Top products from r/sharks

It's an older book but one I am very partial to because it got me started: Great White Shark by Richard Ellis and John McCosker http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00HQMZQ0E/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?qid=1458936067&sr=8-2&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=great+white+shark+ellis&dpPl=1&dpID=51701uVuhcL&ref=plSrch

Another interesting read is The Lady and the Sharks by Eugenie Clark. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/s/ref=is_s_ss_i_0_19?k=the+lady+and+the+sharks&sprefix=the+lady+and+the+sh This was about setting up Cape Haze Laboratory (now Mote Marine Laboratory) which studies sharks primarily. She has a great writing style and the focus on the research is interesting. During this time Genie was running tests on lemon sharks which ultimately proved sharks were capable of being trained and learning to feed at particular targets. Her papers on this subject are fascinating too. Those are on Google scholar if you're interested or PM me if you need help.

Fora general field guide or handbook on sharks I'd go with Dr. Greg Skomal's guide: the shark handbook http://www.amazon.com/The-Shark-Handbook-Essential-Understanding/dp/1604330074
Most overall shark books tend to be geared more towards kids but Dr. Skomal does a great job not dumbing things down. The photos are great too.

Sharks: Perfect Predators one of the best well rounded books on sharks for general information and practical examples. After reading I was finally more hooked on sharks over tetrapods lol

Thank you :) and yes! I just put it on Amazon :) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B074CVPHSW

Saw a post about the shark tee in this thread and decided to share my creation as well :)
You can purchase the tee here- https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079YWDYM2

I have a model of a shark that has all the internal organs modeled, with one side being clear. You can find one here: https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Great-White-Shark-Anatomy/dp/B001YIT1YI

Alternatively, if you want to go for a big budget item, Megalodon teeth are surprisingly cheap! ^^^relatively Only $200.

This was my first book on sharks that my dad bought me in early 80's:
https://www.amazon.com/Book-Sharks-Richard-Ellis/dp/0679722106

Still have it - it's awesome.

I suppose that depends on how mature the 11 year old is. Like others have said, you tend to get goodies to represent the shark or the foundation that you adopt through, so there's certainly a tangible aspect there. If you know what about sharks the kid likes, you can gear it towards that. If they like how they look, a nice picture-heavy encyclopedia sort of book teaching about the various species of sharks would be my choice. If they are more interested in Hollywood's violent shark, I wouldn't want to encourage that behavior and would stick with the toys instead. I personally like these wooden puzzles though I haven't used this particular one.

My sisters have bought me various shark things throughout the years (lots of plush toys, so many) such as slippers (can't find the exact ones I got, but they weren't great. Stick to ones that go over the heel) and one even made me a shark laundry bag.

Give this one a go: https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Sharks-Steve-Parker/dp/1554074096

There are probably several on the same page that would suffice as well.

I have that book and have read it cover-to-cover. It's good but it isn't full of a huge list of species, which I think you want in this situation. I feel that this book has a much larger list of sharks with plenty of detail on them.

https://www.amazon.com/Sharks-Rays-Nature-Company-Guides/dp/0783549407/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1493730949&sr=1-1&keywords=sharks+and+rays

There it is : https://www.amazon.fr/dp/B00UIFHFAU/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_c_ALHPCb6JFQ343
It's an Amazon FR link

Nope. Santa rides other shark. Santa riding Manatee

Try Extinct.
[https://www.amazon.com/Extinct-Charles-Wilson/dp/0312962126](Book on amazon)

It's decent.

Speaking of the Meg - That series is 7 or 8 books long by Steve Alten and features many Meg's. And sharks and what not.

Here's a couple realistic fiction books:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07KLSJVTW

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07SFKZNWJ

http://www.amazon.com/Maxwell-Dickson-Business-Modern-Artwork/dp/B00K8E46OO

Dont know if this is something up your alley. I have one on my wall and the colors are incredible!

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/B001YIT1YI/ref=mp_s_a_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1509981811&sr=8-6&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=shark+kit

I had one of these when I was younger. I concur. They might have them at Toys R Us

https://www.amazon.com/Attack-Magnetic-Pepper-Shaker-CAS/dp/B013K87TFW/ref=asc_df_B013K87TFW/

Boom.

It is a complex topic. Only a few shark species regularly attack humans. The top three nearshore species prone to attack are the great white, bull, and tiger. Each has different characteristics. Great whites (GWs), for example, almost never eat the people they kill.

The topic is also contentious because it is highly probable that the low level of attack is correlated with the large number of sharks killed. When we hear the narrative “Sharks attack fewer than 100 people per year; you'll sooner be hit by lightning,” it is usually followed by: "People are much more dangerous; we kill 60-100 million sharks a year." No connection between these two?

Conservationists lobby hard for shark protection. Almost all shark species have been seriously overfished. If it is conceded that sharks are a significant problem to humans, rather than only a negligible one, the case for culling sharks for public safety is much stronger. (TL_DR 2, below, has some info on shark culling--a heated debate.)

