David about those Petitions!

Oh how I despise them!

Those idiotic petitions, the folks who post them and the slacktivists (and here!) who sign them and then call themselves conservationists!

And I cite

You may be aware that the Shark population as a species is under great threat, Some marine biologist have suggested as soon as 2020 these magnificent creatures may be extinct. 

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!

Whilst legislation in to banning shark fining may be introduced, unless the demand for these fins is stopped at source then the illegal poaching of sharks will continue. Whilst China is not the only Country importing Shark fins, it is by far the largest importer. 

By urging the Chinese Government taking action to ban the use of Shark Fins in both medicinal and foods, such as Shark Fin soup China would be leading the world in valuable conservation. Wouldnt it be nice to GO DOWN IN HISTORY as the country that saved the Sharks, rather than the Country responsible for their extinction?

Well, gee, indeed.

At the rate of 200 Billion!!! Sharks being taken each year, that Shark populations as a species may indeed be extinct by 2020 - especially if we continue fining them (for what - speeding?) for that magical soup!

And the language! I thought Stoke was in England where they speak English?

Please read David's post on the matter.

Totally agree of course. 

There is however one ulterior aspect that with one exception has so far prevented me from signing any such petition - even the ones that were totally factual and well written, and this by good people and for valid causes.

The reason is that I remain skeptical that petitions actually work.

Unless convinced of the contrary by the petition leaders, and this for every individual petition based on its individual merits, I always harbor the suspicion that instead of being motivating, those petitions may instead be regarded as irritating all the way to "undue outside interference" by the people that are being petitioned. 

In brief, I always fear that they may in fact do more harm than good.

Happy to be proven wrong tho!

The next case in point will be the upcoming CITES CoP where we are being regaled with a plethora of petitions and public statements on top of scores of pictures of people brandishing flat Sharks. My prediction is that the Mantas will pass but that the Sharks will be snubbed, this once again due to the interference by Japan.

As always, we shall see.

And if the result will be an unexpected victory for the Sharks, it will be interesting to analyze how much of it was due to those social media tools.

And if not... :)

PS: Jaime Chase, another marine biology student - wow!

South Africa: one Submission, two Petitions - and plenty of Hypochrisy & frothy Activism!

SA Great White by Dirk Schmidt

Well well.
Fisher's South African caper is attracting plenty of interesting chatter and activism.

First, we got ourselves not one but two petitions! Yay!
Both have been created, or whatever, by one Chris Hartzell, another one of the token Californian Sesselfurzer that found it fit to publicly fart some rubbish during the Junior controversy. His expertise: occasional cage diving in Lupe to heroically document animals slamming into cages - and I will certainly leave it at that, the more as like his expert pronouncements, those petitions are nothing more than hot perfumed air and will achieve zero as usual!

But there is also a submission.
Yes I've posted the link because I find it rather good, albeit in places unnecessarily argumentative - and no I won't go into detail as overall, it's a valiant effort that needs to be commended, the more as it appears to have elicited some interest by Dr. Alan Boyd.
From what I understand, Boyd is the person who ultimately controls all permits including those of the researchers and commercial operators and thus the big honcho man nobody in his right mind wants to start messing with.
Frothy petitioning or no frothy petitioning, the final decision in this matter will be taken by him - so it's good that he is at least considering.

My prediction: the circus will go ahead.
Fisher is certainly crafty and appears to have it pretty much tied down by having obtained the active support of the SA Government's Department of Marine and Coastal Management for which Dr. Boyd works, and by having successfully roped in a whole gaggle of local researchers for whom the double temptation of perceived global fame and money has obviously proven to be irresistible.
It's a big, well coordinated effort, it has already been set into motion, plenty of Sharks have been tagged and plenty of tracks are already being published, and I just cannot imagine that Boyd will pull the plug now that things are so well under way - but who knows.

On a side note.
Among the researchers, I hear, Ryan Johnson, Enrico Gennari, Alison Towner etc.

Ring a bell?

Yes those three are among the authors of this paper about the damage caused by SPOT tags. To be fair, the paper examines sub-adult GWs where rapid growth may compound the problem, meaning that the effects on the adult Sharks which are apparently being targeted now may be less drastic. But I also read this
the effects of removing large (>450 cm) white sharks from the water in order to deploy SPOT tags are still unknown and should also be considered.
Hmmm..

My personal call, so be it.
After what has happened in Lupe and California, I must say that I've come to equally despise Fisher's bombastic clamoring but also, the anal frothiness of the various SPOT tagging opponents.

Where I'm personally coming from is that I continue to hate the current technology.
For very personal and highly irrational reasons (= I love our Sharks) and very much despite of the following, I shall not enable any such research until the gizmos have been finally fixed.

But I must confess that I equally love the tracks and the insights that have been garnered from the tagging - and if they were perfectly honest, so do many of the detractors!
Having tried my best to educate myself and having had literally countless conversations (and heated debates!) with Shark researchers, I have been convinced that every one of them is acutely aware of the current misgivings and is honestly trying to develop better technical solutions.
But at the same time, the dire situation of global Shark stocks mandates that we find out as much as we can about their life history as fast as we can, and satellite telemetry is one of the most effective tools for obtaining many of those vital data. Depending on situation and species, this may well mandate the deployment of SPOT tags - and trying to decipher the multi-year migration patterns of GWs may just be such a case.

Fisher and his wandering freak show will move on.
But if Government and the researchers are smart (which is not a given!) and have read the fine print before signing away their life to crafty Chris, they will at least own the data that will hopefully result in new insights - and yes, hopefully in better protection as well!
Conservation of highly migratory species is obviously difficult - but as e.g. the GW research from the Eastern Pacific is revealing, there exist well defined migration highways and well defined activity hotspots and time frames, meaning that at least in theory, we can now concentrate on specific locations and enact seasonal fishing bans which is certainly much easier to achieve than blanket protection (Playa: hint hint...!).
The practical implementation will always remain the practical implementation with all of its many hurdles: but at least we are beginning to find out what will be most effective.

