Click, and then click again for (grim) detail! Source.
Showing posts with label Food for Thought. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Food for Thought. Show all posts
Friday, June 15, 2012
Sunday, January 01, 2012
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Managing Shark Stocks - a new Commission?
Shark stocks continue to be on the decline.
This is obviously just a part of the larger picture.
Despite of a plethora of orgs that try to monitor and manage Fish stocks, it appears that those efforts have so far fallen well short of attaining the aim of achieving the sustainable management of fisheries and the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems.
This is where this new paper fits in.
It advocates the creation of a new international commission for the conservation and management of Sharks that would be comparable to the IWC but at the same time, avoid the various shortcomings of that organization.
Hmmm...
Whereas I instinctively cringe at the thought of yet another layer of bureaucracy, it is however evident that the problem is global and requires a coordinated global approach - however with ample scope for regional solutions that reflect the fact that there are huge differences between species, habitats and geographical locations.
Food for thought.
Abstract
The current rate of shark global exploitation and mortality is arguably so high under current management regimes that unless a renewed initiative is undertaken some species of shark will become effectively extinct.
Current efforts to sustainably manage shark mortality are driven primarily by domestic laws in a few countries, big international non-governmental organizations (BINGOs) promoting environmental laws in the countries or regions where they exist, a handful of regional fisheries management organizations (e.g., IATTC and ICCAT), and inter-governmental organizations such as CITES.
The absence of enforcement capability is often argued as the critical component in the failure to protect sharks from overexploitation.
The remedy advanced here goes far beyond the need for stepped up enforcement, and calls for the creation of an entirely new international management regime, the International Commission for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (ICCMS). Such an agency could learn from the experiences of management bodies tasked with conservation of species biologically similar to sharks, such as the International Whaling Commission (IWC), to improve its efficacy. Critics have identified many organizational flaws that reduced the IWC’s effectiveness during its earliest years. Some of those flaws are examined here and remedies are suggested that an ICCMS could use to create a more effective management regime. The life histories of elasmobranches and large whales are compared to illustrate their similarities as a biological foundation for the selection of the IWC as a model.
5. Conclusions and discussion
Now is the time to establish an effective international body dedicated to sustainably manage and conserve shark species.
Many shark populations continue to decline and the status of others is unknown, often because of the absence of basic demographic information. As noted, the category of shark is a subset of the larger group of elasmobranches. This document focuses upon sharks because they are generally wider ranging, and of greater public appeal. Nevertheless, an organization such as described in this paper would inevitably consider all elasmobranchs.
Amongst the differences between shark and cetacean species is that the former are a significant component of incidental catch in longline and trawl fisheries.
Cetaceans occasionally become entangled in fishing gear, but the level of incidental catch for most species is relatively low compared to sharks. Unlike sharks, cetacean interactions with fishing gear are more frequently the result of specific targeting by fishers than by incidental bycatch. Consequently, fishers targeting cetaceans have more control over which species are landed.
The survival of any species ultimately rests on the health of its supporting populations.
Monitoring the status of many marine species often requires observed individuals to act as a proxy for the rest of the populations hidden beneath the surface of the ocean. This raises a second key difference between sharks and cetaceans; the necessity of the latter to breathe at the surface makes them far more visible and more avoidable. Because the biology of sharks do not require regular trips to the surface, none of the techniques used to assess and monitor cetacean populations are viable for monitoring shark populations, making estimation of shark abundance and demography far more difficult. For this reason, it is common to estimate the size of an entire shark population by extrapolation from a limited number of individual observations based on incidental bycatch, using stock assessment models.
Establishing an ICCMS could provide a repository for shark population data, potentially increasing the accuracy of management tools, such as stock assessment models.
Retrospective analyses of international organizations have facilitated the identification of many of the problems that reduced the effectiveness of the IWC during its formative years. An ICCMS is likely to face many of the same problems encountered by the IWC. For an ICCMS to be effective it must establish rules that allow selective incentives to be used to improve cooperation during decision making. It must also establish inter-governmental organization to promote its goals and objectives on an international stage.
