Made in Taiwan - shocking!

This report really beggars belief.

Or maybe not so much.

It is a shocking compendium of systemic widespread poaching and shark finning (nothing new there - and here!), and appalling human abuses all the way to the well documented but never properly investigated murder at sea that made the rounds two years ago. The perpetrators remain largely unpunished as the Taiwanese authorities don't seem to give a shit - and those Taiwanese distant water fleets are still being allowed by the various Tuna RFMOs to ply their nefarious trade unscathed.

Press coverage here.

Required reading.

And bravo Greenpeace for having exposed this abomination!

Redefining Shark Finning?

Oh for crying out loud.

Read this.

Then go and read this old post by David where you will discover that Shark finning is defined as 

removing the fins from a shark while still on the fishing vessel and dumping the rest of the shark overboard, 

or in this further post about fisheries terminology, 

the practice of slicing off a shark’s fins and discarding the body at sea.

Period!

The fact that people continue to use the term erroneously does not mean that the term needs to be redefined - it means that people need to educate themselves when talking, and especially petitioning (!) about this topic! When the fins are being removed after landing, one can talk about "definning" or "cutting off the fins"'. But that's not the issue here - the issue is what happens to the remainder of the Shark, see below.

Of course I get the gist.

Even when Sharks are being landed with their fins attached, a substantial percentage of the carcasses are being thrown away. Although certainly less cruel than live finning, this is equally wasteful and thus reprehensible - and yet this behavior is not being equally captured and sanctioned. 

This is what many conservationists call "killing Sharks for their fins alone", and it would be useful if the various statistics (example) and also, the various legislations could capture this phenomenon as a coherent unit, i.e. a "fins-only fishery" as opposed to a "food fishery" for Sharks where ideally, all the parts (including the fins) are being utilized.

But is this "overfishing" as per that blog post?

Not necessarily! The term relates to the number of Fish that are being caught, not to how they are being utilized - meaning that the people at Stop Shark Finning (this one?) do not know what they are talking about, and that the whole argument is essentially a non-issue!

This is once again about sustainability.

Where David's definition is very fisheries-centric, I'm of the opinion that true sustainability has to look at overfishing but also at other factors like bycatch, the impact on the environment and habitats, even fair trade etc - including the question whether a particular fishery is particularly wasteful like in the case of a fins-only fishery for Sharks.

And since we're at it - read this!

Hypothesis is not Theory is not Model - Jessica?

Scripta manent indeed! :)

But I'm digressing - long story short?

First and foremost: you gotta do your homework!

Shark finning campaigns are essentially a (valid) animal welfare issue, not conservation, the more as they do not save any Sharks. Conservation should instead focus on sustainability.

And yes I'm repeating myself! :)

More about Fin & Finning Bans!

Heureka!

David aka WhySharksMatter must be over the moon!

If you thought that Southern Fried Science was the exclusive realm of a cabal of blogging eggheads (and bloody Liberals!), think again!

His latest post about the European Shark finning ban has now clearly gone mainstream, as witnessed by the avalanche of insightful comments that are clearly propelling Shark conservation to the next level. Please do participate in the lively debate and do not forget to add plenty of IMPORTANT statements in CAPS LOCK, true to the cosmic rule of thumb that the more CAPS LOCKs, the more Sharks are being saved!

Love it!

Elsewhere, the disinformation campaign by the fin industry continues.

This time we got ourselves a veritable professor, Dai Xiaojie, from the Shanghai Ocean University no less, and you can read his regurgitations here or in a more translated version here. 

True to the usual strategy of mixing fact and fiction, the man is once again certainly crafty when he talks about inevitable accidental bycatch (true, but it can be greatly reduced!) and the waste of throwing away food, etc etc. Where he is clearly lying or simply doesn't understand what is talking about (yes such things are known to happen!) is here and I cite.

Despite the overcapacity in fishing, if a shark is still alive when caught, we should set it free. But the reality is, most of the sharks are already dead due to lack of oxygen or entanglement. In this case, the dead sharks should be used, including their fins.
Otherwise, it would be a waste of resources.

(Caps lock!) TOTAL BOLLOCKS!

Especially when longlining for Tuna, soak time is kept at the absolute minimum in order to bring up the Tuna alive where they are much more valuable - and consequently, the vast majority of Sharks are caught alive (we've all seen the videos!) and if released, they have a very high chance of survival!

