Tiger Shark Species File
CATALOGUE LIST ROW 042 · C GRADE · SALTWATER · TROPICAL TO WARM-TEMPERATE SEAS
Tiger Shark — Galeocerdo cuvier (Péron & Lesueur, 1822)
Evidence checked: October 9, 2026. The catalogue grade is an editorial label, not a conservation category; the duplicate list entry 122 refers to the same species.
Field briefing: A broad, blunt head and notched cutting teeth identify a tiger shark more reliably than stripes alone. Its ecology reaches from albatross fledglings on an atoll lagoon to turtles choosing where to graze. For an angler, the first practical decision is jurisdiction: Florida state waters, adjacent federal waters and Hawaiʻi have materially different shark rules. An impressive catch story cannot answer that question. [3–5,9,11,17,19,21]
01. Ultimate File — Identity, Scale & Official Record
The passport
| Field | Source-grounded description |
|---|---|
| Accepted name | Galeocerdo cuvier (Péron & Lesueur, 1822). [1,2] |
| Common name | Tiger shark; Hawaiʻi DLNR gives the Hawaiian species name niuhi. [3,5] |
| Order | Carcharhiniformes. [4] |
| Family | Galeocerdonidae in the current Catalog of Fishes treatment; Carcharhinidae in the NOAA, FAO and Florida Museum operational/species references. [2–4,6] |
| Environment and range | Widespread marine species in tropical, subtropical and warm-temperate waters; coastal, island and offshore habitats. [3,4,6] |
| Diet | Fishes, rays and other sharks, turtles, birds, marine mammals, cephalopods, crustaceans and carrion; regional composition varies. [4,6] |
The family-name difference is a change of classification framework, not evidence that two kinds of tiger shark are being described. A specimen or catch should still be matched to the accepted species name. [1–4]
Biological scale
NOAA’s Atlantic identification guide gives a reported maximum length of about 5.5 m / 18 ft. A guide’s compiled size value is not a precise growth limit or the length of the shark shown in a photograph. No global lifespan ceiling is established here. [3]
The Florida Museum describes live-bearing reproduction without a placenta, including nourishment from uterine fluid later in development, and reports a literature litter-size range of roughly 10–82. That broad range describes reported reproductive biology; it does not justify portraying an illustrated shark as pregnant or assigning an exact age from its size. [4]
Official record card
| Field | What the official species overview verifies |
|---|---|
| Category | IGFA All-Tackle weight record. [24] |
| Displayed mass | 1,785 lb 11 oz / 810 kg, as read on October 9, 2026. [24] |
| Angler, catch place and date | Not established from the accessible official species overview; no attribution is added. |
| Length | No verified record-card length supplied in the evidence reviewed. |
The reported biological length and certified angling mass remain separate fields. The record display is a dated observation of a page that can change.
02. Field Identification — What Matters at First Sight
A head-and-body combination that survives fading stripes
Start with a short, broad, blunt snout and a substantial head and forebody tapering toward the tail. Long labial furrows extend from the mouth corners toward the eyes. A low ridge lies between the dorsal fins; the first dorsal begins behind the pectoral, the second dorsal is much smaller, and the upper tail lobe is long with a subterminal notch. [3,4]
The teeth are especially informative when visible in a reliable close-up: they are broad and serrated, with a deep notch on the outer edge, and broadly similar in upper and lower jaws. They are cutting structures. Seeing a tooth pattern in an identification plate is sufficient reason to keep hands away from the mouth; it is not a reason to open a live shark’s jaws for confirmation. [3,4]
Reference photograph V-R01. NOAA Fisheries, from “Debunking Common Shark Myths.” The source credits NOAA Fisheries; NOAA-produced imagery is public domain in the United States under the agency’s image policy. Unmodified photograph. This is a real free-swimming shark, not a rendered identification plate or a fishing scene. [13]
Spots, bars and adult skin
Young tiger sharks have pronounced dark blotches that merge into more continuous bars as they grow. The pattern generally fades in larger adults, sometimes remaining faintly visible. An adult should not be described as inevitably unmarked, nor a sharply striped fish assigned an exact age. Light, angle and image quality also affect what is visible. Use the head, fins and teeth together with the pattern. [3–5]
Internal photographic comparisons include NOAA Gulf survey images of young and larger sharks. Those deck-based research views help check markings; they do not document a natural swimming pose or authorize the same handling in recreational fishing. [14]