Potentially of greatest importance is the establishment of relationships with epistemic communities.
The international community is more interconnected than ever before. Likewise, the relationships between independent scientists, government representatives, and members of epistemic communities are more intimate. This intimacy is likely to be the most effective tool an ICCMS would have to address the need for international management of sharks.
The issues involved in managing a highly migratory, straddling stocks like sharks, requires both international cooperation and domestic involvement and resource allocation.
Effective management of sharks is simultaneously too international and too local for any one group to effectively address the problem, a sentiment echoed as a fundamental principle underlying the CMSMoU on sharks.
An ICCMS would represent the physical embodiment of the conservation goals and cooperative efforts needed to sustainably manage shark resources.
Such an entity could be vital in addressing some of the most basic questions facing shark management and conservation, such as the extent of these specific stock declines and the methods most suitable for evaluating them. Without an ICCMS, the current management of shark species will likely remain unchanged with little chance of sustainably managing any shark stocks on a global scale. Likewise, without such an entity there will be no global check on the wasteful practice of shark finning.
The need for taking action to sustainably manage and conserve species of sharks is incontrovertible.
Whether an ICCMS is the optimal solution or action is debatable, and likely will be debated by colleagues in the now extensive epistemic community. For these reasons and for brevity, this paper does not propose the specific structure for an ICCMS despite highlighting ways such an entity could address the shortcomings of the IWC.
5.1. Afterward
Sharks are among the most threatened groups of marine species.
This paper has emphasized shark conservation and management issues drawing the attention of international governmental organizations and big international non-governmental organizations (BINGOs). The entities currently involved with international shark conservation and management range from the Food and Agriculture (FAO) of the United Nations (UN) via the International Plan of Action (IPOA-Sharks) and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); to Regional Fisheries Management Organizations; and international governmental organizations such as the Convention on Migratory Species and Wild Animals (CMS) and the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES); and organizations such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), as well as many others.
Despite these international efforts, increasing demand for shark fins and cartilage, sport fishing, and bycatch have led to the depletion of shark stocks that are 30% lower than two decades ago, and the lack of adequate conservation measure continues to drive several species close to extinction.
These words paraphrase a summary of a February 2010 CMS meeting and the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the conservation of migrating shark species.
It is serendipity that this meeting occurred just after acceptance of this paper by Marine Policy. The MOU would limit fisheries-related mortality of sharks to sustainable levels, with an emphasis on 7 species in particular [great white, basking, whale(shark), porbeagle, spiny dogfish, shortfin, and longfin mako sharks], but excludes other important shark species. Although the MOU prohibits the contentious practice of shark finning, mortality from bycatch and recreational fishing is not considered.
Despite the signing of the MOU by many of the CMS participating delegates, some key countries refused to sign, despite its non-binding nature.
The CMS meeting was followed the next month by CITES’ 15th Conference of Parties.
The meeting considered a slate of proposals, including protection of 8 shark species under Appendix II, and the Atlantic bluefin tuna under Appendix I. The 8 shark species denied listings were: the porbeagle, the scalloped, great, and smooth hammerheads, oceanic whitetip, and the spiny dogfish. The sandbar and dusky sharks were withdrawn and not proposed. Approval for listing would have limited trade on these species.
Signing of the CMSMOU, while non-binding, signaled a limited willingness by a few nations to take tangible, multi-lateral, steps toward shark conservation. The lack of action to list several shark species under the CITES appendices suggests an unwillingness to take more binding action.
The truly unfortunate aspect of failing to list these species under CITES, is that CITES can more effectively promote conservation because listing allows a country to enforce the trade limitations of Appendix I or II, regardless of whether capture occurred within its own EEZ or not. Failure to list the bluefin tuna, despite a local RFMO, further reinforces the point of this paper.
