Sharks of Onslow County
Sharks inspire awe, fear, and fascination. They headline documentaries, fuel conservation campaigns, and even star in Hollywood blockbusters. Yet the science behind these predators tells a paradoxical story: while we know a lot about a handful of species, most sharks remain scientific mysteries. In fact, some of the most “current” research used to guide conservation decisions is more than 20 years old. Shark research may be older or non-existent in Onslow County.
Not all sharks are studied equally. Species such as great whites, tiger sharks, and hammerheads dominate scientific literature, while smaller, deep-sea, or less charismatic species are far less understood. Several reasons explain this disparity. Large, coastal sharks are easier to find, capture, and tag, while many species in offshore or deep-water habitats are logistically challenging and prohibitively expensive to study (Pardo et al., 2016).
Public fascination also drives research priorities. Charismatic species that attract media attention and ecotourism often attract more funding (Dulvy et al., 2014). Likewise, species that interact with commercial or recreational fisheries receive greater attention because of their economic importance (Shiffman & Hammerschlag, 2016). Analyses of global research output confirm that funding and effort cluster around a small set of high-profile species, leaving the majority of sharks and rays understudied (Pacoureau et al., 2021; Sherman et al., 2022).
Even with advances in technology, enormous gaps in our knowledge persist. Many sharks live offshore, in deep waters, or migrate across vast ranges, making them hard to study without costly expeditions (Rigby et al., 2021). Compared to terrestrial megafauna like elephants or tigers, marine species receive far less consistent funding (Barlow et al., 2016).
Sharks also live long lives and reproduce slowly, meaning their life cycles require long-term monitoring that exceeds the typical research grant timeline (Natanson et al., 2018). To make matters worse, much of the available life-history information—on growth rates, reproduction, and mortality—was collected in the 1980s and 1990s (Cailliet & Goldman, 2004). Indeed, a global reassessment found that more than one-third of sharks and rays are threatened with extinction, yet the underlying data for many species is decades out of date (Dulvy et al., 2021).
Outdated shark science is not a sign of disinterest but of structural barriers. For rare or protected species, new sampling is not always possible (Natanson et al., 2018). Most grants last only 12–36 months, which is far shorter than the decades often needed to capture reliable shark life-history data (NOAA, 2023). And while powerful new tools like environmental DNA (eDNA) and genomics are revolutionizing marine science, they have only become mainstream within the last decade (Huang et al., 2021).
As a result, managers frequently rely on data estimated 20 or more years ago. This is not cherry-picking or bias—it is simply the best available science within the constraints of cost, time, and access.
When people see shark research on television—whether on Discovery Channel’s Shark Week or National Geographic—they see the action: tagging sharks, lowering cameras, or collecting samples on deck. What is rarely shown is that those expeditions represent only a fraction of the work.
Most field trips last just a few days to a few weeks (Hussey et al., 2015; VIMS, 2022). Yet fieldwork makes up only 20–30 percent of a project’s total effort. The majority—70–80 percent—is spent on data analysis, lab work, writing, and compiling results (Barlow et al., 2016). In reality, a ten-minute encounter with a shark may represent years of preparation, permit applications, data processing, and grant writing.
It is also important to recognize that television shark programs are supported by advertising partners. The larger the audience, the more valuable the advertising space, which means shows rely on catchy themes, dramatic editing, and sensational titles to maximize viewership. This does not make the science itself unreliable—but it does mean that the goal of networks is often as much about entertainment and ratings as about education. The result is a balance: bringing shark research into living rooms worldwide, while framing it in ways that appeal to mass audiences.
Behind the science are people, and their realities often go unseen. Marine biology careers are notoriously underfunded, with salaries lagging behind most STEM fields (Dawson et al., 2022). Many researchers pay out of pocket for travel, conferences, and even some equipment. A significant portion of field and lab labor is carried out by interns, many of whom are unpaid or receive only a small stipend for room and board (Baker et al., 2019).
Most shark studies are conducted through universities, which have access to federal grants. Independent researchers face steep barriers, and corporations rarely fund shark science given the high costs and low commercial return (Barlow et al., 2016). Even within academia, shark science must compete with higher-priority grant areas such as biomedicine or agriculture. Ocean research consistently ranks lower in funding priorities, leaving marine scientists competing for a smaller share of resources (Barlow et al., 2016).
Studying sharks is expensive at every stage.
One of the most famous large-scale shark research projects is OCEARCH, which operates a 126-foot vessel equipped with hydraulic lifts to bring large sharks onboard. This project has produced some of the most detailed maps of great white movements in the western Atlantic, shaping management decisions from Cape Cod to the Carolinas (OCEARCH, 2023).
But this level of science comes with a price: operating such a vessel costs tens of thousands of dollars per day, requires a full crew, and involves satellite tagging budgets in the millions each year.
Several OCEARCH-tagged great whites, including well-known sharks like Katharine and Lydia, have migrated through Onslow County, pinging near Topsail and New River Inlet. This highlights both the importance of our waters and the reality that most of the science here is conducted by large outside organizations, not by locally based projects.
Here in Onslow County, North Carolina, shark research has both benefits and challenges. Studies of sandbar, blacktip, spinner, and sand tiger sharks in our waters help protect fisheries, support ecotourism, and build local pride in our coastal identity.