It is also a well known practice in the global Tuna longline industry to pay minimum wages (if at all) to the crews but to let them keep and sell the (finned) Shark fins. As a consequence, those crews engage in targeted fishing for Sharks by adding wire leaders, changing the bait and also the depth of the lines, etc. The industry has a great vested interest in allowing this as it reduces their overhead and even adds income as traditionally, 20-25% of the proceeds go to the boat owners.

And what about the retention of the dead Sharks (fins and meat)?

Although logical, it opens up a huge loophole requiring 100% coverage by (incorruptible) observers and constitutes the exact mechanism bemoaned by the hypocritical professor whereby law enforcement costs would increase dramatically!

Until better management measures are being put into place, I reiterate that those fin bans remain the best, most practicable and easiest, and thus cheapest to enforce solution - especially in the lesser developed countries where the bulk of the slaughter takes place!

Coming from him, the appeal to reduce overfishing and IUU, whilst true and urgently mandated is just hollow rhetoric aimed at detracting from the problem at hand and prolonging any meaningful Shark conservation measures ad infinitum.

Anyway, just my two cents as usual.

Please keep commenting on David's post.

And don't forget the IMPORTANT CAPS LOCK!

For the Sharks!! Fins Up and all! ~~ ~:) ~ ><> ~ ><))).> ~♥~ ~ >~xo:] ~ >><> x ~~

Fiji: Shark Fishing, Finning and Trade!

And I cite, minimally abridged

It is important to note that this review of available information has relied largely on documents discoverable through internet searching. Further information and insights on management of sharks in the countries concerned may be available through direct contact with the management agencies concerned. It is important to note that this study did not cross check data from major importers with reported export data from the countries considered in this analysis.

Country Profile: Fiji 

• Catch data (metric tonnes, 2011)
  Blue: 374; Mako: 180; OWT: 92; Silky: 250;Other Sharks and Rays: 43
  The main species reported in observed longline shark catch from Fiji waters are Blue Shark (46%), Oceanic Whitetip (18%), Silky Shark (13%) and Pelagic Stingray Dasyatis violacea (10%). The main species reported in observed purse seine catch are Oceanic Whitetip (30%) and low levels of Silky Shark and hammerhead sharks Sphyrna spp. with the remainder of the shark catch not being identified by species (Lack and Meere, 2009). 

• Nature of shark fisheries 
  Sharks are taken in offshore fisheries, as bycatch in a substantial domestic longline fleet (97 vessels in 2009) and by US purse vessels operating in Fiji’s waters under the Multilateral Treaty on Fisheries Between Certain Governments of the Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America (the US Treaty) (WCPFC, 2010a).
  Gilman et al. (2007) report that sharks taken in Fiji’s pelagic tuna longline fishery are usually finned and the carcasses discarded into the ocean. Sharks are also taken as bycatch in domestic inshore fisheries. Only a few species are retained in the inshore fisheries (Juncker, 2006).

• Shark Trade
  
  Data reported to FAO 
  Fiji reports shark exports to FAO in two, non-species-specific categories: Sharks not elsewhere included (nei), fresh or chilled; and Sharks, nei, frozen. Small quantities of frozen shark products are also imported. These data show that shark exports averaged 164 t over the 2000-2008 period. Fiji reports production of unsalted fins averaging 134 t/year over the same period (FAO Fisheries Department, 2010).
  
  Shark utilisation 
  Until recently, reef fish was readily available, thus shark was not considered an important food fish (shark is not consumed in many areas of Fiji due to traditional taboos on its use, however, it is readily accepted in the Rotuma and Rabi communities). With the increase in population and greater ease of exporting there have been moves to develop shark fisheries both to supply the local demand for fish and to earn foreign exchange (Juncker, 2006).

• Domestic management measures 
  No specific shark management measures are known to be in place in Fiji. Gilman et al. (2007) report that shark is not managed as a separate fishery in Fiji and there were no restrictions relating to catch, processing and handling of sharks and shark fins in place.
  Fiji does not currently have an NPOA-Sharks. A Regional Plan of Action for Sharks (PI-RPOA Sharks) (Lack and Meere, 2009) was prepared as guidance for Pacific Island Countries and Territories in 2009 through the Forum Fisheries Association (FFA) and with funding from the FAO.