The effectiveness of an ICCMS will likely depend on a multi-pronged approach that engages member nations and promotes willingness to look beyond self-interest, as well as engaging non-governmental groups with the potential to promote shark conservation and management.
This is obviously just a part of the larger picture.
Despite of a plethora of orgs that try to monitor and manage Fish stocks, it appears that those efforts have so far fallen well short of attaining the aim of achieving the sustainable management of fisheries and the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems.
This is where this new paper fits in.
It advocates the creation of a new international commission for the conservation and management of Sharks that would be comparable to the IWC but at the same time, avoid the various shortcomings of that organization.
Hmmm...
Whereas I instinctively cringe at the thought of yet another layer of bureaucracy, it is however evident that the problem is global and requires a coordinated global approach - however with ample scope for regional solutions that reflect the fact that there are huge differences between species, habitats and geographical locations.
Food for thought.
Abstract
The current rate of shark global exploitation and mortality is arguably so high under current management regimes that unless a renewed initiative is undertaken some species of shark will become effectively extinct.
Current efforts to sustainably manage shark mortality are driven primarily by domestic laws in a few countries, big international non-governmental organizations (BINGOs) promoting environmental laws in the countries or regions where they exist, a handful of regional fisheries management organizations (e.g., IATTC and ICCAT), and inter-governmental organizations such as CITES.
The absence of enforcement capability is often argued as the critical component in the failure to protect sharks from overexploitation.
The remedy advanced here goes far beyond the need for stepped up enforcement, and calls for the creation of an entirely new international management regime, the International Commission for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (ICCMS). Such an agency could learn from the experiences of management bodies tasked with conservation of species biologically similar to sharks, such as the International Whaling Commission (IWC), to improve its efficacy. Critics have identified many organizational flaws that reduced the IWC’s effectiveness during its earliest years. Some of those flaws are examined here and remedies are suggested that an ICCMS could use to create a more effective management regime. The life histories of elasmobranches and large whales are compared to illustrate their similarities as a biological foundation for the selection of the IWC as a model.
5. Conclusions and discussion
Now is the time to establish an effective international body dedicated to sustainably manage and conserve shark species.
Many shark populations continue to decline and the status of others is unknown, often because of the absence of basic demographic information. As noted, the category of shark is a subset of the larger group of elasmobranches. This document focuses upon sharks because they are generally wider ranging, and of greater public appeal. Nevertheless, an organization such as described in this paper would inevitably consider all elasmobranchs.
Amongst the differences between shark and cetacean species is that the former are a significant component of incidental catch in longline and trawl fisheries.
Cetaceans occasionally become entangled in fishing gear, but the level of incidental catch for most species is relatively low compared to sharks. Unlike sharks, cetacean interactions with fishing gear are more frequently the result of specific targeting by fishers than by incidental bycatch. Consequently, fishers targeting cetaceans have more control over which species are landed.
The survival of any species ultimately rests on the health of its supporting populations.
Monitoring the status of many marine species often requires observed individuals to act as a proxy for the rest of the populations hidden beneath the surface of the ocean. This raises a second key difference between sharks and cetaceans; the necessity of the latter to breathe at the surface makes them far more visible and more avoidable. Because the biology of sharks do not require regular trips to the surface, none of the techniques used to assess and monitor cetacean populations are viable for monitoring shark populations, making estimation of shark abundance and demography far more difficult. For this reason, it is common to estimate the size of an entire shark population by extrapolation from a limited number of individual observations based on incidental bycatch, using stock assessment models.
Establishing an ICCMS could provide a repository for shark population data, potentially increasing the accuracy of management tools, such as stock assessment models.
Retrospective analyses of international organizations have facilitated the identification of many of the problems that reduced the effectiveness of the IWC during its formative years. An ICCMS is likely to face many of the same problems encountered by the IWC. For an ICCMS to be effective it must establish rules that allow selective incentives to be used to improve cooperation during decision making. It must also establish inter-governmental organization to promote its goals and objectives on an international stage.
