Shark Fishing vs Shark Finning - Video!

Source.

Wow!

6 minutes 46 seconds of correct information!

I am impressed - after years upon years upon years trying to educate the animal welfare crowd, it really looks like the narrative is slowly shifting away from Shark finning to the real issue, Shark overfishing.

Well done - better late than never!

Enjoy!

Finning for Dummies!

Back to square one.

Stop Shark Finning yields 289,000 results.

Looks great doesn't it - and yet those petitions do little to save Sharks, and may even harm Shark conservation by delaying and detracting from the need for better Shark conservation measures like sanctuaries and well managed Shark fisheries. 

Plus, implementation sucks - especially in lesser developed countries and on the high seas!

But don't take my word for it.

When in 2011, I stated that finning bans are archaic and ineffective (and by all means, do read the remainder of that post, too - where incidentally, little if anything has changed!), it sure did raise more than a few eyebrows - and now others are spreading the same message much better than I ever could.

Case in point: this great post by AJ Sablan.

Required reading - and then, may I suggest that you invest your enthusiasm, energy and creativity into more worthwhile causes

Thank you!

Shark Fishing - remarkable Article!

This is not finning - source.

I must say that I'm impressed!

This article is really as good as it gets.

It touches on basically all the aspects dominating the current debate about Shark fishing and Shark conservation, and I find myself agreeing with most of the opinions expressed by the various interlocutors.

Obviously there are some mistakes.

The principal one is the usual confusion between finning and fishing. Kessennuma was zero about finning as the Sharks were being landed whole and every last part of them was being utilized. Back then, the obvious problem was that those Sharks were being overfished - but the town has since been devastated by the tsunami so the overfishing may have subsided, albeit very likely only temporarily.

I was also intrigued by some of the factoids.

If those fins are indeed the third most lucrative illicit good on the world market, behind only drugs and guns (really - ahead of say, human trafficking, illegal timber and blood diamonds?), what's the chance of the value of all Shark fishing, legal and illegal, being only 630m as stated in this stupidity?

And when Alex teaches us that the fins are increasing in value because they’re becoming increasingly harder to come by…When oil prices surged, fishermen couldn’t afford gas needed to go out. This made them even more of a hot commodity - does that not directly confirm my critique in that post?

My take-away message?

• In most of the oceans, several Sharks species are still being overfished


• There are however a few places where Shark fisheries are being relatively well managed


• Sustainable fishing for Sharks is theoretically possible - but it is only commercially viable for some smaller and faster growing species with better reproductive capacity.


• Although the Shark fin trade remains the principal driver of most Shark fishing, there is an increasing volume of Sharks that are being primarily fished for food and where the whole animal gets utilized. If so, the fins should be utilized as well.


• With that in mind and despite of the recent successes in reducing demand in Asia, Shark fishing will remain a reality - which is OK provided that it is sustainable


• Any solutions will need to be species- and location specific, meaning that there are no absolutes. Depending on specific local circumstances, one should advocate better management measures - but in other locations, outright bans may well be the most efficient and effective strategy, at least in the shorter term.

Anyway, great article - read it!

New Study: Shark Finning in the Pacific!

Source.

And I cite.

A new study reveals worrying declines in Pacific shark populations, due mostly to the shark fin trade.

The results:

• Pacific population of the oceanic whitetip shark declined by 17 percent between 1995 and 2010
• The north Pacific blue shark decreased by about five percent per year in the same period
• There was a decline in shark size over the 15 year study period, a clear indication of overfishing

These findings suggest that bans on shark finning are not helping nearly enough to protect sharks.  Their failure is most likely due to lack of enforcement and the increasing market for shark meat.

“These findings underscore conservationists’ messages that most finning bans are not properly enforced, and alone are insufficient to reverse shark population declines,” explained Sonja Fordham, President of Shark Advocates International.

Also, read this and listen to this.

Bingo.

Please do re-read this post.

We got to stop advocating only finning bans because that is not the solution: most countries have them anyway - but enforcement sucks and even if the bans are being followed, by now the fins are so valuable that landing the whole animals is profitable, meaning that those bans don't reduce the number of Sharks that are being killed, at least not adequately.

I'm also not in favor of fins-attached policies and even less, of fin-to-body ratios and the like as the associated bureaucracy and thus cost is staggering and because they present huge loopholes.

What we got to advocate is sustainability.

Ultimately, this means drastically reduced quotas and there, we got to ask the fishermen to prove that whatwever quotas they want to fish are fully sustainable - and until they do, they should not be allowed to retain and land any Shark let alone only its fins! 