• RFMOs and regional bodies 
  Fiji is a member of the WCPFC and Forum Fisheries Association (FFA) Under WCPFC CMM 2010-07 coastal States, such as Fiji, are permitted to apply ‘alternative measures’ within their own waters. To date Fiji’s reporting of shark catch to the WCPFC has been intermittent and the measures applied to its domestic fleet with respect to shark conservation are unknown.

• Gaps and deficiencies
  Data and information Management
  Absence of any shark specific catch in FAO catch data. Intermittent reporting of shark catch to WCPFC, noting that such reporting is not mandatory. The nature and extent of current shark management measures imposed by Fiji on its domestic longline fleet, including measures that are consistent with CMM 2010-07 is unknown.

There you have it, not good at all.

But it also got nothing to do with what is being spouted by the squeaking Shepherdette and member of the local, to quote a friend, PHDs (=Pacific Harbour Derelicts) based on the insights garnered from having chit-chatted with some disgruntled dudes at the local expat drinking hole - and yes I'll certainly leave it at that and definitely not post any links to her assorted moronic musings, the more as insiders know who and what I'm talking about!

The above info is from this report by the WWF and TRAFFIC.
As the disclaimer in the ingress warns, it is only a desktop analysis that relays on publicly available information, some of which dates back quite a few years. Specifically, the report appears to be severely understating the scope of the inshore fishery where there are already signs of local depletion and where some locals are targeting the very Sharks the dive industry depends upon - this so far in total impunity.

Sharks are not a designated fishery and thus, they should not be targeted - but doing so is not strictly illegal, either, and the trade has been highly adept in exploiting that loophole, and that of the fictitious claimed bycatch, and the lack of management that goes with it. With the Sanctuary being officially toast, it is our hope that the upcoming legislation will allow for better management and above all, for adequate enforcement and prosecution.

But as always, we shall see shall we not.

In the meantime, let's refrain from the usual frothy activism and unhelpful statements and instead focus on assisting where opportune and only if specifically invited to do so - and this quietly (!) and with the required respect!

You can download the full report here.

Shark Finning - an Insider's Perspective!

Mark Harding is one of the good ones.
Among many other things, he is deeply involved in Manta Ray research and conservation and as such, he is one of the advisers of the Manta Ray of Hope project.

He's also smart.
Having worked in Ecuador for many years, he knows the local shenanigans all too well and having heard about the Central American Shark finning ban, he has decided to dissect it on his blog like only an insider can.

Enjoy Mark's brilliant post here!
Need more convincing?

Shark Finning Bans - good enough?

Stuff is happening in South & Central America.
Chile has banned Shark finning in 2011; Costa Rica and Colombia are establishing a task force to combat Shark poaching; as of January, shark finning is illegal in Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and the Dominican Republic and the Shark fin trade is being monitored.

Yes this is progress - but is it good enough?
According to this interview with Rándall Aráuz of PRETOMA, the principal shark fishing vessels operating in Costa Rican waters hail from Taiwan, Korea, China and Japan. With the at least tacit complicity of the Institudo Costarricense de Pesca INCOPESCA, they have been exploiting loopholes and flaunting the Costa Rican finning bans for years by first landing the fins at private docks and then re-routing the trade through Nicaragua when that became illegal.
This is big business, smells of corruption and organized crime and is thus difficult to combat.

And then, there's this.
As those big foreign fleets are depleting what used to be their traditional fishing grounds, the small artisanal fishermen are increasingly becoming desperate. As anybody who has ever dived there knows, the Pacific coast of South and Central America has been the scene of widespread poaching for Sharks for years. The principal targets are the protected Shark hotspots, i.e. the Galapagos, Gorgona, Malpelo, Coiba, Cocos and the very remote Clipperton, and the principal perpetrators are small long lining and drift netting vessels from Ecuador, Colombia, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Mexico, often once again at the expense of the local fishermen as per this interview from the Galapagos.



It really is a vicious circle.
The poaching triggers more poaching and whenever the perpetrators are being caught but then released as in this ignominious case in the Galapagos, it only reinforces the perception that all of this can be done in total impunity. And as the prices for the fins increase and markets for Shark meat and Shark products expand, it becomes increasingly economical to land the animals with the fins attached - and this even when the meat is being sold for a mere pittance or dumped in land fills as is apparently already happening in the US.
The result: the Sharks continue to be killed in record numbers - meaning that those finning bans are (valid) ethical causes but do not anymore save Sharks, at least not in sufficient numbers to really make a difference.