Potentially of greatest importance is the establishment of relationships with epistemic communities.
The international community is more interconnected than ever before. Likewise, the relationships between independent scientists, government representatives, and members of epistemic communities are more intimate. This intimacy is likely to be the most effective tool an ICCMS would have to address the need for international management of sharks.
The issues involved in managing a highly migratory, straddling stocks like sharks, requires both international cooperation and domestic involvement and resource allocation.
Effective management of sharks is simultaneously too international and too local for any one group to effectively address the problem, a sentiment echoed as a fundamental principle underlying the CMSMoU on sharks.
An ICCMS would represent the physical embodiment of the conservation goals and cooperative efforts needed to sustainably manage shark resources.
Such an entity could be vital in addressing some of the most basic questions facing shark management and conservation, such as the extent of these specific stock declines and the methods most suitable for evaluating them. Without an ICCMS, the current management of shark species will likely remain unchanged with little chance of sustainably managing any shark stocks on a global scale. Likewise, without such an entity there will be no global check on the wasteful practice of shark finning.
The need for taking action to sustainably manage and conserve species of sharks is incontrovertible.
Whether an ICCMS is the optimal solution or action is debatable, and likely will be debated by colleagues in the now extensive epistemic community. For these reasons and for brevity, this paper does not propose the specific structure for an ICCMS despite highlighting ways such an entity could address the shortcomings of the IWC.
5.1. Afterward
Sharks are among the most threatened groups of marine species.
This paper has emphasized shark conservation and management issues drawing the attention of international governmental organizations and big international non-governmental organizations (BINGOs). The entities currently involved with international shark conservation and management range from the Food and Agriculture (FAO) of the United Nations (UN) via the International Plan of Action (IPOA-Sharks) and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); to Regional Fisheries Management Organizations; and international governmental organizations such as the Convention on Migratory Species and Wild Animals (CMS) and the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES); and organizations such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), as well as many others.
Despite these international efforts, increasing demand for shark fins and cartilage, sport fishing, and bycatch have led to the depletion of shark stocks that are 30% lower than two decades ago, and the lack of adequate conservation measure continues to drive several species close to extinction.
These words paraphrase a summary of a February 2010 CMS meeting and the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the conservation of migrating shark species.
It is serendipity that this meeting occurred just after acceptance of this paper by Marine Policy. The MOU would limit fisheries-related mortality of sharks to sustainable levels, with an emphasis on 7 species in particular [great white, basking, whale(shark), porbeagle, spiny dogfish, shortfin, and longfin mako sharks], but excludes other important shark species. Although the MOU prohibits the contentious practice of shark finning, mortality from bycatch and recreational fishing is not considered.
Despite the signing of the MOU by many of the CMS participating delegates, some key countries refused to sign, despite its non-binding nature.
The CMS meeting was followed the next month by CITES’ 15th Conference of Parties.
The meeting considered a slate of proposals, including protection of 8 shark species under Appendix II, and the Atlantic bluefin tuna under Appendix I. The 8 shark species denied listings were: the porbeagle, the scalloped, great, and smooth hammerheads, oceanic whitetip, and the spiny dogfish. The sandbar and dusky sharks were withdrawn and not proposed. Approval for listing would have limited trade on these species.
Signing of the CMSMOU, while non-binding, signaled a limited willingness by a few nations to take tangible, multi-lateral, steps toward shark conservation. The lack of action to list several shark species under the CITES appendices suggests an unwillingness to take more binding action.
The truly unfortunate aspect of failing to list these species under CITES, is that CITES can more effectively promote conservation because listing allows a country to enforce the trade limitations of Appendix I or II, regardless of whether capture occurred within its own EEZ or not. Failure to list the bluefin tuna, despite a local RFMO, further reinforces the point of this paper.
The effectiveness of an ICCMS will likely depend on a multi-pronged approach that engages member nations and promotes willingness to look beyond self-interest, as well as engaging non-governmental groups with the potential to promote shark conservation and management.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Is this effective? And is it efficient?