Confusion and handling
A faintly marked large shark can lose the obvious feature that gave tiger sharks their name. The reviewed evidence supports the diagnostic combination above rather than a complete side-by-side key for every co-occurring shark. If the combination cannot be resolved, do not treat identification uncertainty as permission to retain an animal. [3,4,17]
Anatomy-to-action map: broad cutting teeth → keep hands away and have a rapid cutting device available; a substantial body → follow the applicable in-water release procedure; fading stripes → verify several anatomical anchors rather than guessing from color. The first two responses also match FWC’s shark-safety and release guidance. [3,4,17]
03. Habitat Topology — Where the Fish Actually Lives
A coast-to-ocean range with no single search depth
Tiger sharks occur in lagoons, coastal waters, reef settings, around oceanic islands and offshore. The Atlantic guide describes a range from Cape Cod to Uruguay, including the Gulf and Caribbean. Wider species accounts cover tropical to warm-temperate seas globally. Records from near the surface to hundreds of metres describe occurrence across studies; they do not supply one fish’s daily route or the correct depth for a hook. [3,4,6]
Gulf of Mexico telemetry found larger subadult/adult classes moving more broadly and using off-shelf and deeper habitat more than juveniles, with differences by season, region and sex. North Atlantic tag–recapture research also warns that its represented stages and tag distribution do not capture the full movement ecology. A distribution map is a record of both fish and observation effort. [7,8]
Three habitats, three kinds of evidence
Representative habitats · aerial conceptual overview
Regional ecological examples are combined in one conceptual scene; this is not a surveyed map, single locality, or migration route.
H01 — Kure Atoll, northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Newly fledged Laysan and black-footed albatrosses entering the lagoon meet a predator able to feed at the surface. Dudzik, Chin and McClure’s paper, first published September 9, 2026, reports direct observations from the Green Island pier during one 2024 fledging season. This supports a genuine bird–shark encounter in shallow lagoon water. The observers did not report the sharks’ ages, and their field of view covered only part of the lagoon. The scene therefore does not label predators as adults or extrapolate to the whole albatross population. [9]
H02 — Olowalu, west Maui. Acoustic telemetry from 2013–2019, together with overlap among mature males and females and fresh mating signs, led Wernli and colleagues to describe a potential mating aggregation. Their paper was published December 18, 2025. The evidence supports diffuse use of a broad nearshore area, not a crowded school or directly witnessed copulation. A relationship with whale-associated data does not establish attacks on healthy whales or calves. [10]
H03 — Shark Bay, Western Australia. A green turtle’s grazing decision can reveal a shark’s influence even when no attack occurs. Heithaus and colleagues found that tiger-shark risk affected use of seagrass-bank interiors and edges. Turtles in better condition could choose safer edge habitat when sharks were more abundant; animals in poorer condition could accept greater risk to feed inside the bank. This is a state-dependent food–risk trade-off, not a claim that every turtle encountered is pursued. [11]
These scenes are independent regional examples. They do not become successive stops in the life of one shark.
A three-zone working view
| Relative zone | Documented use | What an observer can establish | Limit or reset |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lagoon or surface interface | Direct albatross interactions at Kure. [9] | Record a visible encounter from a safe, authorized observation setting. | Losing sight ends the direct behavioral observation; do not infer a hidden attack. |
| Nearshore reef/shelf water | Tagged mature sharks overlap near Olowalu. [10] | Explain acoustic detections and fresh signs as evidence for a potential aggregation. | A detector hit alone cannot identify courtship, feeding or exact depth. |
| Bank margin to deeper/off-shelf water | Shark Bay risk landscape and Gulf telemetry show different habitat uses. [7,11] | Distinguish prey’s risk response from a shark’s measured movement. | No universal bait lane or fixed depth is derived from those studies. |
No universal temperature optimum, salinity threshold, current speed or sonar signature is supplied by the verified evidence. These ecological scenes are observation contexts, not tiger-shark fishing stations.
