Fishing for Sharks in Fiji - Paper!

Click for detail! 

How times change!

Remember Kerstin's master thesis and subsequent paper about coastal fishing in Fiji? 

Back then when she did her survey a mere five years ago, the data revealed that most caught Sharks were primarily being kept in order to sell the fins to the local bêche-de-mer traders who in turn would export them to Asia.

Not so nowadays.

Kerstin has once again interviewed dozens of fishermen all across Fiji and the news is not good. On top of discovering that indiscriminate overfishing and poaching have very unfortunately become ubiquitous, Shark fishing has fundamentally changed.

As the Asian demand, and thus the prices for the fins have crept ever lower, and as most middlemen have vanished due to the closure of the local bêche-de-mer trade, most caught Sharks are now being caught incidentally and consumed directly by the fishermen themselves. This is very much in line with international developments (and here! and here!) where as the prized Fish are being fished away, the once-eschewed Shark meat is increasingly being consumed as an alternate source of protein.

And where Sharks are still being targeted by small-scale commercial fishermen, it is for the local trade in the Fish markets where Shark meat is being sold as a cheap alternative to chicken and where you can buy a bundle of neonate Sharks for a fistful of dollars, but also in order to sell the fins directly to the local Asian restaurants.

This is obviously of concern.

Whereas trying to manage the fishery by monitoring the trade is comparatively easy, trying to monitor thousands of subsistence fishermen is not; and it is also of particular concern to us to discover that the fishermen are targeting the juveniles of Scalloped Hammerheads and especially Bull Sharks in the river nurseries, see the graph at the top.

Solutions?

Look no further than this commitment by Fiji at the 2017 UN Ocean Conference where I'm highly confident that good things will happen sooner rather than later. And when that eventuates, we will be standing ready to assist with the monitoring and enforcement like announced.

And yes: please Adopt Your Shark Now!

But I'm digressing as always.

Enjoy Kerstin's paper!

 

Coastal Fishing for Sharks in Fiji - Paper!

Finally!

So here are the facts.

Whilst others continue to bullshit the public with tall tales of them spearheading the fight against finning in the SoPac, or whatever, we've decided to finally shed a light on what really happens in Fiji away from the well-documented shenanigans (and here!) by the Tuna long liners.

In essence, we've embarked into a two-month road trip throughout the country - and lemme tell 'ya, it has been epic!

Under Juerg's leadership, we took Swiss masters student Kerstin Glaus to every single coastal village we could reach, see the paper, where she conducted interviews with the local fishermen; and then, we visited some of the principal fish markets in order to verify and collect further evidence.

The results were equally impressive and disturbing.

Contrary to common lore whereby Fijians don't fish for Sharks, we found that local small- and medium-scale subsistence and commercial Shark fishing was very much alive and even on the rise following the defeat of the Shark Sanctuary Campaign but also very much because as Sea Cucumber stocks were being wiped out, the bêche-de-mer traders were increasingly asking for Shark fins as a commercial substitute, and because Sharks were increasingly being consumed as stocks of other more prized Fishes were dwindling.

A first outcome was Kerstin's stellar masters thesis, see at top.

Much more comprehensive than the present paper -and we shall come back to that-, it was the basis of a series of presentations to Fiji's Department of Fisheries that having so far lacked any relevant data, had been largely unaware of the extent of the problem and consequently failed to enact any management measures. Thankfully, this is now changing, also owing to the implementation of the latest protection measures under CITES.

And now this knowledge is finally open source.

But whilst I loved the masters thesis, I'm somewhat underwhelmed by the present paper.

And this is why.

There is bycatch and bycatch.

If a coastal fisherman goes out to net himself some Mullet and having left the net to soak overnight, comes back to find a dead Blacktip Reefie among his catch, then the Shark is genuine bycatch = unplanned, unintended and unwanted.
 

But what about this.
If a spear fisherman sets out to catch himself a Parrotfish for dinner but upon encountering a Blacktip Reefie, decides to shoot it in order to sell its fins, then I hope that we can all agree that the circumstances leading to the Shark's demise are radically different from the first example. Same-same as if that same Parrotfish-hunting spearo ventured across a White Teatfish and decided to collect it in order to pocket its staggering price of 150.00 bucks, notabene for a single individual.

In both these cases, the take is equally unplanned and thus defined as bycatch - but it is certainly very much intended and wanted!

IMO rightfully, Kerstin decided to highlight that difference.

She decided to differentiate between accidental and intentional bycatch, and I cite from her masters thesis.