Check this out.
"Even KILLER Sharks"???
Hmmmmmmm...
Who, exactly, is this targeting anyway?
And to what purpose? To convince the Shark fishermen to desist from finning the Sharks they catch? To precipitate anti-finning legislation? Will it motivate people not to eat Shark fin soup? Or, to ask that the soup they consume is from fins that have not been finned (now, here's a thought!)?
Plus, how many redundant anti-finning initiatives and PSAs does the "cause" really need?
Being the usual party pooper and like in the case of the Beijing billboards, I cannot but wonder.
If it is true that Shark fisheries are supply limited, we need to talk sustainability and not prohibition. If we want to achieve tangible results, we will have to compromise and not demonize - then, once we sit at the negotiating table, we will have a shot at influencing how many animals get killed, where, when and how. And when spending money for conservation and science, we should do so in the most effective and efficient way possible.
Mind you, just my 2¢.
Hmmmmmmm...
Who, exactly, is this targeting anyway?
And to what purpose? To convince the Shark fishermen to desist from finning the Sharks they catch? To precipitate anti-finning legislation? Will it motivate people not to eat Shark fin soup? Or, to ask that the soup they consume is from fins that have not been finned (now, here's a thought!)?
Plus, how many redundant anti-finning initiatives and PSAs does the "cause" really need?
Being the usual party pooper and like in the case of the Beijing billboards, I cannot but wonder.
If it is true that Shark fisheries are supply limited, we need to talk sustainability and not prohibition. If we want to achieve tangible results, we will have to compromise and not demonize - then, once we sit at the negotiating table, we will have a shot at influencing how many animals get killed, where, when and how. And when spending money for conservation and science, we should do so in the most effective and efficient way possible.
Mind you, just my 2¢.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Senseless Duplication
1,030,000.
That's the number of entries that pop up when one googles "Shark Preservation".
I learned this when reading Oceanminds' post The Plethora of Non Profits: An Ego Battle after having been alerted to it by this post on Oceanic Dreams. Like Felix, I am impressed.
So true!
So much senseless duplication of efforts, fragmentation, inefficiency, squandering of resources and energy, useless overhead! Not to mention the Egos!
Kudos to Nico.
But: is anybody going to learn anything from it? As in promoting more joint efforts - all the way to -horribile dictu!- creating synergies via proper mergers like the real world?
Yes, Mergers!
As in: new name, less bureaucracy, more efficiency!
Yes I know, and pigs will fly!
Still, let's keep this one in mind, shall we.
That's the number of entries that pop up when one googles "Shark Preservation".
I learned this when reading Oceanminds' post The Plethora of Non Profits: An Ego Battle after having been alerted to it by this post on Oceanic Dreams. Like Felix, I am impressed.
So true!
So much senseless duplication of efforts, fragmentation, inefficiency, squandering of resources and energy, useless overhead! Not to mention the Egos!
Kudos to Nico.
But: is anybody going to learn anything from it? As in promoting more joint efforts - all the way to -horribile dictu!- creating synergies via proper mergers like the real world?
Yes, Mergers!
As in: new name, less bureaucracy, more efficiency!
Yes I know, and pigs will fly!
Still, let's keep this one in mind, shall we.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Feedback Loop!
What do the Great Auk, Caviar, Napoleon Wrasse and the Peppermint Angelfish have in common with the Shark Diving Industry?
The answer is that they may be subject to the Anthropogenic Allee Effect.
Obvious, no?
Always on the hunt for something noteworthy, I stumbled across the term when leafing through Christie Lynn's remarkable Blog Observations of a Nerd. May all nerds be like her!
It concerns us very much as it means that the rarity of a species may increase its value.
This in turn will increase our demand for it and thus, increase the likelihood that we will be the direct cause for its extinction - as opposed to "natural causes" as in population bottlenecks or the difficulty to find equally rare mates.