And in the specific case of SA?
I have no doubt that patterns will turn out to be similar - and who knows, now that Dr.Boyd is so much involved, may he even be developing a new appreciation of the resource he is tasked to manage? May he even become more accessible to the arguments of those who are fighting for the removal of the KZN Shark nets that are equally subject to the regulating power of the MCM?
Yeah I know I know... I'm now clearly faffing myself!

Anyway.
Kudos to Dirk Schmidt and against all odds, best of luck!

As always, we shall see shall we not!

PS exhaustive statement by Johnson/Fisher/Boyd here - and I must grudgingly admit, rather compelling as well!

Taiwan - bad, bad News for Sharks!

Pic by Shawn Heinrichs.

Shocking!
You really want to click on this pic and look at it in full resolution.

It is from Taiwan.
This is but one of many such places world wide and illustrates graphically the sheer scope of this trade. It's big, big money and will not just simply disappear without a fight, petitions or no petitions.
Thankfully, the people at Pew understand this and focus on policies as opposed to activism.



Story here, more gruesome pics here.

Dear Mary

Bravo Terry: great Photography amidst a deluge of forgettable pics from Lupe!

I must apologize for the delay in answering your comments.
Thing is, we’re currently incredibly busy (95% doing, 5% ranting) - and I felt that I needed to devote some time to formulating a more exhaustive response.
So there.

First of all, I really want to thank you for having raised your voice in protest - and I commend you for having done it openly.
I know who you are and admire you for your passion, commitment, eloquence and intelligence. We’re clearly not on the same page on this one – but I very much welcome this discussion as I strongly believe that we will only progress by engaging in dialogue, some of which needs to be controversial and robust. And yes, that sometimes includes ranting, especially in the context of a blog like this one!
Let’s however never forget that in the big scheme of things, we’re on the same side and that this is a squabble between friends, not foes!

Let me try to put things into context.
As you know I’m basically a full-time Shark conservationist. I do what I do the way I do it , and I say what I say based on a specific set of assumptions.
Please bear with me if I try and describe them as follows.

Assumption 1

The Big Gorillas are Population Growth and even more problematic (and largely overlooked), the fact that everybody is striving to attain a “better” life which in practical terms translates into increasing one’s Ecological Footprint.
That is simply not sustainable and if left unchecked, the future looks grim indeed – as in: there will be no future!
If so, we will descend into Chaos and Anarchy, and Conservation will be the least of our concerns.

Assumption 2

One of the immediate consequences of the above is that Life expressed in terms of Biodiversity is experiencing a severe bottleneck, especially when it comes to terrestrial habitats where anthropogenic extinctions are rampant.
Hopefully, we will come to the conclusion that this is not what we want (Ed Wilson’s Biophilia) and if we do, the future will consist in some form of less diverse “Nature” which will however not just “be”, but which we will have to actively manage.
Yes that includes Shark stocks, too!

Assumption 3

When it comes to the Oceans, I believe that the situation is somewhat different.

I believe that we generally grossly under-estimate the size, fecundity and regenerative powers of Marine ecosystems.
Yes there’s widespread pollution, habitat degradation and blatant overfishing: but despite of our best efforts, it appears that we’ve “only” managed to exterminate a small number of Marine Mammals, no Marine Cetaceans and, possibly with the exception of some obscure deep-sea Sharks, zero Marine Fishes!

Yes the Cod, Orange Roughy and Chilean Sea Bass fisheries have collapsed and the Northern Bluefin Tuna appears to be critically endangered – but there are still Cod, Orange Roughies and Chilean Seabass and Northern Bluefins and if we just leave them alone, populations will very likely recover. We may pollute and bomb a Reef to smithereens: but just leave it alone, and it will miraculously recover within the shortest period of time.

Those, I understand, are the facts – I’m not saying that this is great and that we should thus feel free to continue to reap and pillage: but anthropogenic terrestrial and marine extinction rates are clearly very different.

Consequently, I advocate the creation of a multitude of MPAs (the more and bigger, the better) where Biodiversity can shelter in order to re-colonize the surroundings once we finally decide to just leave them alone.
That’s the good news.

Assumption 4

The bad news is that anthropogenic Climate Change and especially, its ugly cousin Ocean Acidification (read this!) may indeed tip the scale towards a total collapse of Marine habitats and related widespread Marine extinctions.
If so, all for which we so valiantly fight (and rant) will have been for naught.

But one has to choose one’s fights and like in the case of the Big Gorillas, this is not where I’ve chosen to be active. We at BAD are however certainly trying to make a (ridiculously small) contribution by always trying to reduce our Carbon footprint and advocating a greener lifestyle.
Let’s just hope that a Nobel Prize and an Oscar will prove sufficient to sway the masses (and the politicians!) to do the right thing – tho after Copenhagen, I’m far from believing that this is anywhere close to being a done deal…

Assumption 5

Species protection does not work. What works is habitat protection.

Assumption 6

I believe that the totality of resources (as in people, brain power, time and money) available to Conservation (and incidentally, to Research) is finite.
And not only that: the sum has been decreasing due to the global recession and also due to the plethora of other competing “worthy” causes, as in Haiti, AIDS, teenage pregnancies, poverty alleviation and-so-on-and so forth – many of which, alas, are directly contributing to making the Big Gorilla even bigger!

If the above is true, and I believe it is, we are looking at a classical zero sum game whereby if we invest any resources into a particular project, we are automatically crippling other projects.