Incidentally, at least when it comes to this specific region, the OWTs are protected as of next January - but then again, let's keep an eye on the implementation!

Fiji?

Paradigm Shift required!

Shark finning bans - not good enough!

And I cite.

The purpose of the post is to educate those individual activists and small organizations who create “awareness” videos that do not have their facts straight. I’ve come across too many of these to count in recent weeks, and “spreading awareness” of the wrong facts doesn’t help.

Finning Bans?

Indeed!
The myth-busting continues - after deconstructing the oxygen myth, David has now finally set his sights onto those frustrating anti-finning petitions and media.
Or maybe I'm too optimistic and he hasn't and just wants to educate everybody about the correct terminology. Be it as it may, this comes on the back of this rather epic quiz by Angelo and needed to be said.
Well done.

And before you get all worked up.
No I'm not pro-finning - on the contrary!
It is an ethical abomination and needs to be banned - but what I'm saying (read it!) is that in itself, it does not save Sharks: instead, it needs to be part of a whole package of Shark conservation measures.
Believe it or not, finning bans are a concept from the 80ies, and they have proven to be largely ineffectual in reducing Shark mortality. And by only asking for finning bans, we are actually detracting from the real issue at hand , i.e. that way too many Sharks are being killed.
Depending on where we choose to position ourselves in the ideological conservation continuum between Shark huggers and Shark fisheries managers, what we got to ask for are either full Shark fishing bans or at least, that Shark fishing quotas be fully sustainable.
The latter mandates that quotas be a fraction (I hear, approx 30%) of recruitment, that finning be prohibited, that bycatch and other impacts like habitat degradation be greatly mitigated, etc etc. - and yes, going back to the comments thread in David's post, I also believe that dumping the carcasses of landed Sharks should be penalized in the same way as illegal finning because in real terms, it is the exact same thing!

Fin Bans?

And what about those fin bans?
I must say, I am quite enjoying the brawl spirited discussion in the comments section of David's post! :)
Personally I believe both sides to be equally right and wrong, and this is why.

There are fin bans and fin bans.

The first one was Stefanie and Senator Hee's historic ban in Hawaii.
The state had already banned all Shark fishing but there was a loophole whereby Hawaii was acting as a turntable for the Shark fin trade, and this measure was meant to close that gap.

So, was that a good thing?
I fully agree with David's listing of the appropriate Shark management tools, and I cite.

• Special protections for particularly threatened species
• Species that aren’t particularly threatened fished according to a science-based quota
• Appropriate bycatch reduction strategies, including gear restrictions or time/area closures
• Appropriate reporting and enforcement.

But that may not be the full story and when viewed on a global scale and in a real world, it may also be a bit naive.
Hawaii is an important tourism destination and may have decided to ban all Shark fishing in order to fully preserve its marine habitats but possibly also for cultural reasons and in order to market itself as an ocean-loving destination or the like - and whereas that decision may not be fully rational from a scientific perspective, it is certainly legitimate. Same-same for the decision not to facilitate the global fin trade that is presently totally non-transparent and unsustainable.

My only personal caveat, if at all.
I don't like generic food bans whereby some people arrogate themselves the right to tell others what to eat. Assuming that there could once be a certified Shark fin soup, and that it would not constitute a strong public health risk (which in the US would be for the FDA to ascertain), I would have advocated an according exemption for those fins - e.g. fins from these certified Spiny Dogfish where at least Chuck appears to say that the certification is legit.
But I'm clearly splitting hairs here - so yes, I do like the Hawaiian fin ban.

And I do like the fin bans in those Shark Sanctuaries.
There, several states and countries have taken the decision to ban all Shark fishing, this preeminently because of concerns for their marine habitats but once again also for ethical and cultural reasons, and often also because it is good for tourism.
The fin bans there are part of a whole array of measures and have another purpose and that is, to facilitate enforcement. The rationale is that instead of squandering scarce resources in trying to apprehend every illegal vessel and fisherman, one can concentrate efforts on the bottleneck, i.e. the comparatively few traders that process and export the fins - and a possession ban is the cheapest and most effective means of of achieving that aim.

But once again, I do have a caveat here.
These are stop-gap measures aimed at achieving an immediate result in the most effective and efficient way possible. But as I never tire to say, I am firmly in favor of sustainable fishing (and hunting), and this of any animal including Sharks.
There are now more than 7 billion people (and this!) and like it or not, they want to consume protein. Those are the facts on the ground and farming (aqua- and not) is not the only solution as it, too, carries severe ecological consequences. As an example, approx 43% of Earth's land has been converted to urban and especially, agricultural landscapes with much of the remaining landscapes reticulated with roads (Nature, June 2012), exerting incredible pressure on terrestrial biota. We cannot possibly want more of that can we.
Where I come from in this, is that reality on the ground dictates that there be a mix between farming and wildlife extraction, but that the latter must happen sustainably.
With that in mind, I would certainly not oppose a fully certified, fully sustainable food fishery for Sharks - but only once the fishermen have proven that it is sustainable, see the last point in this post!

