-Billed woodpecker on film why in the world would he wait over a month to develop the photos? I suppose it is possible but the story gets more difficult to swallow with every hour that passes.

There is more....

Rainsong, it seems, posted a strange ad on Craig's List looking for a "research assistant" to help him capture Ivory-Bill evidence. In the ad, Rainsong references a $10,000 reward for producing said evidence. No such reward exists, to my knowledge. You can see a partial reconstruction of the Craig's List ad here.

So, why perpetrate such an elaborate hoax? This was my main question to the reader who felt this was a likely hoax in the first place. Maybe there is a clue in the observation of Radd Icenoggle, author of Birds in Place: A Habitat-based Field Guide to Birds of the Northern Rockies. Icenoggle has noted that Rainsong's name appears on numerous gambling websites. Hmmm...

I really hope I'm wrong but I have pretty much given up on Rainsong's claims being true. There are just too many questions. I have not, however, given up on the idea that a remnant population of Ivory-Billed woodpeckers may yet survive in the bottom lands of this or other southern states. It will truly be a fantastic discovery when and if the Ivory-Billed woodpecker is re-discovered. It just seems that this is not that day.

Ivory-Billed Woodpecker Re-Discovered?

Some potentially fantastic news is being reported over at the Cryptomundo website by Loren Coleman.

A gentleman named Daniel Rainsong is claiming to have multiple, clear, and definitive photographs of a living breathing Ivory-Billed woodpecker. The legendary bird was photographed in the Sabine River Basin in December of 2009 and again at a later date. If true, the Holy Grail of ornithology has been located. Read the Cryptomundo post here.

The Ivory-Billed woodpecker once dominated old growth forests all over the south. It is a very large and striking woodpecker that has been dubbed the "Lord God Bird." The Ivory-Bill has been thought likely extinct since the mid 1900s. Periodically, reports of Ivory-Billed woodpeckers have trickled in from southern states. It seemed that most such reports turned out to be sightings of the similar looking, but smaller, Pileated woodpecker. The compelling sightings were never accompanied by photographic evidence. An expedition sponsored by Cornell University produced some interesting, but ultimately inconclusive, video of a woodpecker in flight that could have been an Ivory-Bill in 2004. The video was shot in the swamps of Arkansas but could not be duplicated.

According to Loren Coleman, Mr. Rainsong is a man who is very familiar with the differences between the Pileated and Ivory-Billed woodpeckers. Sources seem to be very confident that Rainsong would not mistake a Pileated woodpecker for an Ivory-Bill. Coleman goes on to report that the photographs have been sequestered to protect Mr. Rainsong's right of claim to this rediscovery. After confirmation of Rainsong's photographs, they will be released to the public in conjuction with biologists from Louisiana State University, Florida Gulf Coast University, Iowa State University, and Cornell University.

I really hope this turns out to be the real deal. It would be a true boon to the efforts to preserve potential Ivory-Billed habitats in southeast Texas and southwest Louisiana. This might allow the "Lord God Bird" to re-establish itself in its former haunts. The protection of these areas could only benefit other species as well.

Keep your fingers crossed...

A Giant Snake in Lake Travis?

Below is an email I received a while back from a reader who claims to have spotted a very large snake while fishing Lake Travis back in 2003. The text of his email is below:

I was surfing and found your web-site. Nice one.

Under 'Giant Snakes' you asked anyone with any info to contact you. From what I have read about your camera stories, you are here in Central Texas, so this story should be fairly easy to investigate.
In 2003 I was fishing, (alone of course), on Lake Travis and saw a large snake crawl from one point of a cove to the other.
Now I have been hunting for over 44 years and have been fishing much longer than that. I have seen beaver, nutria, deer, coyotes, bobcats, dogs, cats (yes, cats), goats, sheep, mules, horses....etc, ad nauseum, swimming in rivers and lakes before.

This was a big snake.

Head about the size of both my fists. It stopped several times, picked its head up from the water about a foot, and looked around. I guess it was worried about the boats on the lake racing by. Watched it crawl from one bank, starting in a few inches of water, and swim to the other, where it disappeared in a large tangle of tree roots and brush. Never saw it again.

Told my neighbor and my fishing buddy but of course I just got the old, "Look who has been drinking too much." look and smile.
Anyway, there's some info for you. You can contact me through e-mail, if you have any questions.

Lake Travis lies on the Colorado River northwest of Austin in Travis and Burnet Counties. It encompasses 18,622 acres and has a maximum depth of 190 feet. Lake Travis is a pretty typical western impoundment as it is dominated by rocky banks, steep cliffs, and bluffs. There is very little hydrilla or other aquatic vegetation in the lake. The water is typically very clear. I believe a large snake could survive in and around this lake. Potential prey animals found in this area range from small mammals like mice, rats, rabbits, raccoons, armadillo, and opossum. The area also is home to a population of wild spanish goats that could easily find themselves on a large snake's menu. Small ranches dot the area as well making domestic animals vulnerable to a large snake such as a python or boa. Add to the mix the fish and small amphibians that inhabit the lake itself and you have a veritable buffet.

I have sent a reply email to this reader trying to get some more detail. I would be curious as to the color pattern of the snake, the distance he actually watched it swim, and his best estimate on the length and girth of the snake. I have yet to hear back from the reader, however. I will say this is likely my fault as I have taken entirely too long to get back to him. Hopefully, he will reply soon and I can update this post with some additional detail.

The possibility of a breeding population of giant exotic serpents in the swamps, lakes, and waterways of Texas is a frightening one. The state of Florida is already dealing with this issue. Many native species have no defense and are ill equipped to deal with a non-native apex predator. The ecological impact to native species in Texas, and through out the south, could be devastating. Reports of giant snakes have already started to trickle in from southeast Texas, which is home to many swamps, marshes, rivers, and slow moving bayous. All would be ideal habitats for snakes of all types.

The report from this reader is not the first such story I have heard regarding giant snakes from central Texas. I have heard tales, on more than one occasion, of a large snake that has been sighted in and around the 906-acre Lake Bastrop. Lake Bastrop lies roughly 35 miles southeast of Austin. What makes the tales of a giant snake inhabiting this body of water so interesting is the fact that Lake Bastrop is a cooling lake for the Lower Colorado River Authority's Sim Gideon Power Plant. It would seem a cold blooded animal, like a snake, would find the perennially warm waters of a power plant lake pretty inviting.

I would very much like to hear from readers regarding encounters with large snakes in the Lone Star State. You can contact me via the 'comments' section below this post or email me directly at Texascryptidhunter@yahoo.com.