Conceding this would be problematic for some shark conservationists. So the inquiry into shark danger is not exactly a welcome one. The topic is also very contestable. As another poster here correctly says: “human-shark interactions are insanely difficult to study within a scientific framework.” That means one has to use logic to seek answers.


Since logic--inferior to measurable science--is all we have here, this is my stab at delving into the topic. (This is likely TL-DR for most people.)

• • • -
      
      You are right in suggesting that it is counterintuitive that sharks don't attack people more often. It's somewhat a mystery, and there is value in comparing sharks to other predators. If one lacks specialized knowledge, one would logically think that generalist feeder sharks (tigers and bulls) are similar to crocodiles. (Hereafter “sharks” refers only to bull and tiger sharks.)
      
      Sharks and crocs both target a wide variety of prey. But sharks don’t attack people often; crocs (Nile and Salt Water) are far more dangerous. Crocs attack about 1,000 people per year, killing 2/3rds CrocBITE, even though people make a big avoidance efforts. People swim near sharks all the time, without problem. Crocs are many multiples more dangerous than sharks.
      
      Sharks are also far less dangerous than lions and tigers (which in turn are much less dangerous than crocs.)
      
      If sharks are unlike crocs in attack proclivities--every hungry croc of sufficient size will attack a human--we should ponder if sharks are more like tigers (the big cat) in their danger to man. The history of tiger attack reveals that the offending animals are by a large degree injured or old and feeble--with difficulty in killing normal prey.
      
      In short, a subset of every tiger population disproportionately attacks humans. Same thing with sharks? Probably. Logically, large, aging sharks can be deduced to pose the most danger to humans and be responsible for most attacks (or would be if these sharks still remained in significant numbers).
      
      Observations, assumptions and questions:
      
      

1. The aging processes between tigers and sharks differ: The big cats become feeble, have difficulties hunting. Sharks grow steadily larger and heavier in old age, more formidable. Old sharks are slower, though, no longer flitting around reefs, snatching up small fish.
   
   Key data we lack for sharks, which we generally have for other predators: What sort of hunting challenges do sharks have in old age? Might they be prone to seeking large prey, and not excluding a human if they came across one? What is the total tiger shark population, for example, near the Hawaiian Islands (including migrating sharks)? What percentage is 30 years or older? (Life expectancy 30-40 years.) Do large tiger sharks prey on each other? Suffer GW predation? Are aging tiger sharks more lethargic, and prone to loitering near land, which might put them in conflict with humans? Etc., etc.
   
   
2. A large shark, say a 30 year old, 14-foot, 1,600 pound tiger shark, that bites a human, even once, will inflict much more damage than a smaller one. There are many cases of people fending off an attack by punching the shark. Far less likely with a large shark. It is correct that in many cases, maybe most, that sharks bite only once and then swim off. We do not always know the motivation. Were the sharks uninterested? Were they deterred? Are some other shark species also using the GW strategy of biting once, letting the victim bleed out and die, and then returning to feed?
   
   The role of the fewer-larger-fish factor. This well-known phenomenon has much affected long lived ocean species like tuna and marlin. Matt Rigney discusses the matter in his book In pursuit of giants. Rigney doesn’t touch on sharks much but since sharks are long lived, we should assume a similar outcome.
   
   My conclusion:
   
   Sharks, while far less lethal to people than crocodiles and the big cats, are significantly more dangerous than the fewer than 100 attacks per year metric would suggest. The heavy suppression of shark populations for at least a century has reduced human-shark encounters. More significantly, this suppression has disproportionately removed from the world’s shark populations those individuals most dangerous to people--large, aging sharks. Far fewer attacks are occurring than would be the case if shark populations were intact.
   
   It is near impossible to predict how dangerous sharks would be over time in a proverbial state of nature. Today, worldwide, tigers also attack less than 100 people a year. This from a population of about 3,500-4000 animals. Before tiger populations were reduced, the toll was much higher. Estimated death toll from tigers, primarily in India and SE Asia, 1800 - 2009: 373,000 people.
   
   

• • • -
      
      TL-DR 2 Shark culling - a contested topic
      
      Australia and South Africa have culled since the 1960s. Sharks killed 6 people in 3 1/2 months near Durban in 1958, [initiating their program] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_December). Many shark experts say this was a one off event. Australian cull data; South African shark control organization
      
      The logic for culling is explained in this book on the great white, pp. 491-494. Many shark conservationists contest the effectiveness of culling. Two sources:
      
      1994 study conclusion: Shark control programs do not
      appear to have had measurable effects on the rate of shark attacks in Hawaiian
      waters; and
      
      [Deakin University Professor questions statistical link] (https://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/shark-nets-do-nothing-reduce-chance-attack-study/2923848/)
      
      The culling debate has been particularly heated in Australia. [2014: Thousand protested culling plans]
      (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10611526/Thousands-rally-against-shark-cull-in-Australia.html) Nations that cull sharks acknowledge the environment harm from lower shark numbers and have greatly reduced kill levels in the past 20 years.