To me, the inevitable consequence of the above is that we must define our priorities and invest those resources prudently and with a view to attaining the best possible results in the most effective and efficient way – very much like the ROI in the “real” world.
And like in the “real” world, we have an obligation to question the efficiency and effectiveness of those different projects and to hold the project leaders accountable - for their success but also for their failure, and this in absolute terms but also, in relative terms when compared to possible alternatives!

Take The Cove: all that hype and praise irritates me!
The movie decries the fact that some Japanese trap some Dolphins, a non-endangered species, in Japan. Some are exported for Dolphin shows; some are killed in unethical ways and then eaten. Certainly all very disturbing - but that's a (legitimate) animal welfare and not a conservation issue!

Did I hear: "sentient being"? And the Vaquita? Please read the link!
Couldn’t all those resources have helped in trying to reverse the decline of the Vaquita, maybe the most critically endangered Cetacean – the more as its demise is very much happening just south of the border? And who, please, is fighting for the Yangtze Dolphin?

Am I entitled to ask those questions?

I also believe that in this day-and-age, the only justification for investing those scarce resources into biological Research is that it directly benefits Conservation and that it satisfies the most stringent ethical imperatives.
And, we must strive to avoid redundant duplications (please, no more tagging of Pacific GWs!), we must oblige scientists to collaborate (which they mostly do) and we must ask that those scientists we finance produce regular results as expressed in scientific publications, etc.

As an example, I’m highly distressed when I hear that Taxonomy, the science that documents Biodiversity, is on the decline, to the point that an increasing number of Institutions are dropping it from the curriculum, that the current Taxonomists have issues of succession and that funding for expeditions is drying up.
Did you know that Jack Randall, the greatest Fish Taxonomist in history, is currently unemployed and unfunded? How is that possible???

And why are there so many competing research projects, NGOs and initiatives targeting the very same issues and incidentally, squandering so much money on aggregate overhead? How can that be beneficial to the cause?
In that regard, Kudos for having established the SSN – very much the way to go!

Now when it comes to Shark Conservation, which is what I do.

Assumption 7

I believe that apart from the doomsday scenarios of Climate Change and Ocean Acidification, the biggest threat to Sharks is overfishing.
In that, I’m partly contradicting my previous argument about the Ocean’s unbridled regenerative powers. I do this in view of the fact that Sharks have a much lower fecundity than most Fishes and that some populations seem to be quite small, as in, apparently, 3-4,000 in the case of GW and maybe even less for some deep-water species.

Assumption 8

I however also believe that the status of Shark stocks is not uniformly catastrophic but that it varies according to species and to regions.
The consequence is that in order to be credible and efficient, we should prioritize our resources in order to direct them to the preservation of those species that are most threatened.
Trivial – but are we doing so?

Assumption 9

The ultimate solution to overfishing is not prohibition, it is to fish sustainably.
This is a central theme of this blog.
The sooner we accept that, the sooner we'll be able to help the Sharks.

In a nutshell, I believe that killing Sharks for food is OK as long as it is done sustainably.
This means that where they are depleted, stocks must be allowed to recover and after that, fishing quotas must remain below the rate of replenishment. I believe that to be true of all fisheries, be it for Sardines, Tuna, Sharks or, yes, Whales!

The practice of finning however is a completely different topic: it is ethically reprehensible for being both wasteful and extremely cruel and needs to be stopped.

Assumption 10

I believe that the fisheries for Sharks (i.e. mainly for their fins) is supply limited, meaning that the demand for Shark Fins greatly outweighs the supply. This is why Shark fins remain one of the most expensive marine commodities.

No clue why the soup has gone down-market.
Maybe because the Shark fishermen catch more Sharks? Maybe because they have reduced their overhead/fin by becoming more efficient? Maybe because cheaper soups contain less desirable and thus cheaper fins? Maybe because there are less fins in one unit of cheap soup?

Anyway, if that is true, I believe that targeting the demand is a very very long shot indeed!
Take your example: 200 posters were noticed by 19% of Beijingers, of which 82% said that they would forego the soup – gives a penetration of 16%.
Now, as I said, if the demand were 4 times the supply, you would need a penetration of more than 75% before a single Shark (!!!) would be spared! How many eaters of soup are there? How many is 75% of that? How many posters would have to be deployed where? How much would that cost?
Is that realistic? Is that the best possible way of investing those resources?
And if it is not – may I criticize it?

One common friend sent me a message stating that when Shark conservationists squabble, no Sharks are being saved.
I disagree! “Squabbling” about the most efficient strategies does save Sharks if it improves the strategies and saves more Sharks! And again, this is never meant ad personam, at least not by yours truly – tho I understand that it may come across as such, which is deplorable but sometimes inevitable!

Anyway, with that in mind, I believe that Shark Conservation should target the supply side by concentrating on the Countries where the Sharks are being caught and exported from and where their demise is creating the biggest negative impact.
Yes that may sometimes be a long shot, too – but I strongly believe that given the right amount of resources and flanked by education and alternatives for the fishermen, it still is the better strategy.

I believe this to be true because it is in the ultimate interest of those Countries to preserve their stocks at sustainable levels and to avoid the collapse of their Marine Ecosystems.

The bulk of the consumers, on the other hand, must only contend with issues of availability and price, and if you’re lucky, with ethical considerations - IMO, not a very strong motivator for changing one’s habits.
Sure did nothing for Rhinos and Elephants, another supply limited commodity – whereas protecting them in Africa seems to work.

And talking of ethics: this is why I did propose the certified Shark Fin soup as an alternative to changing habits altogether.

With that in mind, I believe that the way to go is as follows – and yes, think “Rhinos and Elephants”.

A. The establishment of MPAs in order to preserve the Sharks’ habitats.
Here, I believe that we already dispose of a global network that needs to be activated, and that is us in the Dive Industry. Every single dive operator should be held accountable for protecting the resource he derives his sustenance from – this not only because it’s only fair and ethical, but also because it’s good business!

