Prone to understatement by design. Willing to check out such things as croc territoriality and the size of the northern shores of one of the largest lakes on the world. Research, even basic information, is enlightening. Study some "man in the street interviews" closely against your own expertise. Just how reliable do you think they are on factual matters? Think critically. "What physical identification factors were applied by all these people so that one could reasonably believe they all saw the same beast." I know for example, what physical factors Australian field biologists use for identification with respect to "salties". Did the reporter say how his sources knew which croc they saw? Do you think the factors would be different for nile crocs? I don't. I'm always skeptical of those who lie, or deceive me, even once, and I have enough experience to know that a editor has a large impact on the tone and tenor of the business conducted by those under him. Do you know that that paper has a reputation for political bias or do you think they shoot straight? Would such a paper slant political stories and not croc stories? Or would they publish what might sell an extra paper? Hate to burst your bubble. Isn't it rather silly to talk about a croc tourist attraction for foreign visitors in a malaria prone area? where even local citizens are not safe? Local puffery turned into a story with little work to appeal to the gullible in order to sell papers. But we are each entitled to an opinion of it. No hard feelings, you asked. ned

"No hard feelings, you asked. ned "

Sorry I did. Lighten up.