Solutions?
As I wrote here, the finning bans are archaic and ineffective, the latter because they require a huge amount of monitoring, enforcement and prosecution that often simply do not exist - and of course, the fishermen know that all too well and will cleverly exploit any weaknesses in the system. It's a matter of resources but also, of the necessary political will.

Hence my advocacy of Sanctuaries.
These must encompass the fishing per se but also address the enormous issue of Shark bycatch by prohibiting determined particularly harmful techniques - and within the country and its EEZ, the legislation must also prohibit the possession and trade of Sharks and Shark part all the way to import and export bans. Plus as I never cease to repeat, anybody engaging in advocacy in lesser developed countries has also a moral obligation to contribute to capacity building in monitoring, enforcement and prosecution.

This I believe is the best strategy.
Compared to the partial solution of finning bans, it is also BY FAR the easiest and cheapest to monitor and enforce as it is comparatively simple insofar as any commercial activity involving Sharks becomes illegal by definition.

Or as Matt Rand says

“Enforcement at port does not require additional -infrastructure, and additional training costs for customs and port officials can be minimal,” he says. “For this reason, Pew advocates for measures that prohibit the possession, trade, or sale of sharks or shark products as part of a nation’s shark sanctuary regulation or legislation. With no way to legally land or export sharks or shark fins at domestic ports, the incentive to target sharks is reduced, if not completely eliminated.
Boats catching sharks are forced to go farther and use more fuel to get to ports where they can offload their catch.”

Finning bans, although certainly better than no legislation at all, are often little more than band-aid solutions aimed at appeasing the environmentalists whilst not tackling the politically difficult issue of reducing Shark mortality, something that would pin the authorities against the lobby of the fishermen. Thus, finning bans often come at the direct expense of further-reaching legislation that would effectively save Sharks - and isn't that what we should be aiming for?
In brief, they are poor Shark conservation.

You may want to think about it next time you see one of those petitions.
For the Sharks, we can and must do better.

Taiwan - calling the Bluff!

Shark fins in Taiwan - pic by Shawn Heinrichs. Click for detail

Taiwan has recently announced that they want to ban Shark finning.
I was under-impressed then and having recently discovered the sheer scope of Taiwan's declared Shark "bycatch" in the WCPFC, I'm even less impressed now. Having depleted their own seas, Taiwan's appalling distant-water fleets scour the global oceans and the Shark fins (certainly NOT the meat and skin!) are offloaded in distant ports and then airlifted home.
That's where the massacre happens and I very much doubt than any Taiwanese fins-attached policy will be enforced that far from home.

Plus, legislation like that is archaic and comes much too late for any endangered Shark species, the more as it has become painfully evident that most countries simply lack the resources, and the political will for ever monitoring and enforcing those rules.
What is required now are fishing bans, not band-aid solutions.

Kudos to Matt for having cut through the BS.

Europe - big Progress!

Looks like Europe is starting to listen.

Just got this link from the Alex the Sharkman.
Congratulations to The European Fisheries Commission where I continue to be a fan - and yes, to the Shark Alliance as well. This is not a done deal quite yet as it is only a proposal and the national Fisheries Ministers have to ratify it, so here's to those guys doing the right thing.

And there's more good news for Sharks.
The European Union has signed the United Nations Convention on Migratory Species Memorandum of Understanding for Sharks. Again, it's not the finished thing but certainly big progress.

Kudos.
I must say that coupled with the Shark protection measures in Florida, the Silky Shark protection by ICCAT and the protection of the Porbeagle in Europe, this past week has been pretty awesome!

So who's next?

Eu Finning Regulations - Decision pending!

Please read this.
It's only one, albeit important element in a whole list of improvements to Europe's Shark conservation laws that are being advocated by the Shark Alliance.

The decision is today.
Fingers crossed!

Shark Skeletons with their Fins naturally attached?

Read this - just unbelievable!

It is clearly against the aim of the legislation - but depending on the exact wording, it may indeed not be prosecutable. Looks like the anti-finning laws need to be re-written to include both the requirement that the fins be naturally attached and that weight-to-body ratios be no more than 5%.

The Numbers - a Conspiracy?

It's estimated that there are 100 million sharks killed every year.

