Monday, July 27, 2015

Shelley Clarke - even more Inconvenient Truth!

Source.

This Shark is possibly being finned.
Long-held belief among Shark conservationists has it that the body will be likely thrown overboard as fishermen are only interested in the fins because the meat has little to no value.
But how about the following pictures.

Kesennuma, Japan - source.
Ranong, Thailand - source.
Tung Kang, Taiwan - source.
Vigo, Spain - source.
Lombok, Indonesia - source.
Mirbat, Oman - source.
USA - source.
Mogadishu, Somalia - source.
Mexico City - source.

Think those Sharks have been killed for their fins?
More importantly: think that a single one of those Sharks would have been spared owing to a finning ban? Or for the matter, as a result of some bikini bimbette changing perceptions by snorkeling with Sharks at TB, or some bimbo illegally riding GWS at Guadalupe? 
Think again!

Shelley has done it - again!
In a rather monumental tour de force that leaves me quite in awe, she has meticulously rummaged through the data like only she can, and presents us with an equally amazing and frustrating opus about the Status of the Global Market for Shark Products. Read it!
And here are the two principal illustrations - click for detail.



See what I mean?
This is not about to go away anytime soon. 
And if like I believe, Shark Conservation consists in reducing Shark mortality to sustainable levels, then Shark conservation efforts need to start focusing on the whole range of present challenges: global overfishing, including the still rampant IUU, to aliment the trade in both their fins and other products; the important and largely unresolved issue of incidental bycatch; the widespread lack of data, let alone proper stock assessments impeding proper conservation and management measures; and last but certainly not least, the many-fold threats to both the Sharks, their prey and their habitats.

And talking about bycatch.
Remember this?

Source.

Read this report by, again, Shelley. 
Long story short, even with legislation and even if we naively were to assume the best intentions of everybody, the situation on the ground remains complex and frustrating to the max.

Just saying.
Please, do read and above all, understand the implications of Shelley's paper = sustainability not prohibition!

Enjoy!

5 comments:

Bucky Taotaotasi said...

That's a nice interpretation, yet 73% of Americans believe sharks should be protected from being hunted or killed.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6911

DaShark said...

And this despite of having been traumatized by Jaws and the Shark Porn on Discovery! :)
And anyway: half of them believe in at least one conspiracy theory, too! :)

But frankly, who cares - or how does the belief of those Americans translate into Yemenite fishermen catching less Sharks, or less incidental Shark bycatch mortality on Tuna longlines, or less cazon being consumed in Mexico.

Shark mortality mitigation is not a democratic process - correct?

DaShark said...

And before you get your knickers in a knot.

I'm amply on record on advocating bans and sanctuaries, etc. = prohibition - but not as the ultimate goal but instead, only as stop-gap measures pending the implementation of adequate management measures!
And depending on circumstances, the latter may well take a long, long time to eventuate!

Ian Campbell said...

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

H.L. Mencken

DaShark said...

Would that be the dude who stated,

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of 73% of the American public?