Several studies indicate that threatened species are also caught as bycatch in artisanal fisheries (Godley et al. 1998, Jaramillo-Legorreta et al. 2007, Peckham et al. 2007). Bycatch is defined as the capture of non-target species or undesired sizes of target species (Lewison et al. 2004). Thus, bycatch is typically discarded. However, bycatch can also be retained as valuable source of income, and hence be sought intentionally (Ebert et al. 2013). Furthermore, the association of intentional bycatch of several marine species with artisanal fisheries has recently been reported (Casale 2011). Therefore, inshore shark species may be increasingly under pressure from local-scale artisanal fisheries...

Respondents who had sharks as bycatch were further divided into accidental and intentional bycatch (further described in chapter 1). The distinction between intentional and accidental bycatch was mainly based on the use of sharks caught. Discard of sharks caught is the main criterion in this study for accidental bycatch. Since non-targeted but used sharks may be caught intentionally, any kind of usage (e.g. fin sale, meat sale, regular and repeated consumption) is regarded as main criterion for intentional bycatch.

Gill-nets and hand-lines are commonly used in artisanal fisheries to target reef finfishes (Pratchett et al. 2011). Therefore, the deployment of lines with catch capacities of around 100 pounds and more is used as a further criterion for intentional bycatch. Moreover, the application of spears and spearguns is considered here as technique used for intentional bycatch, since the intrinsic purpose of that fishing gear excludes accidental bycatch.

And with that in mind, this was the result.

See what I mean?

Suddenly, those otherwise rather innocuous bycatch statistics become highly relevant. As a minimum, they document that catching Sharks has become desirable for well over half of Fiji's coastal fishermen - and we all know all-too-well how that desire will lead to dire consequences!

Case in point: we're definitely losing Bull Sharks at a rather alarming rate!

Alas, the paper's peer reviewers did not agree.

The differentiation between accidental and intentional bycatch was scrapped, IMO much to the detriment of the paper's relevance along with its value for any fisheries management bodies.

Oh well - at least the authorities here know the whole picture.

And one last thing.

Remember the musings about Spinner Sharks in Fiji? 

Kerstin's picture from the Lautoka market has been recently corroborated by this catch in the Rewa. That's not a Blacktip C. limbatus but a Spinner, C. brevipinna - check out the anal fin and compare to this ID guide!

But I'm digressing as always.

Enjoy Kerstin and Juerg's paper!

Sharks in Fiji - Status Report!

Blacktip Reef Shark - one of the species that is increasingly being targeted for food. 
Stellar pic by Ozzie Sam!

So what about Helen's report.

And I cite

So far no significant decrease in coastal shark populations has been seen, good news for those of us fearing that shark-fin fishing was continuing to damage shark stocks, but we can only confirm this one way or the other by continuing these surveys over the long term.

Yes and no!

But first, watch Eli's video!

Bravo Eli, totally agree!

See what I mean?

This is obviously Mexico where the situation appears particularly grim - but having conducted additional investigations that will be disclosed in due course, I can reveal that the situation here in Fiji is slowly trending that way, too. 

Here and throughout the Pacific Islands, coastal fisheries are at risk. 

Much of the fishing is clearly unsustainable and as a consequence, many of the prized big reef Fishes have disappeared at least around the principal islands, or have become simply too expensive - and the once reviled Sharks are being increasingly fished and consumed as an alternative source of protein. Furthermore, Sea Cucumber stocks have all but collapsed, to the point that a single White Teatfish now yields a staggering 150 dollars, notabene to the fisherman - and as a consequence, the traders are diversifying into Shark fins and further driving the depletion of both Sharks but also Guitarfishes whose fins have a high count of ceratotrichia, the ingredient of the infamous soup.

Yes stocks overall show no signs of depletion - yet.

But they do in selected hotspots, and on our dive, we are recording the disappearance of many of our named Shark. So far, numbers-wise, they are being replaced by the many new sub-adults - and incidentally, remember Catlin et al! 

But if I go through the list, old beloved regulars like Kinky, Cilla, Fold, Second, Valerie, Lee, Crease, Twist, possibly Sickle, Moana, Ms Big, Jaws, JJ, Chopper and probably also Scarface have all been MIA for a long time indeed which is really breaking our heart - so you can maybe understand my elation at seeing Bumphead after close to a year of absence!

Solutions?

Obviously, a drastic improvement of the management of all fisheries (= even if we selectively protected the Sharks, how would they survive without their prey?) - for which we need better data!
This combined with much better regulation of the trade - the more since at present, it is not even being regulated by Fisheries but instead, only by the local municipalities! And please, more fully legislated, well enforced and smartly managed full no-take MPAs with sufficient connectivity so that their effect is bigger than the sum of their physical areas, together with the protection of critical habitat like the nurseries and spawning aggregation sites.

And the oceanic Sharks?