04. Odd Logic, Read Water & Bite Mechanics
A predator can change a meal without taking a bite
The nickname “garbage-can shark” reduces a varied predator to a slogan. Tiger sharks have a broad recorded diet, but foods differ among places. Kure offers direct evidence of birds being taken; Shark Bay shows another pathway, in which risk alone changes turtle feeding. The distinction matters: an illustration of a chase would misrepresent the latter study. [4,6,9,11]
The Kure opportunity is tied to a specific life-history event in the prey, newly fledged birds entering the water. It does not prove a tide-driven or moon-driven angling bite window. The Maui overlap concerns reproductive interpretation, not proof of a feeding frenzy. A visible shark, a seasonal biological event and an available bait are three different observations. [9,10]
Far, middle, close
| Scale | Actual evidence or visible signal | What it supports | Appropriate response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Far | An atoll fledging season or a mapped seagrass-bank system | A regional ecological context in which encounters or risk effects were studied. [9,11] | Use the correct case study; do not relocate it to an unrelated beach or infer a fishing opportunity. |
| Middle | A directly seen shark–bird interaction; alternatively, acoustic detections | The former records behavior; the latter records presence within a study’s detection framework. [9,10] | Keep visual behavior and telemetry inference separate; do not label a detector hit as a bite. |
| Close | Visible head/fin combination; a shark already hooked in a catch report | Identification or a documented capture. [3,25,27,28] | If a fish must be released, use the applicable in-water and rapid-release rules. A report’s handling photo is not an instruction. [17,20] |
This is a decision matrix for interpreting evidence and encounters. The reviewed tiger-specific catch accounts do not establish a repeatable bite-signal sequence, a timed feed interval or a species-specific retrieve rhythm.
The two stages that the evidence can actually support
Initial contact — do not invent the signal. The catch reports name natural fish baits and some tackle, but do not describe consistent rod-tip taps, slack-line cues or a measurable delay before commitment. No such signature is assigned here. Florida’s non-offset, non-stainless circle-hook requirement for natural-bait shark fishing is a gear rule; it is not proof of a particular tiger-shark take sequence. [17,25,27,28]
Loaded fish — prioritize the verified release route. Once a shark is hooked, the applicable release obligations and safe cutting capability are better established than a universal hookset. FWC describes rapid in-water release and, when dehooking would delay a shore release, cutting the hook or leader close to the hook. Federal non-retained Atlantic HMS must be released to maximize survival without removing them from the water. The evidence does not justify prescribing a tiger-specific striking angle, drag number or counted seconds. [17,20]
05. Tactical Engineering — Routes, Hardware & Field Cases
What the natural-bait cases establish
These are bounded catch records. A documented bait and line can be useful evidence without becoming a complete, current target-fishing tutorial.
The conceptual paternoster-style layout places a baited side branch above a separate terminal sinker. T-01 labels a PE-to-mono FG knot, mono rub leader, single-strand wire bite trace with haywire loops, one inline circle hook and a cut-fish chunk; these parts come from separate generic and maker references, not a Tiger Shark-tested assembly. [29–33] One Tiger Shark report records whole or cut amberjack bait, while a historical shark-gear review notes cut fish generally, not a modern bait-size recommendation. [25,34] The figures assign no tackle values or bait depth, and depict no species-specific bite or retrieval sequence. Florida rules cited here are jurisdiction-specific; local law controls. [17]
| Presentation in the source | Place and bait | Position or deployment actually reported | Bite/retrieve information | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural fish bait in a captain’s tiger-shark report | Islamorada/Florida Keys; whole or cut amberjack. [25] | The named captain’s fishery; exact coordinates, water boundary and bait depth are not reported. | No complete take-to-hookset or retrieval sequence. | Historical 2012 account; not a current legality or handling model. |
| Natural eel bait in a shore report | Long Island; eel. [27] | Shore catch context; exact placement and terminal hardware not supplied. | No repeatable species-specific bite protocol. | A reported uncommon visitor, not a forecast for every local shoreline. |
| Cast natural ray bait | Second Long Island tiger shark. [27] | Casting of ray bait is explicitly reported. | No sourced retrieve speed or hook-loading sequence. | Natural bait remains natural bait even when cast. |