As an example, the single most photographed, filmed and loved Shark in the Universe is Emma.
So, why are all those countless Emma- and Shark-loving bigwigs not actively engaged in getting Emma and Tiger Beach protected – or are they, very much silently, petition-less and behind the scenes? Yes the “political” situation is complicated and some feathers may well get ruffled – but then, when was Conservation easy? And how much sweeter could success possibly be?
Or am I just ranting – again?

B. The establishment of pro-Shark legislation.
No widespread conservation is possible without the adequate legislative framework.
Achieving this is not trivial but certainly not impossible. Most Governments are open to good arguments, the principal one being that the indiscriminate slaughter of Sharks has devastating effects rippling down through the trophic chain, all the way to the demise of entire Marine ecosystems.

Generally, this consists in advocating sustainable fisheries and ideally, moratoriums (all the way to Shark Sanctuaries) as long as some stocks are too depleted or until there are sufficient data to determine sustainable levels.
The recent protection of Lemon Sharks in Florida is an excellent example of the former and the Honduran moratorium, an excellent example of the latter.
Kudos!

Can this be replicated in, say, Yemen? I betcha it can – but somebody has to go and do it! Who, and who’s going to pay for that?
And how about Ecuador, Colombia, Costa Rica and Mexico where the fishermen are slaughtering “our” Scalloped Hammerheads? Don’t know if it has: but if not, shouldn’t Sharkwater rather be translated into Spanish and be shown there, where it happens?

How many Shark fishing countries have no pro-Shark legislation and what can be done to change that?

C. Which leads me straight over to the need for effective enforcement.
Now this is really the biggest challenge of them all. Here, we are confronted with a lack of resources, often coupled with indifference and corruption, especially in lesser developed countries. This I believe is where we need to direct the bulk of our resources, be it in terms of personal efforts, funds and hardware but also, education and the establishment of alternatives for the fishermen.

In Fiji, we currently compensate the fishermen for not fishing in the MPA but also employ Fish Wardens who have the authority to enforce the law.
And we’re pretty big in outreach, via the local media all the way to a local PSA but also, our youth sponsorship program and presentations to local communities.
In the future, we would like to expand Shark awareness to the school curriculum – but we simply lack the necessary time and manpower and are thus currently trying to outsource it to one of the local NGOs.

D. We should also sponsor research so that our decisions are backed by objective data.
As you know, this is one of the cornerstones of our Fiji Project.

E. "Other"?

Shark Free Marinas Initiative anybody?
Yes the initiator may, or may not be the Antichrist – but is it saving Sharks? Incredibly efficiently so, as signing up costs precisely zero?
21 in Fiji – and how many in the USA? Australia? South Africa? Asia?
How about that for petty squabbling and tribalism huh.

Petitions?
My hunch is that they only make sense when coupled with real action “on the ground”.
Thus, I believe that the Florida Lemon Shark petition and the Hawaii Shark Preservation letter campaign were useful in reinforcing the arguments of the people pursuing those local projects. I believe that the Discovery petition was largely a flop because nobody really cared to go and pursue any direct follow-up with the network – though having said this, I hear that things there may be changing, hopefully for the better.
The other petitions, to me, are just a total waste of time – especially all those competing “stop finning” gigs! More than happy to be proven wrong though!

Activism?
Not convinced!
Conservation is about hard facts, hard and often tedious work, perseverance and commitment, often difficult negotiations.
Yes, and of course passion – but passion alone just aint good enough!

All-to-often, activism is just too hopelessly amateurish, too emotional, too little fact-based, too confrontational and too little solution-oriented. Too often, I fear that it harms rather than being helpful. Too often, I get the impression that the perpetrators are mainly interested in personal aggrandizement and that the initiatives are nothing but marketing stunts – and this includes many of those pro-Shark websites which are so long on pontificating and petitions and so short on results!

And what about our own ideologies and stereotypes. Very unhelpful.
“Sharks” are not “misunderstood”, at least not by the people who take the time to learn about them! People who don’t take the time to learn about dogs “misunderstand” them – wow, what a profound message!
Which species are we talking about anyway: Whale Sharks? Cookie Cutters? Swell Sharks?
Do we “understand” them?

Yes I’m being facetious - but seriously: our biggest capital is to be honest and objective, especially when we are trying to counter the anti-Shark stereotypes!
Romanticizing interactive encounters with large predatory Sharks is stupid and as such, bad marketing. Using numbers that are based on conjecture and untested (although certainly plausible) hypotheses is counter productive. Right now, the only verified number is approx. 30 to 70, which is 50 and not 100, full stop – and that’s just a number, it says nothing about sustainability which is all that counts!

Can we maybe just be a little more humble and less righteous, the more since Conservation is so complicated? Maybe progress towards more facts and less truthiness (read this!)?
Can we maybe just open our eyes and wonder at the magnificence of what is instead of trying to make things up?

In a way, it is the very deluge of platitudes, pseudoscience and exaggerated doomsday scenarios in all those pedestrian wannabee Sharkwater clones that has helped spawn rubbish like Shark Con – and I’m certainly gonna leave it at that, the more as I firmly believe that we should just ignore it and not contribute to its marketing by engaging in the usual vociferous con-troversies!

We are the amateurs.
Can we please listen to what the professionals are telling us – the principal message being that extreme positions (on both sides!) are inhibiting Conservation and appropriate Management measures?

There you have it Mary!
This is basically where I personally come from - and yes, alas, it includes a lot of skepticism!
But having said this, we’ve certainly come a long long way and I remain very hopeful that we will succeed in turning things around!

Dunno if I’ve managed to adequately address your reservations.
But I’m thankful for having been given the chance to put things into context.

You too, take care!