This total has such caché it even has its own moniker; ‘The Magic Number'.

But in today's world, where big numbers wash over us with indifference, ‘One Hundred Million' is losing it's lustre. Most of us owe that on our credit cards. So shark conservationists are continually polishing ‘The Magic Number' to keep us hooked.
Scare mongering or just plain scary?

This according to Howard Sawyer.
The citation is from The People who count Sharks, a piece I've already linked to last November. But after Ms Clarke's public wail of despair, it is well worth re-reading. It eloquently develops the case for why the numbers are faulty and it also hints, so far only obliquely, at the fact that we may all be the victims of a despicable conspiracy perpetrated by an unholy alliance of self serving conservationists and researchers. Oh how very Shark Con and incidentally, how very Global Warming! :)
Totally not so, see below - but it's a good read so please do.

Incidentally, have you finally read the paper?
Yes I know it's the poster child of horrible scientific gibberish that appears to have been written specifically in the purpose of confusing any layman, yours truly included. I've honestly tried to decipher whether the numbers refer to the period of 1996-2000 or to 2000 alone and have failed miserably - even after re-reading Ms Clarke's wail that is equally unhelpful: what does as of 2000, the fins of 38 million sharks per year were being traded mean, exactly: in 2000, on average in the five years leading up to 2000 - or what?
Also and owing to the many assumptions made in reaching the above conclusion, there is a staggering error margin which is expressed in the fact that the authors point out that the number could have been as low as 26m (-32%) or as high as 73m (+92%). Not very conducive to instilling any degree of confidence in its scientific accuracy is it. And incidentally, have you ever asked yourself why 73 and not, say, 72.5m?
Divide it by 365 days. See? Purely coincidental? :)

Anyway, this is how I interpret it - correct me if I'm wrong.
Between 1996 and 2000, the global Shark fin market was processing the fins of tens of millions of Sharks every year.

And that's it!
When it comes to the global markets for Shark fins, this is actually the only assertion the paper makes, meaning that:

• nobody knows for what purpose those Sharks were killed (actually, we don't even know whether all have been killed or whether a few may have died of natural causes in an aquarium or the like - but I'm obviously splitting hairs), ie for their fins or principally for food or in self defense or for research - or for no purpose at all because they were mere bycatch, one of the major causes of Shark mortality!
  


• nobody knows how those Sharks were killed, ie caught on long lines or in gill nets, purse seines, drift nets or in bottom trawling gear, or shot by spear gun or harpooned or caught in fish traps, etc
  


• nobody knows how many of those Sharks were finned and the bodies dumped overboard, and whether the Sharks were alive or dead when that happened
  

but much more importantly,

• nobody knows how many more Sharks whose fins were NOT introduced into the fin trade died during 1996-2000!


• nobody knows what happened in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010
  Period!

Does that mean that we don't know anything about what's going on now?
Well, in a way, that's exactly what it means - but of course there are published data about trade volumes after 2000, although they are widely believed to be highly inaccurate as reported volumes are thought to be way too low as they do not comprise IUU, and as some Countries do not report at all.

But, nobody is preventing us from speculating.
We can make plausible assumptions and back-of-the envelope calculations that will however remain untested hypotheses as long as nobody engages in the tedious work of properly verifying or falsifying them using the Scientific Method, likely by meta-analysis of the data that have been published as opposed to going out and trying to obtain original data sets.

Provided that we are honest and declare that we are speculating, it is I believe safe to assume that today, the Shark fin market is larger than ten years ago, tho as the following oldish graph illustrates, this is not just simply a given as local Shark stocks get exhausted and new legislation may curtail the activity.
Click for detail.

Anyway, assuming the fin market has grown, do we know by how much and starting from which baseline?
No we do not.

It is also I believe totally logical to assume that the total number of Sharks that are being killed each year is larger than the number of Sharks whose fins are being traded thru the fin markets.
Once again, we however don't know by which factor - especially nowadays where each and every fisherman knows of their value and knows how to contact a friendly middleman who will be eager to buy & aggregate them and then ship them to Asia.

So, let's look at some of the statements.

Over 200,000 Million Sharks are taken each year, many illegally, caught to support a growing industry for shark products in the Asian market. Most fins being used as a starch to thicken Shark Fin soup which has no taste but is thought to have magical properties and a sign of wealth!...
... is just plain ludicrous - no it is NOT over 200 Billion (!) Sharks and the fins got nothing to do with starch nor are they believed to be magical!
I mean, seriously...