| Natural eel bait in a Cape Cod report | 12-inch eel. [28] | Shore catch context; no source-grounded universal station or cast distance. | Detailed bite mechanics not established. | Capture photograph does not validate the handling shown. |
Artificial lure or metal jig: no reliable tiger-targeted method was established in the reviewed sources. NOAA’s baited camera bag is scientific observation equipment. A shark investigating or biting that apparatus does not prove an artificial-lure fishing system. No lure weight, jig motion or lure rig is added. [12,15]
Five engineering dimensions, without false precision
| Dimension | What can be said from the evidence |
|---|---|
| Burst | The species’ documented scale warrants serious planning, but the sources do not measure initial acceleration or supply a universal drag load. [3,24] |
| Structure interaction | Coastal and reef occurrence does not establish a drill-into-cover behavior. [3,6,7] |
| Endurance | Broad tagged movements are ecological observations, not controlled fighting-stamina measurements. [7,8] |
| Terminal damage | Serrated, notched cutting teeth make contact near the mouth hazardous; catch accounts use cable or wire in some cases, without validating one universal leader. [3,4,27,28] |
| Landing-zone risk | FWC’s cutting-device and in-water guidance supplies an actionable precaution; no measured surge score is assigned. [17] |
A five-star score would add unsupported precision. FWC recommends at least 80 lb-test heavy tackle for shark fishing as Shark-Smart advice. That recommendation is neither a tiger-specific statutory line class nor proof that every 80 lb outfit suits every individual or setting. [17]
Keep the terminal chains separate
| Node | Florida Keys tiger-specific case [25] | Long Island case [27] | Cape Cod case [28] |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mainline | 80 lb braid | 80 lb PowerPro braid | 80 lb braid |
| Mainline/leader join | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
| Leader | Not reported | Cable, length and strength not reported | 6 ft of 300 lb mono, followed by 2 ft of 170 lb wire |
| Intermediate hardware/joins | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
| Hook | 18/0 circle | 16/0 Cast-All circle | 11/0 hook; do not silently label it a circle hook |
| Natural bait | Whole or cut amberjack | Eel | 12-inch eel |
The more detailed 2013 regional Florida Keys shark interview describes other captains’ broader shark setups, including a wind-on, weight, swivel and wire. That account is not tiger-specific. Its parts cannot be imported to fill the blanks in the 2012 tiger-shark chain. Neither a similar Daiwa layout nor another shark’s successful capture establishes a missing node. [25,26]
The source-reported hook names also do not automatically establish compliance with current requirements on offset or material. A hardware specification must be checked on its own before use. [17,25,27,28]
Failure modes and reset decisions
| Failure mode | Why it matters | Prevention or reset |
|---|---|---|
| A photograph becomes a handling tutorial | Historical deck or shore poses may conflict with current release duties. | Follow current jurisdiction-specific in-water rules, rather than recreating the pose. [17,20,25,28] |
| A complete-looking rig conceals missing joins | Unreported connections cannot be strength-checked or faithfully illustrated. | Keep the chain partial and verify a full assembly before use; no guessed swivel, sleeve or knot. [25,27,28] |
| Rules are transferred across a water boundary | Florida’s prohibited harvest, the federal summary and Hawaiʻi’s capture prohibition differ. | Identify the actual jurisdiction and applicable permits before any planned activity. [17–21] |
| A scientific bait bag becomes a lure recommendation | Attraction to research gear supplies no validated angling presentation. | Keep the camera context in ecology; do not add an artificial-lure method. [12,15] |
| “80 lb” is treated as a legal safety guarantee | Agency advice and a statutory specification are different claims. | Read the FWC wording and assess the whole equipment and release plan. [17] |
Three field cases, three evidence limits
Case 1 — Islamorada, 2012. Sport Fishing reports Captain Nick Stanczyk using 80 lb braid, an 18/0 circle hook and whole or cut amberjack for several tiger-shark captures. Releases were reported. The missing leader and hardware prevent reconstructing a full rig, and unspecified coordinates prevent assigning today’s state/federal rule from the place name alone. [25]
Case 2 — Long Island, 2026. The August 26, 2026 report describes an eel capture with 80 lb PowerPro, a cable leader and a 16/0 Cast-All circle, and a second young tiger shark on cast ray bait. These are concrete northern catch reports. They do not establish a routine tiger-shark fishery, a recommended bait depth or legal authority for a new outing. [27]