And those fin bans in the US states?
I've frankly stopped bothering after California - but without knowing the minute details, here's why I don't like them much.
From what I've been told, I understand that the principal aim is to cripple the international Shark fin trade. That in itself is a legitimate cause, the more as the global trade is certainly totally unregulated and unsustainable.
The problem I see, is that the ban impinges on three different sets of fins:

• those unprocessed fins that transit the US on the way to Asia where they will be processed for consumption.
  Yes there are a valid ethical reservations whereby we can choose not to facilitate an unsustainable animal trade - still, my question is, does closing down the route through the US really save Sharks? Will less Sharks be fished as a consequence, or will the fins be simply re-routed elsewhere?


• processed fins that are being imported into the US to serve as ingredient in the Shark fin soup.
  Once again, I find banning them OK as long as those processed fins derive from completely unregulated and unsustainable fisheries - but I would have welcomed an exemption for any certified product, something that does not exist now but is at least conceivable in the future.
  And does this save Sharks? Certainly not directly as the Sharks have already been killed somewhere else - and when it comes to the argument that it reduces global demand and thus the pressure on Sharks, I remain highly skeptical.
  What percentage of total demand does the demand from the US represent, and does closing down that specific consumer market have any incidence whatsoever on global catches, especially in a supply limited fishery?


• fins that come from Sharks that have been legally caught in the US and specifically, in the state that is banning possession. Yes there may be also illegally caught fins and if so, their possession is already banned and not the topic here.
  But how can it be good legislation to continue to allow that Sharks be killed, presumably because in the opinion of the legislator, the fishery is well managed, but to then demand that their fins be thrown away? It leads to the absurd outcome that somebody may legally consume, say, legally caught Thresher Shark steaks but not a soup made with the fins of that same Shark.
  Would an exemption for legally caught local Shark fins not have been a much better solution and avoided the tricky question of whether the bans are racially and culturally discriminatory?


• And since we're at it: the fines are just ludicrous - at least in some states, like $ 100.00 to 1,000.00 in California! It would have been much better to have much higher base fines plus a mandatory additional fine that is equivalent to the value of the fins in Asia - but I hear that this has been recognized and that later legislation is taking it into account.

All-in-all, this is just poor legislation: poorly thought through, sloppy and rushed, and I can understand why David doesn't like it. But it's at least something which is probably better than nothing at all - though clearly worse than something real good!
And yes I do also understand that this is a political process which consists in pursuing realistic goals and accepting what is possible!

Long story short?

• On a global scale, Shark continue to be killed at unsustainable rates.
  This is essentially due to poor management, often meaning a lack of management plans but above all, a lack of resources (and often also, determination) for monitoring, enforcement and prosecution. That's just how it is and when it comes to those developing and underdeveloped coastal countries, and the high seas, chances for improvement in the short term are close to nil.
  As long as that is the case, I strongly advocate the creation of large MPAs, Shark Sanctuaries and blanket Shark fishing bans - but this only as stop gap measures, so that Biodiversity and specifically, Shark populations can ark until conditions on the ground hopefully improve. That may take a very long time indeed and until then, those measure must stand.


• But if so, let's abandon asking for finning bans and let's advocate Shark fishing bans and Shark trading bans instead!
  Let's not forget that the vast majority of countries already have finning bans, and that their practical effect in reducing Shark mortality has been close to zero, this also because of lousy enforcement!


• When it comes to fin possession bans, they are sometimes an efficient and effective enforcement tool when flanked by fishing and trading bans. I also believe that as long as the Shark fin trade continues to be unregulated and unsustainable, there are valid ethical reasons to try and curtail it via fin bans - tho I remain skeptical about their ultimate effectiveness in reducing the number of Sharks that are being killed.


• Some Shark populations are however well managed and there I do concur with David that bans are inappropriate.
  When there is good management in place, I am of the firm conviction that sustainable Shark fishing ought to be allowed, and this including the right to consume sustainably caught fins, local as well as imported.
  But for now, that's really the tiny, tiny minority of places - if at all! Most of the world is nowhere near as advanced as the US and possibly Europe, and wanting to apply the same parameters there is just simply hopelessly naive.