The relevant scientific paper, a must-read, presents an alarming list of empirical evidence in support of the hypothesis. Some of it describes past mistakes but alas, most of it concerns the present.
Many of the Categories listed are indeed pretty obvious, like
Hobby Collections (rare Shells, birds' eggs and yes, the Auk)
Trophy Hunting
Luxury Items (caviar, abalone, furs, the Napoleon Wrasse and I would add: soon, Sushi and Shark fins, too!)
Exotic pets (e.g. some aquarium Fishes like the Peppermint Angelfish)
Traditional Medicine (as in Chinese - and what about this despicable new-age Quackery as in Shark cartilage pills and Shark Squalene?)
What however really caught my attention was this: Ecotourism!
This is what they write.
Ecotourism ventures have expanded greatly in recent years, with the public increasingly wanting to experience a closeness to natural ecosystems or species.
Such activities often involve encountering and/or observing rare species. Given that some ecotourism activities have been shown to generate disturbances that are detrimental to the fitness of observed species [21–23], we can assume that rare species, especially those that are charismatic, will be disproportionately impacted upon by ecotourism.
Consequently, activities such as observing rare birds, whales, primates, or nesting sea turtles have the potential to generate an AAE, especially when the animals are globally rare but with reliable sightings locally.
For example, Bain [21] studied the relationships between the number of killer whales Orcinus orca in the Southern resident population (eastern North Pacific) and the number of boats registered for conducting killer whale watching tours. He found a significant inverse relationship between the number of boats observed in one year with the whale population size recorded the subsequent year. Motorized boats are known to cause disturbances to whales and lower their fitness [21]. More interestingly, there was also an inverse relationship between the decreasing whale population size recorded during one year, and the increasing size of the boat fleet the next year, indicating that contrary to expected economics, the increasing rarity of that population of killer whales did not immediately stop whale watching but may have in fact stimulated it [21]. In 2001, the number of boats in the commercial whale watching fleet exceeded the number of killer whales in the population.
.......
Because among the activities presented here, several are primarily stimulated by people interested in nature, it is important that these people are aware of and have an understanding of the potential effect their actions may have on the very species they appreciate. Consequently, informing potential ecotourists, collectors, and pet owners may in part facilitate the process of reducing the likelihood of an AAE and thus the impact on the species that are the targets of these activities.
How the trade of rare species should be regulated is a vast and ongoing debate.
The finding that rarity itself could be a criterion for immediate threat to a species because of the psychological and economic value people attach to it is, however, a new and important piece of information in the battle to preserve biodiversity.
At the very least, this finding should lead to the realization that declaring a species too rare to be subjected to legal transactions could be dangerous for the species if it cannot be fully protected. At most, it is hoped that such information could change our rationale on the manner in which biodiversity is perceived and exploited.
Food for Thought, isn't it?
May we be contributing to the demise of charismatic large, threatened and thus, increasingly rare Sharks by showcasing them to the public at large, especially when we "open up" or even, like in our case, create Shark hotspots?
It's really a difficult one but the answer I believe is this.
I've blogged about it before, here and here: like the paper suggests, we have an obligation (Patric: again, well said!) to educate the public but above all, to protect the resource we exploit.
This is the only way forward, especially when it comes to the Shark Diving Industry that deals with animals that are regularly demonized (yes, this has pissed me off - unbelievable!) on top of being severely threatened.
It's an ethical imperative - and it is good business, too!
Thankfully, many of us have come to realize this and the number of awesome and fully integrated Shark viewing eco-businesses is on a steady rise. And I may add: look at South Africa and the Maldives for excellence, vision and guidance!
It is as Patric said: grow up, step up, clean up and get it done!
Or else, get out of the way!
The answer is that they may be subject to the Anthropogenic Allee Effect.
Obvious, no?
Always on the hunt for something noteworthy, I stumbled across the term when leafing through Christie Lynn's remarkable Blog Observations of a Nerd. May all nerds be like her!