Case 3 — Cape Cod. The shore report describes 80 lb braid → 6 ft, 300 lb mono → 2 ft, 170 lb wire → 11/0 hook → 12-inch eel. It supplies more leader detail but still omits the joins and hardware. The photographed handling remains a reported event, not an endorsed release method. [28]
Jurisdiction is part of the equipment plan
| Jurisdiction and dated source | Source summary | Essential distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Florida state waters, FWC and rule index checked October 9, 2026 | Tiger shark is prohibited from harvest; possession/landing restrictions and prompt in-water release conditions apply. The rule index lists 68B-44.004 effective January 12, 2026. [16,17] | This dossier does not infer a blanket target-fishing ban or blanket permission from the harvest listing. |
| U.S. Atlantic federal HMS waters, NOAA status page observed October 9, 2026, page marked updated August 4, 2025 | Tiger appears OPEN in the summary, 54-inch fork-length minimum and one shark total per vessel per trip, with relevant permit/endorsement requirements. The regulatory text controls. [19] | A dated summary does not override current regulations, protected-species conditions or local rules. |
| Federal non-retained Atlantic HMS | 50 CFR 635.21 requires release maximizing survival, without removing the fish from the water. [20] | A photo opportunity does not justify removal of a fish to be released. |
| Hawaiʻi state marine waters, Act 51 effective January 1, 2022 | Intentional or knowing capture or entanglement of any shark, alive or dead, and killing any shark are generally prohibited in state marine waters, subject to statutory exceptions. Subsection (h)(1) authorizes DLNR to adopt rules addressing incidental capture and release while targeting other species; it is not a general authorization to target sharks. Traditional and customary rights are preserved. [21] | The Kure and Maui ecological scenes are not tiger-shark fishing instructions. |
Florida’s state-water boundary generally extends 3 nautical miles on the Atlantic side and 9 nautical miles on the Gulf side, as described by FWC. Use the agency’s boundary information for the actual site rather than assigning jurisdiction from a marina’s name. [18]
FWC’s shark-gear summary requires hook-and-line, excludes multiple-point hooks with live/dead natural bait, and specifies non-offset, non-stainless circle hooks for natural-bait shark fishing from shore or vessel. It also requires an effective hook/leader cutting device, prohibits beach chumming, and describes a course and annual no-cost shore-based shark permit for ages 16 and older. These are dated summaries of linked official sources; verify the rules for the place and day of any trip. [17]
06. Foodways, Folklore & Human Connection
Food claims need a species and a place
A broad natural diet says nothing about the quality of tiger-shark meat. The verified sources here do not establish a particular community’s traditional tiger-shark dish, a taste ranking or a preparation that makes it safe to eat. No recipe or species-identified meal photograph is invented. Harvest law also comes before any discussion of taking a fish for food; Florida’s prohibition cannot be softened by a culinary story. [17]
Niuhi within a wider world of manō
Hawaiʻi DLNR calls the tiger shark niuhi. The broader word manō refers to sharks, and much of the cultural material concerns that wider relationship. For some families and individuals, sharks may be ʻaumākua, ancestral guardians. That is a specific, varied relationship, not a belief assigned to every Hawaiian person or every tiger shark. [5,22]
DLNR also documents historical uses of shark teeth in tools, decoration and weapons, and shark skin as abrasive material and in large drum membranes. Those accounts show how sharks entered work and material culture. They do not identify every object as tiger-shark-derived. [22]
Puniwai’s 2020 article approaches manō through Kanaka Maoli Indigenous knowledge, oral literature, ecological seasonality and individual relationships. It provides a thoughtful context for reading a coastline as a lived place with remembered animals. It does not supply a universal tiger-shark ritual or convert a traditional saying into an angling forecast. [23]
Release principle: keep a shark that must be released in the water, and avoid delaying release for photographs or prolonged dehooking. Rules principle: a species account and a historical catch are not fishing permission; identify the exact jurisdiction before choosing a method. [17,20,21]
Appendix A — Taxonomy & Naming
Galeocerdo cuvier (Péron & Lesueur, 1822) is the accepted binomial. The Catalog of Fishes includes the original combination Squalus cuvier and historical names such as Galeocerdo cuvieri, G. tigrinus, G. obtusus and G. rayneri. The list here is selective; synonym treatment can differ among authorities. [1,2]