• But maybe I'm wrong.
  Maybe we got to listen to Jimmy and especially, to Katrien who posted a great rant, I really enjoyed it! :)
  Maybe the overall situation is so bad that we got to forget the intellectual debate of what is appropriate and instead, just close our eyes and throw the kitchen sink at the problem, and hope that something will stick. With the other side embroiling us in never ending debates whilst continuing to slaughter the Sharks and running circles around those inept authorities, maybe we gotta start fighting dirty, too.
  Not 100% convinced that this is the right way forward - but I'm sure as frustrated as everybody else!
  But then again, progress has been impressive, too!
  It sure is complicated!

A Change of Paradigms

But whatever the situation, here comes the important part: we need a paradigm shift!

Contrary to the farmers that farm their own land, the fishermen have been exploiting the commons, meaning that they have been catching and making money off Fish that belong to all of us, often even thanks to subsidies the we all (!) have been paying for.
So far, the standard modus operandi has been that the fishermen have been catching whatever they could, and the track record shows that whenever they have not been curtailed, they have been overfishing recklessly, to the point that some of them have even managed to fish themselves into extinction. The result is that most Fish stocks have been severely depleted and may have even accumulated extinction debt.
Long story short: forget self regulation.

At the same time, the authorities have invested an inordinate amount of resources (for which we all have paid!) trying to manage that activity, by first paying researchers to go and collect all the relevant data and then, often when it was way too late, trying to fix the problem by managing (= reducing) the quotas and then investing more resources into monitoring, enforcement and prosecution etc.
My question is, are those investments adequately balanced by benefits (including revenues!) for all of us and is that the only and the best way to proceed going forward?

As Jimmy's comment in David thread illustrates, many conservationists including me harbor grave reservations against those fisheries researchers and managers.
There is a lingering suspicion that those people are incapable of acknowledging the fact that they are presiding over the abject failure of their own past strategies, and that they will continue to cling on to archaic paradigms and continue wasting time and money on inefficient procrastination in the main intent of preserving their own jobs. Probably not quite accurate but having met many of them, certainly not completely inaccurate, either!
And whilst those folks continue to twiddle their thumbs, Fish stocks continue to be poorly managed and continue to decline!

But we simply cannot afford to waste any more time!I say, the conventional strategies have largely failed and we must find new ways to be more effective!
Let us invoke the precautionary principle and let us reverse the burden of proof. Let those who are making the money invest all those resources that are necessary for establishing adequate management plans, and let THEM prove to US that what they do is sustainable!
And this on all levels: let anybody involved in the fishing industry, from fisherman to trader to in- and exporter prove!!! that what they do is both legal and sustainable - and until they do, let's slash the quotas or ban the activity altogether whenever there is any reasonable doubt!

Yes it is radical - but does it make sense?
I believe it does and if so, let's start talking about it now!
Change will be difficult to come by, and it will take time, especially in the midst of this persistent recession - but if we want it we will eventually be able to achieve it!
The good news being that this will free scarce resources for the authorities to concentrate on monitoring, enforcement and prosecution, and to address the other threats to marine biodiversity, ie Global Warming, Ocean Acidification, Pollution and Habitat Degradation.

Anyway, please do read David's post and the comments thread - great stuff!
Plenty to think about - especially the part about changing paradigms where I passionately believe that it is the right way forward!

Enjoy!

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?

Is the Tide turning?

Pro-Shark advocacy in Asia - good enough?

Check this out!



Great Job!
Good factual information, no hyperbole and especially, no mention of the dreaded phytoplankton - plus, good comments re finning vs fishing bans! And, I even discern the logo of our friends of Matava who must have done something right! :)

Quick comment.
Fiji has issued a statement of intent but is not a Sanctuary quite yet - like I fear Raja Ampat where the MPA is being advocated but not quite yet legislated. Correct?

But overall, yes, progress so far has been fabulous!
Which begs the question, where do we go from here?

Activism in Asia?

I must say, I'm quite impressed.
We host many Asian divers and although those people are certainly not mainstream insofar as they all love the ocean and probably even Sharks, it is good to hear first hand about the notable developments in Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. These changes are most certainly the result of the relentless advocacy by grassroots activist organisations like the HK Shark Foundation that have achieved much with little financial means but with a lot of passion and also inventiveness to compensate for it.
Kudos!

Will it be enough to ultimately save Sharks?
I frankly remain skeptical for the usual reasons. I fear that the bulk of the consumers does not hail from the educated elite and that hundreds of millions of potential consumers in the hinterlands, in mainland China, Taiwan and Japan are either not being reached or will not be swayed and will thus continue to drive the demand and thus the business of killing Sharks. The track record of trying to save animals by educating the Asian consumers sure sucks as witnessed by the latest appalling news for Rhinos from Vietnam and Africa.