It concerns us very much as it means that the rarity of a species may increase its value.
This in turn will increase our demand for it and thus, increase the likelihood that we will be the direct cause for its extinction - as opposed to "natural causes" as in population bottlenecks or the difficulty to find equally rare mates.
The relevant scientific paper, a must-read, presents an alarming list of empirical evidence in support of the hypothesis. Some of it describes past mistakes but alas, most of it concerns the present.
Many of the Categories listed are indeed pretty obvious, like
Hobby Collections (rare Shells, birds' eggs and yes, the Auk)
Trophy Hunting
Luxury Items (caviar, abalone, furs, the Napoleon Wrasse and I would add: soon, Sushi and Shark fins, too!)
Exotic pets (e.g. some aquarium Fishes like the Peppermint Angelfish)
Traditional Medicine (as in Chinese - and what about this despicable new-age Quackery as in Shark cartilage pills and Shark Squalene?)
What however really caught my attention was this: Ecotourism!
This is what they write.
Ecotourism ventures have expanded greatly in recent years, with the public increasingly wanting to experience a closeness to natural ecosystems or species.
Such activities often involve encountering and/or observing rare species. Given that some ecotourism activities have been shown to generate disturbances that are detrimental to the fitness of observed species [21–23], we can assume that rare species, especially those that are charismatic, will be disproportionately impacted upon by ecotourism.
Consequently, activities such as observing rare birds, whales, primates, or nesting sea turtles have the potential to generate an AAE, especially when the animals are globally rare but with reliable sightings locally.
For example, Bain [21] studied the relationships between the number of killer whales Orcinus orca in the Southern resident population (eastern North Pacific) and the number of boats registered for conducting killer whale watching tours. He found a significant inverse relationship between the number of boats observed in one year with the whale population size recorded the subsequent year. Motorized boats are known to cause disturbances to whales and lower their fitness [21]. More interestingly, there was also an inverse relationship between the decreasing whale population size recorded during one year, and the increasing size of the boat fleet the next year, indicating that contrary to expected economics, the increasing rarity of that population of killer whales did not immediately stop whale watching but may have in fact stimulated it [21]. In 2001, the number of boats in the commercial whale watching fleet exceeded the number of killer whales in the population.
.......
Because among the activities presented here, several are primarily stimulated by people interested in nature, it is important that these people are aware of and have an understanding of the potential effect their actions may have on the very species they appreciate. Consequently, informing potential ecotourists, collectors, and pet owners may in part facilitate the process of reducing the likelihood of an AAE and thus the impact on the species that are the targets of these activities.
How the trade of rare species should be regulated is a vast and ongoing debate.
The finding that rarity itself could be a criterion for immediate threat to a species because of the psychological and economic value people attach to it is, however, a new and important piece of information in the battle to preserve biodiversity.
At the very least, this finding should lead to the realization that declaring a species too rare to be subjected to legal transactions could be dangerous for the species if it cannot be fully protected. At most, it is hoped that such information could change our rationale on the manner in which biodiversity is perceived and exploited.
Food for Thought, isn't it?
May we be contributing to the demise of charismatic large, threatened and thus, increasingly rare Sharks by showcasing them to the public at large, especially when we "open up" or even, like in our case, create Shark hotspots?
It's really a difficult one but the answer I believe is this.
I've blogged about it before, here and here: like the paper suggests, we have an obligation (Patric: again, well said!) to educate the public but above all, to protect the resource we exploit.
This is the only way forward, especially when it comes to the Shark Diving Industry that deals with animals that are regularly demonized (yes, this has pissed me off - unbelievable!) on top of being severely threatened.
It's an ethical imperative - and it is good business, too!
Thankfully, many of us have come to realize this and the number of awesome and fully integrated Shark viewing eco-businesses is on a steady rise. And I may add: look at South Africa and the Maldives for excellence, vision and guidance!
It is as Patric said: grow up, step up, clean up and get it done!
Or else, get out of the way!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