| Rank or naming field | Authority and treatment |
|---|---|
| Higher phylum/class hierarchy | Not independently resolved from the retrieved classification fields; no complete current tree is asserted. |
| Order | Carcharhiniformes. [4] |
| Family | Galeocerdonidae in the current Catalog of Fishes; Carcharhinidae retained in NOAA/FAO/Florida Museum species references. [2–4,6] |
| Genus | Galeocerdo. [1,2] |
| Species | G. cuvier. [1,2] |
| Hawaiian local name | niuhi for tiger shark; manō is broader. [5,22] |
| Catalogue deduplication | List rows 042 and 122 refer to the same accepted species; they are not two dossiers. |
The accepted species name is stable across the cited family treatments. Neither a bright juvenile pattern nor a faint adult pattern represents a separate taxon. [1–5]
Appendix B — Fact-Check Ledger & Visual Assets
Claim-to-source ledger
| Claim group | References | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Name, order and family difference | [1–6] | Authorities explicitly distinguished; no invented complete higher hierarchy. |
| Head, teeth, fins and markings | [3–5] | Multiple anatomical anchors; age not inferred from a photograph. |
| Biological size and reproduction | [3,4] | Attributed guide values and literature ranges; no lifespan ceiling. |
| IGFA record | [24] | Displayed All-Tackle mass only; holder/place/date not supplied. |
| Range and life-stage habitat use | [3,6–8] | Regional studies, sampling limitations and no universal depth route. |
| Kure scene | [9] | One 2024 season, partial lagoon view, shark ages unreported; no denominator or derived mortality rate used. |
| Maui scene | [10] | Wernli et al. 2025, correct Nature URL; potential mating, not direct observation or whale attack. |
| Shark Bay scene | [11] | Turtle condition and risk-mediated habitat choice, not an attack sequence. |
| Baited scientific camera | [12,15] | Observation apparatus; no lure-method inference. |
| Natural-bait cases and nodes | [25,27,28] | Species-specific catch reports; unreported joins/hardware remain open. |
| Conceptual paternoster-style tackle diagrams | [17,25,29–34] | Separate general and maker component precedents; not a Tiger Shark-tested or universal rig; no values or bait depth assigned. |
| Non-tiger-specific regional gear | [26] | Kept separate, never used to complete the tiger rig. |
| Florida/federal/Hawaiʻi rules | [16–21] | Jurisdiction and observation date stated; federal summary metadata retained. |
| Cultural relationship | [5,22,23] | Local species name separated from broader shark knowledge and varied family traditions. |
| Photo provenance | [13–15] | Clear NOAA-produced main photo distinguished from internal survey references. |
Sources were checked on October 9, 2026. The record and official legal summaries are dated observations; current rules and record listings can change. Diagram labels and scene captions retain each study’s uncertainty rather than converting interpretations into observed events.
Visual reading guide
| Asset ID | Purpose | Evidence and representation boundary |
|---|---|---|
| V-01 | Featured cover only; not repeated in the article body. | Original archive-template illustration; [3–5,13,14]. |
| V-02 | Standard anatomical identification. | Original illustration; two dorsal fins, blunt snout, fin positions and notched teeth; [3–5]. |
| V-R01 | Real free-swimming comparator inserted in Chapter 2. |
research/assets/NOAA_Atlantic_adult_surface_NEFSConservation_750x500.jpg; NOAA Fisheries; [13]; NOAA-produced/public-domain basis. |
| H00 | Single conceptual aerial representative-habitat overview. | Original illustration; three independent regions; [9–11]; not a true map or route. |
| H01 | Kure lagoon bird–shark interaction. | Independently composed illustration; [9]; shark ages unspecified. |
| H02 | Olowalu diffuse potential mating aggregation. | Independently composed illustration; [10]; no direct mating or whale attack. |
| H03 | Shark Bay seagrass and turtle risk landscape. | Independently composed illustration; [11]; no invented pursuit. |
| V-08 | Contemporary place-based shark knowledge. |
assets/culture/V08_Hawaii_shark_stories.png; interpretive illustration; [22,23]; broad shark cultural context. |
| T-01 | Paternoster-style bottom-rig component schematic. | Conceptual assembly from separate sources; no sizes/strengths/weights; not a Tiger Shark or universal standard. [17,29–34] |
| T-02 | Conceptual boat-to-bottom spatial relationship. | No shark, fixed depth, bite cue, fight, retrieval sequence, or location endorsement. [17,29] |
Every generated scene is an illustration, not a field photograph, survey map or historical reconstruction. Internal deck references are used to check shape and markings, without presenting their handling poses as advice. No unverified food image or artificial-lure rig is included.