Shark Conservation - Job done?

Yao Ming - Shark saver extraordinaire! Source.

And I cite - proudly posted by Shark Savers.

Ming joined forces with conservation non-profit WildAid to launch a public awareness campaign about the devastating effect this soup is having on the ocean’s wildlife...

The campaign has been a huge success, credited with a 50 to 70 per cent drop in shark harvesting. Even better, recent studies show that 91 per cent of Chinese citizens now support a ban on shark fin soup.

Ming’s not stopping there. Having saved the lives of some 50 million sharks...

Oh well - then let's all go home!

According to the paper, killing those remaining 30 to 50-odd million Sharks (or possibly, based on assumptions, even a lot less - read it!) would more than halve the exploitation rate, allow Shark populations to rebound and thus be sustainable! Plus, it turns out that after all, the Chinese don't like that shit anyway! 

And this is just what Yao Ming and WildAid have achieved!

Add the Shark sanctuaries, the fin bans, the airline boycotts, the management measures and of course the petitions (!) and it becomes blatantly obvious that the problem has been solved!

I say, this is just simply egregious - facts here.

Let's see whether WildAid and Shark Savers have the integrity to post a retraction/correction.

Or not!

US Fin Bans at Risk!

This is not gonna be a walk in the park.

Read this.

It describes the whole fin ban fisco including the ignominious role of WESPAC.

It also contains the links to the various petitions, and here is once again the post by Shark Savers with valuable pointers for your submission. Should you still be unsure, do have the Shark Defenders help you as many of the comments posted so far have been useless all the way to being harmful.

The comments period expires on July 31st, so if you haven't already, do it right away!

The oder side has not been idle.

Watch this video - it is of course propaganda, but it is never the less a correct representation of the majority of US Shark fishing insofar as the fishermen do not fin but take off the fins only once the carcasses have been landed.

Like all good propaganda, it all sounds reasonable.

But if the fin bans get overturned, you can bet that they will also land those Sharks that are now being set free because the meat has no commercial value, like the Blues, OWTs, Hammerheads, Silkies etc!

And those bans are still very much at risk.

The US Government is now actively involved in the fight to overturn the California fin ban and has filed this brief. This is not idle talk, it is a powerful document that contains strong arguments against the State, and it will be interesting to read the rebuttal by the lawyers of the pro-ban side.

If California falls, so will all other State fin bans.

With that in mind: is anybody working on compromise measures, like including language that selectively allows for fins from legal and sustainable Federal Shark fisheries - this obviously on top of continuing to vigorously fight the NMFS ruling?
Yes that would equal conceding a major defeat, especially when it comes to WESPAC and its attack on the Pacific Shark Sanctuaries - but it would at least curtail the international fin trade which is the stated aim of those bans in the continental US!

Just saying.

Remain completely inflexible and you may end up losing everything!

Good on 'ya, Google!

The plight of Sharks continues unabated, as witnessed by these shocking statistics for Shark landings (that is, EXCLUDING finning where the carcass is dumped) for June in Ecuador - the same country already infamous for its ineptitude in managing the Galapagos National Park.
As always, well done to Shark Diver for having found and posted them.

But for once, where there's plenty of shadow, there is some light as well.
Whilst Yahoo's Alibaba portal continues to brazenly ignore the petitions by Conservationists and offers a "choice" of hundreds of sites selling Shark fins, one of its principal competitors has obviously decided to forgo those earnings in favor oft ethical considerations.

As of today, I believe, Google has updated its Advertising Policies that exclude the sale of products obtained from endangered or threatened species to explicitly mention Sharks.
This of course is not only laudable, but smart business sense as well, as anybody loving Sharks should, and probably will completely refrain from conducting any business with Yahoo and its despicable subsidiary but deal on Google instead.

Thank you Helen for he heads-up about this wonderful piece of news.

Marine Conservation - Caution: depressing!

Rio+20?
The task is so immense and the prospects, so bleak that I'm tempted to break out into yet another wail of despair.

Check out this infographic by Pew.
You can scroll horizontally with the wheel of your mouse, and then click on each field for an overview and then click again for supporting documents. It makes for tedious and never happy reading and is the disheartening storyline of big and then unfulfilled commitments, and of the seemingly unstoppable demise of Earth's biodiversity.
Still think that a couple of petitions will solve that?

The Oceans?

SOFIA 2010
State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture - 2010

• 32% overexploited, depleted or recovering
• 52% fully exploited
• 15% underexploited or moderately exploited
  

WORLD POPULATION: 6.9 billion

Now of course we're 7.0, and counting.

Solutions?
Pew have many good recommendations which are set out in this report.
Alas, I fear that like advocating bold and decisive action to curtail Global Warming (or for the matter, the US and European deficits), it is little more than wishful thinking.
Wise plans and big words are one thing - but trying to convince the global population to renounce to growth and instead, to even accept a decrease in individual consumption and one's perceived material well-being is political hara-kiri, and the so-called Leaders know that.

Still, we got to persevere.
There's always a glimmer of hope and that's what we got to continue believing in.

NE-Pacific GWS - no Listing!

Source.

There you have it.

The science has caught up with the BS.

According to George Burgess, there are not 3-400, but at least 2,400 GWS off California.

Dunno if this even includes the Mexican GWS - but in any case, talk about the absolutely spectacular! vindication of Domeier who first pointed the finger at the flaws of the Chapple paper years ago (scroll down) and got shouted down by the sharktivists, and also of Chris Lowe's guest post on SFS!

Once published, this will be the best available science.

But NOAA is obviously already convinced and has declined the ESA listing, which is the correct decision.

As a reminder, this is not about GWS protection in general.
They are already a protected species, and may well warrant additional conservation/fisheries management measures to limit bycatch especially of the juveniles in the nursery area.
But the super stringent and wide reaching protection under ESA is clearly not warranted.