How about
Every year, about 100 million sharks are brutally murdered and of these 100 million, an estimated 73 million to 100 million of the deaths are results of shark finning, the process in which a shark’s fin is cut off and the shark is thrown back into the ocean to die. If this continues at the rate it is at right now, all 440 species of sharks may be extinct within the next decade or two. The population of sharks as a whole has already dropped 95% since the 1970s, simply due to finning.
OK(-ish) for the approx 100 million but nobody is estimating that 73 to 100m are being finned, let alone alive, nobody but a fool is asserting that all species will be extinct within the next 10-20 years and there is no statistic whatsoever showing that 95% of all stocks have been wiped out since the 70ies, let alone finned!

And the ubiquitous
Up to 73m Sharks are being killed each year, or statements that the growing demand for shark’s fin soup, a Chinese delicacy, kills between 26 and 73 million sharks a year, or People kill 73 million sharks per year (Really? Not even a modest "up to"?) and the like?
Better but still inaccurate! These are numbers from 10 years ago - can anybody show me a single trade statistic that has remained unchanged since? Plus, these numbers suggest some degree of accuracy - what if in reality, the 2010 number turned out to be, say, 87 million?

So, what is going on?
Is this a nefarious conspiracy by Shark conservationists and researchers who want to perpetuate their job at the expense of the poor fishermen?

My call?
Many Shark conservationists are hopelessly ill informed, and a few may well be inflating the numbers as they are under the completely misguided impression that doing so will make for a better case - but that's that. These are well meaning people who try to do good but with inadequate means.

The NGOs?
One would assume that they would know better but once again, many probably simply do not and parrot what others have asserted before them - tho it looks like a very few very small ones have long relinquished the path of credibility, scientific and otherwise, and are merely the marketing arm of personal inflated egos!

And the researchers?
To my knowledge, none of them is asserting any of that nonsense - and if they did, they would have to elaborate on how they have come to that conclusion or they would have to kiss their scientific gravitas and career goodbye!
With one exception that is, the token whacknut - but then, what did I say about the gravitas etc?

A conspiracy?
Hell no, it's merely a motley group of well meaning, mostly ill informed people and orgs wanting to do the right thing.
Me too, I've sinned in the past, as in here.



But now, I know better.

Now, I say stuff like
We know that ten years ago, about forty million of sharks were being killed each year - and now, that number is probably even higher!
or if I want to keep it short
Tens of millions of Sharks are being killed each year
But then, I add
What we DO know is that this is completely unsustainable and that it causes grave and permanent damage to our oceans - which I believe is the far more important statement!

But is that really so?
How many Sharks are there, and are we killing 1%, 2%, 10%, 30% of them each year? Is there such a thing as sustainable Shark fishing and if so, what is the Maximum Sustainable Yield? What happens if we kill too many? And if we stop killing them, will they multiply unchecked like Savyer's Serengeti lions (bollocks: ever heard of trophic pyramids and predator-prey cycles?) and start devouring us, as Capt'n Bill rants?
More of this in an upcoming post!

For now, this much.
This is never happening in a vacuum - this is being used to advocate legislation that will deprive fishermen of income and quite possibly, of their livelihoods. With that in mind, we owe it to them, but also, to ourselves not to cheat and to use misleading perceived "marketing", or whatever, but to be truthful and fact based instead.

Yes Bill is clearly mental - but he is also wily and will catch on to our shenanigans, so why do we continue to provide easy fodder for people like him?
The situation for many, if not most species of Shark is really, really dire and there's absolutely no need whatsoever to inflate numbers and to come up with ludicrous propositions like the moronic correlation to the ocean's production of oxygen which is my current pet grievance.

And then there's this.
Assume we succeed in having laws enacted based on misleading data - what would prevent the legislators from repealing them once we got caught out?
Think we would ever get a second chance after such a fiasco?

So, let's do it right from the outset.
Let's inform ourselves and then, let's just say it as it is.
That, and not cheating will have us win this fight in the long run.

Agree?

Only Bycatch?

Again, excuse my French!

FijiLive on Sharks!

Fiji's Shark population - still in good shape but increasingly threatened.
Another stellar wallpaper pic by Tatiana!