Numbered references
- WoRMS — Galeocerdo cuvier accepted-name record. authoritative taxonomy register. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes — Galeocerdo species. authoritative taxonomic catalog. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- NOAA Atlantic Shark Identification — Tiger Shark. official fishery identification guide. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- Florida Museum — Tiger Shark. university natural-history species profile. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- Hawaiʻi DLNR — Tiger Shark (niuhi). official state species profile. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- FAO — Sharks of the North Atlantic, Galeocerdo cuvier. intergovernmental species catalogue. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- Ajemian et al. 2020 — Gulf of Mexico movement/habitat use across ontogeny. primary peer-reviewed satellite-tagging study. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- Natanson et al. 2023 — North Atlantic distribution by season, sex, life stage. NOAA Fishery Bulletin primary analysis. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- Dudzik, Chin & McClure 2026 — Early Bird Special: Quantifying Tiger Shark Predation on Albatross Fledglings at Kure Atoll. peer-reviewed open-access primary paper. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- Wernli et al. 2025 — Telemetry reveals potential mating aggregation behavior of tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) in Hawaiʻi. peer-reviewed primary study, Scientific Reports. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- Heithaus et al. 2007 — State-dependent risk-taking by green sea turtles mediates top-down effects of tiger shark intimidation. peer-reviewed primary study. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- NOAA — Underwater camera technology in Pacific Islands. official research story. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- NOAA Fisheries — Debunking Common Shark Myths (free-swimming adult reference); NOAA image policy. image/source provenance. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- NOAA Fisheries — Fishing sharks in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf survey adult/juvenile references); NOAA image policy. image/source provenance. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- NOAA Pacific Islands tiger-shark camera survey image. image/source provenance. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- Florida Administrative Code Chapter 68B-44 — official current rule index. official Florida Administrative Rules index. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- FWC — Sharks recreational rules and Shark-Smart release guidance. official Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission page. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- FWC — recreational saltwater rules and state/federal boundary maps; Additional official page. official Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission pages. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- NOAA — Recreational Atlantic Shark Fishery Statuses. official federal HMS status summary. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- 50 CFR §635.21 — Gear operation and deployment restrictions. federal regulation. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- Hawaiʻi Act 51, Session Laws of Hawaiʻi 2021 — Shark Protection. official state session law. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- Hawaiʻi DLNR — Hawaiians’ Relationship with Sharks and Ancient Uses; Additional official page. official state cultural education pages. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- Puniwai 2020 — Pua ka wiliwili, nanahu ka manō: Understanding Sharks in Hawaiian Culture. peer-reviewed article by UH Mānoa Hawaiian Studies scholar. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- IGFA Game Fish Database — Tiger Shark. official recreational angling record database. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- Sport Fishing 2012 — Huge Tiger Sharks Hooked off Florida Keys (Captain Nick Stanczyk). named-captain catch/fishing-journalism report. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- Sport Fishing 2013 — Chasing Florida Keys Sharks in Shallow Water. named-captain interview, regional generalized shark methods. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- On The Water 2026-08-26 — Two Tiger Sharks Caught on Long Island. current catch-report journalism. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- On The Water — Shore Angler Catches Tiger Shark on Cape Cod. catch-report journalism. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- DAIWA — Tackle component names and rig types. Generic dōzuki trunk/branch/sinker-line terminology and structure; other target species, not Tiger Shark tackle. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- DAIWA — FG knot. PE-line-to-leader knot source; use only for the PE main line shown. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- BlacktipH/Mustad — Monster Shark Rig. Manufacturer product example of mono rub leader, single-strand wire bite trace, and circle hook; numerical/product details are not transferred to this Tiger Shark schematic. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- Orvis — Haywire Twist Knot. General method for stiff single-strand wire loops; not multi-strand cable. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- Pacific Community/SPC-SPREP — Nearshore Fishing Techniques. General single-strand wire loop technique; not shark-specific tackle. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- NOAA/NMFS Circular 238 (1966) — Shark Fishing Gear: A Historical Review. Historical general shark-gear examples of cut-fish bait; not a modern recreational or Tiger Shark bait-size recommendation. Accessed 2026-10-09.