And the CESA listing?

I'm inclined to change my prediction.

The flaws have turned out to be so egregious that the petitions have been deprived of any credibility and should actually be retracted. Not gonna happen I fear - but I just cannot anymore see the California Department of Fish and Wildlife exposing themselves to ridicule by confirming their provisional protection.

But then again... :)

PS interesting info here, indicating that NOAA did not see the Burgess draft paper, and that they themselves have come to the conclusion that the NE-Pacific GWS population may number as high as 3,000.
As for this editorial - not impressed!

Certified Shark Fin Soup?

Once again, I'm irritated.

A friend has just sent me the link to the following Video.

Let's start with the positives.
It's by two Shark advocates, Alex Hofford & Paul Hilton who are being described as "passionate", it highlights the global plight of Sharks and the barbaric practice of finning, and it features a nice clip on 6:58 of Scarface, all of which is great.

On the negative side, it starts with the usual incorrect statement and is painfully long and tedious. Anything beyond three minutes needs to be absolutely brilliant, or the viewer will loose interest - and I'm afraid that this just isn't.
Plus, as so often, I fear that like the Sea Shepherd clip, it achieves nothing tangible. It's laudable in its intention, certainly personally rewarding for its authors - but alas, it's irrelevant in terms of reducing the number of Sharks that are being killed for their fins.

Let me elaborate - once again.
Shark fisheries are supply limited, meaning that the demand for Shark fins greatly outweighs the supply, and this by orders of magnitude.
Does anybody dispute this?

And if not, why do all those people insist in squandering all that money, time and energy in trying to "re-educate" the consumers of Shark fin soup?
Who are we to tell those people what to eat anyway?

But more importantly, it just doesn't make sense!
If the demand for Shark fins is, say, three times the supply, then we would have to convince more than two thirds of all potential consumers in order to have any effect in reducing the number of Sharks being killed! If it's four times, more than three fourths! Get the gist?
How many people would that be?

Does anybody really believe that this can be achieved via those fashionable Beijing posters, the translation of Sharkwater into Mandarin, videos like this one, or one of those countless competing petitions?
Really? Will they succeed in convincing hundreds of millions of people to change their behavior????

C'mon guys, get real!
I've said it before and will continue to say it: the solution to overfishing is to promote sustainable fisheries, not prohibition. That is where we need to direct our energy and our scarce conservation Dollars, not into ineffective activism!

Ideas?
Southern Fried Science have re-visited the issue of Supply Side Conservation in this post.
Can we maybe adapt some of those recommendations to Sharks?

Dolphin-free Tuna was certainly very bad for the Tuna and an ecological disaster on top of that - but it was great for Dolphins. Following the recommendations of Seafood Watch has become fashionable and works. In my lifetime, the fashionable and ubiquitous Lady Curzon was replaced by Mockturtle and Trepang soup. As we speak, the unsustainable Caviar is gradually being replaced by surrogates. I've seen people pay a premium for eggs from happy free-range chucks.
Consumers may not be willing to completely change their habits, but they can certainly be educated and convinced to choose better products if presented with alternatives - and I see no reason why this would not apply to the consumers of Shark Fin soup.

Maybe one could work with the Shark Fin Industry and create a brand of certified Shark fin soup? From Sharks that have not been finned? From species that are not being overfished?
Could one develop a surrogate?

Just a suggestion.
Certainly more tedious and less fashionable and thus less personally rewarding than making a lot of noise and dishing out money for a good cause - but I believe, better for the Sharks.
And that's what ultimately counts.

Or not?

Bull Sharks in Fiji - Video!

Daniel in 2014 with the Fiji delegation when Fiji was successful in listing the Mobulas and Reef Mantas under CMS, ratified last February - source.
 

Nice!

Daniel Fernando (great interview!) is one of the good guys.

Like us and many others who work tirelessly away from the limelight, he knows that marine conservation strategies in a developing country are miles away from what is being spouted by especially the Americans. Inevitably, instead of winner-takes-all solutions, we need to advocate for compromise positions that take into account all stakeholders inclusive of the fishing industry and especially, the interests of the grassroots communities; and contrary to all those grandiose self-congratulatory social media posts and useless petitions that suggest that this is fast and easy, progress only happens baby step by baby step, with countless setbacks and interminable waiting periods. 

Right now, as one of the Directors of the Manta Trust, Daniel is helping Fiji spearhead efforts to list the Mobulas under CITES; but in his native Sri Lanka, his Blue Resources is engaging in the task of trying to slowly help reforming the currently woefully inadequate Elasmobranch fishing regulations, something that once again must be unendingly tedious and frustrating, and thankless to boot.

Anyway, he was here.

This is video from one single two-tank dive excursion he took before participating in a CITES workshop. As I remember, conditions were not ideal - but Shark Reef always delivers, so there.

Enjoy!

NSW Grey Nurse Sharks - thank you Shark Defenders!

Shark Defenders have posted this action alert.

Please do submit your testimony.
Australia's Grey Nurse Sharks are critically endangered and it is imperative that we counteract the pressure by the NSW fishing lobby who wants to encroach on their aggregation sites. As SD correctly points out, individual testimonies are generally more effective than copy/pasting templates or joining petitions.
Submission close on Friday, August 26.

Vinaka!

Western Australia - Case in Point!

The 14 week trial attracted intense media and community interest. 
The trial generated: 

• 765 separate articles on sharks in local, state and national newspapers 
• 1,100 radio news bulletins on sharks (Western Australia) 
• 850 radio talk back comments on sharks (Western Australia) 
• 290 television news items on sharks (Western Australia) 
• 286,000 emails and letters to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (DPC) - a significant number of which were pro forma emails
• and a significant number of postings on Twitter and Facebook, some of which were offensive and contained personal attacks on members of the Government and staff involved with the program.