Fiji is talking Shark Conservation, and that's a good thing.

Quite a bit has happened recently.
There is now a dedicated Facebook page, Fiji Shark Defenders that mirrors the highly popular Shark Defenders, the Econesian Society has launched a pro-Shark petition and even the venerable Islands Business has posted an article about how the Pacific island Countries are leading the way in Shark conservation.

That's the backdrop for the call from Tevita Vuibau of FijiLive.
The immediate aim was to get an opinion about the petition. As always, it's a difficult one when one has to comment on the efforts of good people trying to do good things by pursuing the wrong aims.
The MoU on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks is just that, a non legally binding Memorandum of Understanding that is not even flanked by any proper management plan. You can read its wording here. To me, it's not much more than a lot of blahblahrahrah and if its ontogeny (as in years of preparation including delegate meetings in Mahe' and Rome, no less) is any indication, it will be yet another one of those useless documents that will save no Sharks but provide for welcome committees (Intersessional Steering Group on Migratory Sharks - wow!), experts and global meetings where scarce resources are squandered on flights, posh hotel rooms and meals, and a never ending deluge of bureaucratic paperwork.

Case in point, Mrs. Maruma Mrema's brazen quote that Although not legally binding, this Memorandum of Understanding actually has a better chance of helping to save the species than a legally binding document … this is because action will happen now when it is most needed: sorry what????

But I'm digressing as always.
Tevita's story got longer and longer, to the point where he tells me that the editors have decided to have it posted in several installments. So there, here is part number one, albeit with one caveat: of course, I'm not at all (only) advocating a Shark finning ban.
What I am advocating is a complete ban of all commercial fishing and trading of Sharks, this at least for as long as it is being conducted at present completely unsustainable levels - but I shall be happy to reverse my stance once Shark stocks have recovered, i.e. in several hundred years! :)

But other than that, great job.
Vinaka Tevita!

Gordon Ramsay on Shark Finning!

David is absolutely right: this is perfect.
The critics may say what they want: at least in my book, Gordon is now firmly established as a Good Man.
His Shark Bait is highly compelling, informative (and factually correct!) and moving, without ever sliding into the all-too-frequent larmoyant drama, and he as a person comes across as being totally genuine, committed and full of humanity and empathy.
Now this is a great way of translating one's celebrity status into meaningful action on the ground!
I am truly impressed - and lemme tellya, impressing me aint easy!

Kudos also to Channel 4 for championing sustainable seafood and for a great follow up with background information and links to important NGOs.

And lastly, David: best of luck buddy, you're a brave man - but we knew that already!
Sponsors: please give this a thought!

Here is the whole program, all 45 minutes of it.
Enjoy!








PS Patric's take here - fully agree of course!

Man&Shark!

Synopsis

From the beaches of Africa, to the ports of the Middle East , a shark fin odyssey arrives back at Ground Zero... Hong Kong.
'Man & Shark' is book, and short film of the same name, which explores the barbaric practice of shark-finning in developing nations, so that consumers in Hong Kong and China can eat shark fin soup at their weddings, company banquets and other celebrations.

The multimedia project aims to show why sharks, as the ocean's apex predators, are necessary to keep the marine ecosystem in balance. 'Man & Shark' also bears witness to the ignorance of shopkeepers selling shark fin in Hong Kong. It also explores why Chinese people eat shark fin soup in the first place, and the dangers to health from mercury poisoning.

'Man & Shark' was conceived in Mozambique, Yemen, and Hong Kong, and includes many underwater images of sharks from all over the world.

I say - stunning!
Yes Alex came through on his promise and I'm holding the book in my hands: fantastic pictures, great layout, compelling message. Paul and Alex have gone to great lengths in order to document and publicize the decline of a whole group of animals. Should everything fail, this book will stand forever as a first of its kind and historical document.
Great job, to the point that we shall post a link on our home page, like we've done for the books by Timbo and the epic book by Jimmy.

The question being, will this make a difference?
I just don't know. Apparently, and I tend to agree with this view, the most effective strategy for influencing public opinion in favor of conservation is to show beauty, not horror, very much in line with what Jimmy is trying to achieve. I'm also very much on record with my personal views about the non-effectiveness of trying to re-educate the consumer in the case of a supply limited fisheries like that for Sharks.
But having said this, I recently spent some time with some brilliantly intelligent people who promote that course of action and have become somewhat less absolutist in the process. Mind you: not totally convinced by any stretch of the imagination - just more hopeful!
Yes, it's complicated as always!