But who am I to say.
There is always hope, and I'm also hearing about other strategies which I'm not at liberty to disclose but where chances for making a real impact appear higher. As long as these grassroots initiatives are local and thus locally credible, and as long as they don't detract from what I consider to be the principal job, ie to protect the Sharks where they are being fished, I cannot but applaud!

Fin Bans?

Apparently, this is the next big thing.
Pioneered by Stefanie and Senator Hee in Hawaii, initiatives aimed at banning the possession of Shark fins are popping up all over the US and its Territories, and Canada. I generally support them - but like Patric, I do question the way this has led to a ground swell of anti Asian statements among the more rabid activists. The leaders of those projects do have a responsibility here and they would be well served to publicly and unequivocally condemn those undertones. After all, we are claiming to be walking the high road here - correct?

And then there's this.
Copy/paste, and this badly, is not good enough I fear. When I speak to the most prominent advocates in this field, the one word that keeps popping up is clusterf8%K: sloppy legislation, ridiculous fines (California: USD 100 - 1,000 - WTF?), total lack of coordination, ego wars.
We can and need to do better!

Note: compare to this brand new post on Shark Defenders!

But the party may well be over..
If the Californian law suit against the ban succeeds, the whole concept risks crumbling like a house of cards or Colliers dreaded domino effect, meaning that once a precedent has been set, other existing bans may be affected as well!

Yes the cultural argument is pure hogwash, this is purely about the money.
But, it is an argument - and do we really know whether the bankrupt State, its Governor and its AG have any wish to invest money, time and passion into mounting a vigorous defense?
I'm sure I'm stating the obvious here: the Shark conservationists must provide for an amicus curiae and if so and after the frothiness of self promotion following the ban: who will take the lead in what promises to be a tedious protracted and costly undertaking and above all, who will fork out the necessary dollars?
Crowdfunding? Show me!

Finning Bans?

Please re-read this.
Those bans are difficult to enforce and increasingly, they do not save Sharks, or certainly not enough of them to make a difference. Also, they are being abused by the authorities in order not to do what really needs doing but is much more politically difficult: to enact the necessary Shark fishing bans.
Which brings me straight over to

Legislation?

That's the way to go.
Whether partial or total, fishing bans do save Sharks.
I was happy to see the partial successes in Europe and in the RFMOs like ICCAT but of course, more needs to be done. I am also very impressed by the successes in Florida and am frankly dismayed at the lack of any according activities in the other coastal states - or am I missing something here?
Yes it's tedious, difficult and requires being willing to compromise - but it saves Sharks and isn't this what we're all aiming for?
Any takers?

Sanctuaries?

Well that's obviously by far my preferred solution.
But... and without wanting to in any way detract from the spectacular successes: so far the going has been relatively easy and may continue to be just that in some additional island countries that are dependent on tourism but above all, where there is no important and thus powerful fishing industry. But the number of those countries is limited and beyond that, there will be significant push-back, meaning that positive results will be less easy to achieve.

Fiji?
Fiji is proving to be the first test case of whether rock solid conservation and economic arguments will ultimately prevail over those interests - and lemme tell 'ya, the jury is still very much out on that one, and this despite of a Fisheries Department that understands and is very much in favor of sustainability and marine conservation!
Fingers crossed!

Marine Protected Areas?

Absolutely - the bigger the better!

Policing, Enforcement and Prosecution?

Once again, please read this.
This where the rubber will hit the road in the long term: it is costly, difficult and frustrating and I fear that it will be an ongoing commitment for a very, very long time indeed as 7 billion people, and counting, will continue to exert relentless pressure on global resources and ecosystems.
Yes there's a glimmer of hope and good people are looking for solutions - or I wouldn't be doing this, the more as I'm not personally invested in the future.

But let there be no doubt that it's gonna be hard so let us all develop some over-arching game plan - or we will be running like headless chickens from one flash point to the other without ever tackling the underlying problems!

Other?

Shark Free Marinas anybody????
Remember?

That was two years ago and really, nothing has changed.
Seriously, how pathetic is that! Where are all those thousands upon thousands of advocates and sharktivists that populate all those pages? Having done it many a time: this is easy, all you have to do is walk to one of the marinas around where you live and start talking! Anybody can do it and for the marinas, it's free, it's easy and confers brownie points - and it does save Sharks!
Not a single listing for Oz and NZ - are you kidding me???

Anyway.
Just my 2¢ as always - do with it whatever you want!

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.