Talk about full transparency!

And the net result of that onslaught of unsolicited appeals, petitions (= pro forma emails), opinions and abuse?

A big fat zero.

Not only are they completely disregarding them, they are proposing to extend the cull for another three years and have gone on the offensive by claiming that a silent majority is in favor but had “no choice but to stay quiet due to the level of abuse and vilification received”, describing the level of personal attack and social media postings as “unacceptable”.
So, can we please stop this insanity?

Now, we shall see.

Both the postulated silent majority and the anti-cull faction have an equal opportunity to have their voices heard - and I sure hope that the latter is not only composed of social media slacktivists and agitators but that instead, it will make a vigorous attempt at turning things around by fielding rational arguments.
Not really convinced that the WA government will listen - but along with the federal assessment, it's the best opportunity we got.

Recommendations here.

Please make your submission - the clock is ticking!

Fingers crossed!

Micronesia: Ups and Downs!

Not quite done yet - but getting there!

First, the good news.

Palau appears to be doing really well, this at least according to this well-researched article which I invite everybody to read. And, Yap and Pohnpei are well on their way to declaring national Shark Sanctuaries, leaving only Chuuk the odd man out when it comes to creating an awesome regional Micronesian Shark sanctuary .

The bad news being that other Sanctuaries are very much at risk.

Yes I'm of course talking about the threat by NOAA/the NMFS to overturn the Shark fin bans, and about the unholy role WESPAC is playing in the Pacific where on top of  holding sway in the Polynesian American Samoa and Hawaii, they also dictate what happens in the CNMI and in Guam.

And lemme tell you, it looks grim.

After my lasts posts about WESPAC, my inbox got swamped with mail from the islands spilling the beans on the dealings of the council and its members.
The writers are people of stature and I have no reason to doubt their testimonies, the more as the modus operandi appears to be uniformly the same: widespread corruption and cronyism, a general anti-research and anti-conservation agenda but above all, playing the indigenous card by creating a narrative of them against us - whilst at the same time brazenly milking the system in the certitude that the big  honchos in DC will always be too politically correct and spineless to ever ask for any accountability from those self-appointed indigenous leaders.

But of course and albeit being highly plausible, that's ultimately just unsubstantiated hearsay, the more as many of the witnesses are equally too intimidated to stand up in public.

But fear not, there are never the less some people with cojones!

When it comes to Hawaii, WESPAC and the unpalatable Kitty Simonds, you may want to read this (3. The Pacific Resolution ff) - this - this (un-f-believable!!!) - this - this (by indigenous bloggers!) and especially, this!!!

Bravo Patricia Tummons of Environment Hawaii!

And then there's Guam.

Please read Timbo's description of Manny Duenas here.

But now comes the shocking part - Duenas has just been appointed to the Department of Agriculture (that controls fisheries), and the comments already rejoice that he's gonna help restore the oceans back to local hands!

Talk about the fox guarding the chicken coop - and is anybody taking bets on his position regarding the overturning of the Guam Shark fin ban?

The question being.

Why are the mainstream investigative journalists not picking this up, and why is NOAA not investigating?

Like i said, this is the moment to make a stand.

Sign the petitions where the deadline is likely to be extended. - action alerts by Shark Savers here and by Shark Defenders here!

And if you live in the islands, make your voices heard.

It's your ocean, not theirs - and it's about time somebody told them!

Straight from the frothy Piranha Tank!

Bingo!

Remember the jugular-slicing ninjas?

Well, the first salvo in the scientific debate about the validity of those NE Pacific GWS petitions has just been fired - and I may add: just as expected!

This post is required reading.

It is by one of California's preeminent GWS researchers and basically echoes the reservations of the majority of the GWS research community and of the fisheries managers.

It is not anti-GWS, or whatever.

It just states that the Californian GWS are already sufficiently protected and actually very much on the rebound, meaning that the status of that population doesn't warrant investing additional resources into further reaching conservation measures. And did you notice: so far, no comments by any prominent representative of the pro-side - I wonder why! :)

To be continued no doubt.

And I re-iterate my prediction that in the end, there will be CESA but not ESA listing - the former not because it is necessary but because this is CALIFORNIA!

Nice!

Stay tuned!

Hear Hear!

And you ain't a Shark conservationist, either!

Wow.

I just stumbled upon this post by Patric.
Links are mine.

Real change will involve critical thinking.
It will involve taking risks. It will involve dedication beyond online petitions. It will also involve ignoring flashy and ultimately useless efforts that gain media attention and little else - that was the "decade of awareness." 

By now we are all aware that sharks need help.
That help must come in the form of measurable, serious, and dedicated efforts. Anyone can claim victory for sharks but unless there is measurable change, the effort is next to useless.
In the conservation game "the ends do not justify the means."

Yes that was more than three years ago!
Maybe some people may want to start paying attention.

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!

Saving the Bahamas Tigers

There has been a lot of brouhaha about a series of images depicting the killing and butchering of a pregnant Tiger Shark in the Bahamas. Here they are.
I'm obviously outraged and saddened.

Several Shark Diving blogs have posted them along with scathing comments and much energy has been invested in trying to ferret out the perpetrators. So far, it seems, they haven't been identified, nor the exact location and circumstances of this despicable act.

Question is: then what?
Are we going to inundate them with hate mail once we know who they are? Write more blog posts? Contact the mainstream media? Launch petitions?
And if so, is that going to make them behave differently in the future? Is that going to save a single Shark? And even if the answer is yes, would that be the most effective way to channel our frustration?

Thing is, people like that think that we're just a bunch of whackos anyway and could not care less about our opinion.
And why should they. What they do is perfectly legal and "Sport" Fishing has a following numbering in the millions and disposes of a well-organized and powerful lobby that will easily dispose of such a minor inconvenience.
It is also very good business for many Island Nations, one of them being the Bahamas.