So here's to that hope, and to a fantastic job by two passionate people!

Shiver - simply excellent!

This is totally compelling.
Caution: contains shocking images!



Did you see that baby Tiger Shark?

Big Kudos to Aaron Gekoski and the other producers!
And yes, again bravo to Andrea and Simon - please re-read this! Great advocacy of ecotourism, too! Very very well done!
More info here.

Hat tip: Mark.
Fully agree - as usual!

Certified Shark Fins?

I was recently reminded of this post.

Actually, in a very nice way!
Alex Hofford got in contact telling us that he and Paul Hilton had just published this book , and that he was sending us a copy.

Can’t wait to see it and to rip it to shreds!
Just kidding! From what I can see, it’s the first of its kind to specifically explore the demise of Sharks and will very likely become a must have for any Shark lover.
And yes, I will blog about it once we get it!

Anyway!
I now find this astounding press release and read
Public education will "provide consumers with the ability to ensure the marine products they purchase are genuine and legally imported, while we will also help launch product certification for marine products"
Wow - may we really be witnessing progress?

Dunno who the Marine Products Association of Hong Kong really is, and who/what it stands for, and I certainly do neither like nor believe it when they claim that 90 percent of sharks are accidentally harvested, meaning they are by-catch, and not caught on purpose. Mind you, I don’t know the actual figures (does anybody?) – but this is just highly implausible, FAO or no FAO! Plus, I'm old enough to remember who claimed that the Oceans would feed humankind and advocated drift nets and long lines!

Having also seen a February document by the same org with and equally well worded but ultimately, anti-Shark content, my got feeling is caveat emptor – but then again, it IS a beginning.
Let’s keep watching as the situation unfolds.

Mary? Any objections - so far? :)

Heartbreaking!

Just look at this!



Those are Blues, Makos and Salmon Sharks being processed industrially.
And no, this is not what is commonly referred to as Shark finning, i.e. only cutting off the fins and then throwing the carcasses overboard - these Sharks have been obviously brought in whole and are now being processed for the Shark fin and maybe, the Shark meat markets.

Still think that those petitions are really addressing the problem?

Gruesome story and images here.

PS yes I'm being uncharacteristically polite - more explicit and important thoughts on the matter by Shark Diver here. As so often, I could not agree more!

But amid all the bleakness, there is good news.
The goal is not, to completely eliminate fishing, which would indeed require, as a minimum, matching, dollar for dollar, the kind of unrivaled commerce with sharks we saw coming out of Japan this week. There's hundreds of millions of people for whom eating Fish is the only source of animal protein, and millions of fishermen depend on their trade for eking out what often is a meager existence - let there never be a doubt that hey have a right to exist!
The goal is to reduce fishing to sustainable levels and there, the conservation movement has excellent chances of prevailing, as in the long term, it benefits everybody. But we must act intelligently, set realistic goals and prioritize our resources - and yes, I'm very much repeating myself!

PS2 Richard Theiss here, with more excellent reflections!

Hawaii - DONE!

Governor Linda Lingle has signed the Bill!!!

Hawaii has become the first state in the USA to prohibit the possession, sale, trade or distribution of shark fins. Huge Kudos to everybody involved!!!!
Crack open the Champagne!!!!

Oh, and do not vote for Riki!

Story here.

Hawaii - Riki Karamatsu's defining Moment!

Well what did I tell you.

After being against the bill and trying to stall it, Riki Karamatsu voted in favor of it whilst in committee, only to then stand up and hold a long speech against in in the House.
I've seen the speech and unsurprisingly, it panders to the fishermen, to the Chinese community (Feng Shui beads made of rubies, no less!) and to Xenophobia whilst slamming the conservationists and trying to re-interpret scientific insights - pretty revealing and if you ask me, pretty pathetic on top of it.

It's nothing more than unabashed politicking and electioneering and lemme tell you: it aint working!

In sailing, multiple changes of course are often conducive to reaching one's destination.
In politics, it's called flip-flopping and leads to lost elections.

Turns out that on top of being a Shark hater and convicted felon, Jon Riki Karamatsu is a flip-flopper - hardly the mettle of a leader!

Please, give your vote to someone else.