But barriers remain. Most grants are awarded to large universities, and local scientists often lack vessels, lab space, or funding to run long-term studies. As a result, Onslow County often relies on data generated elsewhere. NOAA’s Highly Migratory Species stock assessments, for example, model shark populations across the entire U.S. East Coast (NOAA, 2023). While useful, this means that data collected in Florida or New Jersey may be used to guide management here, even though our region has unique nursery grounds, migration corridors, and estuarine habitats.
Two species illustrate the point:
Without sustained local investment, the science that guides decisions in Onslow County will continue to rely on broad regional datasets that may miss the nuances of our waters.
When it comes to sharks, the paradox is clear: we know a lot about a few species, yet for most, we are still in the early stages of discovery. The fact that the “latest” studies for some sharks date back 20+ years is not because scientists do not care, cherry-pick evidence, or show bias. Rather, it reflects the reality that ocean science sits lower on funding priorities, grants are short-term, and research is costly.
For communities like Onslow County, this means both benefit and burden. We gain from the knowledge these studies provide, but we are hindered by funding gaps and access challenges that limit how often and how deeply research can be conducted locally. Scientists often work with the best available data, even when it is broad, outdated, or incomplete—not out of negligence, but because structural barriers constrain what is possible.
Even when shark research does reach the public through television, it is shaped by network goals and advertising models. Programs may emphasize drama or catchy themes to draw larger audiences, because more viewers mean more advertising revenue. This doesn’t make the science unreliable—but it does mean that the public’s view of sharks is filtered through entertainment as much as education.
Without larger and longer-term investment, conservation decisions will continue to rely on imperfect information at a time when sharks—and the communities connected to them—can least afford it.
Shark science in Onslow County depends not only on big research vessels and university grants, but also on the support and interest of local communities. You can help strengthen research and conservation in our waters by:
Even small actions—like attending a local lecture, following ongoing shark tagging projects, or teaching kids about the importance of sharks—help ensure that the science shaping our future includes the voices and experiences of Onslow County.
Baker, S., Motta, R., & Zlotnick, H. (2019). Barriers to entry in marine science: The hidden costs of internships. Marine Policy, 108, 103624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103624
Barlow, J., Barrett, L. A., Field, I. C., et al. (2016). Funding biases and challenges in marine megafauna research. Conservation Biology, 30(3), 678–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12641
Cailliet, G. M., & Goldman, K. J. (2004). Age determination and validation in chondrichthyan fishes. In J. C. Carrier, J. A. Musick, & M. R. Heithaus (Eds.), Biology of sharks and their relatives (pp. 399–447). CRC Press.
Dawson, C. L., Webster, J., & Rhoades, J. (2022). Salary disparities in marine biology: The cost of conservation careers. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9, 934211. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.934211
Dulvy, N. K., Fowler, S. L., Musick, J. A., et al. (2014). Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. eLife, 3, e00590. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00590
Dulvy, N. K., Pacoureau, N., Rigby, C. L., Pollom, R. A., Jabado, R. W., Ebert, D. A., … Simpfendorfer, C. A. (2021). Overfishing drives over one-third of all sharks and rays toward a global extinction crisis. Current Biology, 31(21), 4773–4787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.08.062
Huang, D., et al. (2021). Genomic resources and challenges for shark conservation. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 635301. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.635301
Hussey, N. E., Kessel, S. T., Aarestrup, K., Cooke, S. J., Cowley, P. D., Fisk, A. T., … Whoriskey, F. G. (2015). Aquatic animal telemetry: A panoramic window into the underwater world. Science, 348(6240), 1255642. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255642
Natanson, L. J., Gervelis, B. J., Winton, M. V., et al. (2018). Age and growth of sharks: revisiting methods, validity, and inference. Marine and Freshwater Research, 69(9), 1423–1436. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF17184
NOAA. (2023). Highly Migratory Species research priorities. National Marine Fisheries Service. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov
OCEARCH. (2023). Tracking great white sharks. https://www.ocearch.org
Pacoureau, N., Rigby, C. L., Kyne, P. M., et al. (2021). Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature, 589(7843), 567–571. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03173-9
Pardo, S. A., Kindsvater, H. K., Reynolds, J. D., & Dulvy, N. K. (2016). Maximum intrinsic rate of population increase in sharks, rays, and chimaeras: the importance of survival to maturity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 73(8), 1159–1167. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2016-0069
Rigby, C. L., Dulvy, N. K., Barreto, R., et al. (2021). The conservation status of the world’s sharks and rays. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 10430. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92320-9
Save Our Seas Foundation. (2024). Funding opportunities. https://saveourseas.com
Shark Conservation Fund. (2024). Grantmaking. https://www.sharkconservationfund.org
Sherman, C. S., Shiffman, D. S., & Dulvy, N. K. (2022). Trends in global shark research: disparities in conservation relevance. Fish and Fisheries, 23(5), 1069–1083. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12675
Sims, D. W., et al. (2022). Cost-effectiveness of BRUVs vs eDNA for marine biodiversity monitoring. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 689, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13998
University of Georgia. (2022). Research vessel rates. Athens, GA.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). (2022). Research vessel operations. Gloucester Point, VA.