Wanna see what those people are really capable of?
I pulled the above pic from the image gallery of Mark "The Shark" Quartiano, a mega-asshole and VIP favorite operating out of not some oscure Third World Country, but Florida, USA. A guy like that doesn't even get nailed when he kills protected species, like the Bigeye Thresher depicted. There are 1073 pictures, 90 pages of murdered Sharks - and this by just one man and one boat!

Keeping that in mind, do you really believe that our outrage and let's face it, our hopelessly incestuous blogging, petitioning and clamoring is going to make any difference at all?
Hardly - unless we take it to the next level.
But if we do, I'm convinced that we do in fact have an excellent chance for success.

No, not in having recreational Shark Fishing banned in general, that would just be delusional.
What we need to do is to heed this as a wake-up call that something has to happen. When it comes to the Tiger Sharks in the Bahamas, I believe that we should stop whining and instead focus our energy on making a real contribution to Conservation, and that right where it really matters to us. As Shark Diver (yes them again..) correctly remarks, now is the time for action and not only words.

Here's what I believe can be done.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm by no means an expert in Bahamian diving and have no clue of the "politics" and the like - but the impression I get is this.

We all know about the uniqueness and popularity of Tiger Beach.
It has been featured "everywhere" and has become one of the world's safest, most reliable and most widely published hotspots for diving with macro Sharks. Everybody who has been there raves about it and it is consequently attracting more and more tourists, film crews and scientists, to the point that bookings have now to be made months in advance - and this despite of an increase of dive Operators targeting that site. It is safe to assume that all of this it is very good business indeed.

On the negative side, lacking any established user protocols, there is an incipient issue of overcrowding. Some documented incidents show a trend towards ever more reckless, and thus dangerous interactions with the Sharks. There is a bitter ongoing feud between the Bahamian dive Operators and those Operators visiting the site from the US. There's another feud between "established" Operators and perceived interlopers. The site's notoriety is also increasingly attracting Shark fishermen who can legally target the animals.

I've said it before, if one disregards the feuds, politics and history, the crux of the problem is that Tiger Beach is not being protected.
Now, wouldn't that be a wonderful opportunity and challenge for somebody? To make a real difference?
Do I hear "Petition", "Ethics", "Image", "Public Opinion" and the like?
C'mon guys - get serious.

In Banking, we have a saying that Money talks, Bullshit walks.
The Bahamas are a poor Island Nation which is desperately dependent on Tourism income. Which begs the question, how much do the Bahamas get from the Shark Tourism to Tiger Beach?
In licensing fees from the Operators? Directly from the Divers? In ancillary revenues by the Tourism Industry as in flights, meals, accomodation, souvenirs, duty free sales, gambling etc etc? In terms of local employment? In berthing fees, fuel sales, shipyard business?

And how much income do the Bahamas derive from the Sport Fishing business?
Get the gist?

Thing is, it doesn't have to be that way.
Think about e.g Cocos or the Galapagos - and the solution could be this.

• Tiger Beach is declared a Marine Sanctuary - and thus fishing there is being outlawed
• there is a code of conduct and access is being regulated
• any Operator wanting to work there will need to obtain and pay for an according license that can be revoked if he infringes on the regulations
  
• when a vessel operates there, there is a daily park fee for the vessel and each of the customers
• ideally, that money is being used for enforcement, along with the obligation, and authority of each Operator to be of assistance

Is there anybody over there in the Bahamas or in the neighboring US who would like to step up to the plate and get the job done? As in, talking to the Bahamian Authorities and having it implemented?

But, I hear you ask, isn't that a mission for somebody "important", a powerful NGO or the like? Hell No! Anybody can do it!

Me, a nobody, did something very similar all by myself in Fiji, and then expanded on the concept with the help of BAD that was created for just that purpose. And I'm proud to report that others are now proudly reporting our achievements!
But I'm digressing. Shame on me.

Back to the Bahamas.
Run the math and you'll see that it's a compelling case, an easy sell.
It's not like you would be asking for some wide-ranging legislation, or the like. In the big scheme of things, Tiger Beach is nothing but a small speck in the middle of nowhere and you would be providing the Authorities with a viable concept, incremental income, good publicity, even the formula for enforcement!
Why would they ever say no? For them, there's only upside!

Will it be tedious, difficult and controversial? Not really!
Will the Operators gnash their teeth and try to convince us that such a measure would mean the demise of the business they run? Sure they will - but, does Cocos work? And the Galapagos? I mean, business-wise? The fact is, Clients love to pay for Conservation and most of the incremental costs could easily be passed on to them. Will their numbers dwindle because of that increase in price? Certainly not!
Granted, the "code of conduct" may deter some of the more "demanding" Clients - but how much of the target customer base would that really be? Provided that the ever-present Huggers don't get the upper hand when formulating the rules (and we can pre-empt that by proposing those rules ourselves), I can very well imagine a set of protocols that would improve on safety whilst still offering a great experience to the Clients. Isn't that what we should be striving for anyway? Wouldn't it be fair to anticipate that a protected site featuring more "orderly" protocols may even attract more Clients?

Makes sense? Any takers?

Hell, it's such a no-brainer that I might even decide to do it myself!
Just imagine the huge blow to the egos , and the reputation of the concerned Operators, Shark lovers and Shark user groups if some loudmouthed bozo from the South Pacific parachuted in and managed to pull this off right in their own back yard!
And if he then would publicly flaunt them for not having protected their own Sharks due to their laziness, narrow-mindedness and petty bickering. After having been shown how to do it!

Because, believe me - and if you don't, go ask my friends: that's exactly what I would do!
And that's a Promise!