The Numbers: The Chickens have come home to roost - again!

Dead Sharks in Kesennuma. No, this NOT about Shark Finning, and no, they have NOT been killed for their fins alone or the like!

Oops indeed!
From my Weekend Rant.
The numbers?
The numbers are just that, numbers.
If one does not put them into context by comparing them to what we know about individual species in specific locations, they say nothing about sustainability which is the only thing that counts.
Yes we all know without having to resort to peer reviewed science that many local, and possibly even some global populations of some Sharks have been severely depleted, and that their disappearance is of concern – but for the time being, that’s basically all we can assert.

So far, there has been one single paper trying to shed a light on the actual numbers being caught, and this only based on data from the Shark fin trade. Read it!
The paper is based on a series of (probably plausible) assumptions that are heaped upon more assumptions, and consequently, the results are merely expressed in orders of magnitude. Specifically, the authors come to the conclusion that the fins traded annually came from between 26 and 73 million Sharks, with a median number of 38 million.
Does that really allow us to honestly state that up to 73 million Sharks are being killed each year, as everybody and his dog has started to assert?
Kudos to Seafood Watch for doing it right: It's estimated that tens of millions of sharks are killed around the world each year for their fins is much better - but then again, have they been killed for their fins?

As I said, the above numbers are only about the global Shark fin trade alone.
They do not cover many other Shark fatalities due to bycatch or targeted food fisheries where the fins are not being introduced into the fin trade. Also, that was then and the trade has very likely increased since. It is thus entirely plausible to assume that the “real” number is higher, and it is perfectly OK to say so.
It is however totally unacceptable to make up numbers on the fly, be it as many as 100 million, let alone over 200,000 million (!!!) which is just plain ludicrous and quite frankly, a total disgrace! Yes, I'm being frank! :)
The good news is that I know that somebody is working on a peer reviewed paper about the global number of Shark being killed – but once again, unless put into context, those numbers will mean absolutely nothing!

And what about the Rate of Depletion?
Is it really true that 90% (or 99, or 70 – whatever!) of global Shark stocks have already been wiped out? Compared to which original baseline count, done when, where and by whom?
Where are the data?

And is it really true that Some marine biologist have suggested as soon as 2020 these magnificent creatures may be extinct – and if so, who is claiming such utter baloney?
Those endangered species of Sharks will become commercially extinct long, long before they will become biologically extinct! But there's a caveat: it is however probable that some local populations may have shrunk to the extent that they may have accumulated extinction debt and that they may be too small to be able to withstand the pressure of a large environmental shock, like the current anthropogenic Climate Change – re-read this post!
...
Also, not every fin that is being sold has been finned!
Statements like over one hundred million sharks are caught and finned alive are thus doubly misleading!
...
If we want to be credible Shark advocates, we got to do our homework and first of all, be informed about the animals we love!
Science is always in flux and today’s insights may quickly become tomorrow’s fallacies, meaning that we must keep abreast of the latest research results and not base our knowledge on old publications and approximate hearsay.
Most importantly, we the amateur naturalists should never make up things on the fly, nor should we idly re-interpret what is considered to be the accepted consensus.

This does not mean that we should not challenge the current status quo, as that is precisely the process by which knowledge is being advanced!
BUT: the only accepted technique for doing so is the Scientific Method and as always, let me warn against the siren calls and intellectual shortcuts of the self promoters, quacks and charlatans - see on top!

All researchers I’ve ever met have always been eager to engage in informed discussions and to entertain different hypotheses, if adequately supported by according observations.
Those researchers are neither omniscient nor omnipresent and often, observations by common mortals like us have greatly contributed to the advancement of scientific insights - so even if you have no academic background, don’t be shy and speak up!
But do your home work first!

Or, as I said before .

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?

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?
Recent example? Right here – like it or not, the man has a point!

If we want to educate others – let’s educate ourselves first!

That was in March.
Now, the lead author of the numbers paper (yes it is open source and available online - read it!) Shelly Clarke, has reached out with a wail of despair about the way Shark advocates are abusing the numbers she has estimated. It's the Shark Con all over again - and talk about a pathetically flat learning curve!

And I cite.

Exaggeration and hyperbole run the risk of undermining conservation campaigns.
Presenting a high but scientifically unsubstantiated number like 100 million can discredit otherwise valuable advocacy for better resource management and monitoring.

Pretty bloody embarrassing huh.
Pretty bloody dangerous too, as now the other side can rightfully claim that the lead author of the only paper dealing with the issue is asserting that Shark conservationists operate with fake data. So as a reminder, here's the actual citation from the paper, hidden somewhere in the general scientific gibberish at the bottom of page 119.
Estimates of the total number of sharks traded annually worldwide, based on all fin positions combined, ranged from 26 to 73 million year^-1 (95% PI), with an overall median of 38 million year ^-1.

Not very helpful is it.
Couldn't she have said it like in her post, i.e. as of 2000, the fins of 38 million sharks per year were being traded through the fin markets, but the number could range as low as 26 million or as high as 73 million? Could she not have put that estimate into the Abstract at the top?
But, it is what it is - and anyway, those numbers mean nothing unless put into context!

Long story short?
We gotta stop exaggerating and making things up - is that so difficult to understand?

Which brings me straight over to the Oxygen.
Claiming (one of dozens, talk about a bloody memetic viral infestation!) that if the Sharks get wiped out we will all suffocate is just total unadulterated rubbish! Period!
And if that were not stupid enough, I already get a whiff of the attempt of linking Sharks and Global Warming! WTF?

How long til that, too, will bite us in the ass?
It is, as always, up to us!