There the situation in Fiji is much much better!

Thanks to the remarkable progress and the hard work of many good people at CITES, CMS and the WCPFC, all the principal commercially viable oceanic Sharks with exception of the Blues and Makos are de facto fully protected as Fiji cannot be bothered with all that paperwork and has decided to simply prohibit the fishing, landing and trading of those species. But of course implementation may still be somewhat sketchy, and the important issue of incidental mortality remains largely unresolved.

Solutions?

Possibly better implementation, certainly once again better regulation of the trade and once again, data data data about that incidental mortality!

Long story short?

Fiji's Sharks are still doing relatively well and no, we certainly don't need a Sanctuary that is IMO presently not feasible politically anyway. And we definitely (!) need no more breathy public campaigns and no more trotting out of the usual charlatans that will only piss off the powers that be, the more as they are very much aware of, and are presently actively addressing the problems at hand.

There is no urgent Shark crisis in Fiji - so, let's do things right.

What we do need is sufficient resources in order to assist the Fisheries Department, Customs, Biosecurity, the Police, the Judiciary etc in better implementing the present legislation; what we do need is a new coastal fisheries law that includes smart management strategies; what we do need is new regulation of the trade in marine products; and in the specific case of Sharks, what we do need is better data so we can preempt and intervene when and if necessary.

Any takers for lending a helping hand?

Shark RAT? Guest Post by Ian Campbell!

Shark research, management & conservation intelligentsia meeting in Townsville, see below!

Are you intrigued? :)

Here goes.

Ian Campbell is currently working for WWF’s Global Shark and Ray Initiative running the sustainable management component. He is also a Shark diver and a member of the SRMR management team.

From NGOs to the public and private sector, Ian has over 20 years’ experience in fisheries policy, ecology and fishery management working extensively within both the UK and internationally. Previous employment has included overseeing the reform of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy for the Pew Charitable Trusts, fisheries observer on blue-fin tuna vessels, inshore fisheries management and as a commercial diver in the offshore sector.

Ian holds a Bachelor’s degree in Applied Marine Biology from Heriot-Watt University and a Master degree in Environmental Science from the University of Strathclyde.

This is an important initiative.

Having just returned from a meeting with major stakeholders, see at top, I've asked him whether he wouldn't mind submitting a guest post presenting it to the wider public.

Here is Ian's post.

Shark divers – An underused resource?

Everyone who is even remotely interested in sharks (and rays, don’t forget these charismatic shark pancakes of wonder) is abundantly aware of the pressures they are facing.

Fishing pressure, habitat loss, unsustainable consumption, or even fanciful claims of being “evolved for extinction” everywhere you look they are under the cosh. The pressure that sharks are under have probably best been summed up by the 2014 paper (and here - notice the part about research and data collection?) led by the IUCN Shark Specialist Group which concludes that almost a quarter of all sharks and rays (over 1,000 species assessed) are faced with the very real threat of extinction. Remember, this is not the claims of an environmental NGO, but an independent assessment of the current state of shark and ray populations by 128 experts from 35 different countries. Here’s a simple chart highlighting the different levels of threat.

As you can see, despite what you may hear from some campaigns, not all sharks are threatened, and some are in worse shape than others, but, for WWF, one of the biggest areas of concern is the shaded grey area on the left side of that chart. From all the 1,042 species assessed, 487 are “data deficient”.

Basically, virtually nothing is known about almost half of all sharks and rays.

Effective management and designing plans to reduce mortality is virtually impossible when faced with this lack of basic understanding. Imagine trying to balance your budget without knowing how much money you have in your account to start with, or the amount of interest you are receiving or paying out.

There are a number of conservation initiatives out there which lay claims to conserving sharks, from finning bans to fin trade bans (there’s a difference), from sanctuaries to species protections and from policies to plans. Some of these are more useful than others, but if any of them are to be truly effectual then one thing is key to them all: DATA!

Without a basic understanding of shark and ray populations both around the coast and in offshore waters, then making decisions for the long-term survival of these species is little more than a best guess. Yet there are a multitude of areas rich in information, but not necessarily being channeled in the right direction.

Divers, fishermen, market traders, even shark and ray researchers produce data every day, yet it is surprising how little of it actually makes its way to ministerial departments or independent bodies to assist with informed decisions for conservation. WWF are seeking to bridge this gap. We are developing a project in collaboration with some of the world’s leading shark researchers to create standard methodologies to maximize the benefits from untapped resources.

In 1999, the Food and Agriculture Organisation produced guidelines for countries to undertake a step-by-step process to developing long-term, sustainable shark management plans (known as National Plans of Action, NPOA).

This process seems relatively simple. Firstly, collect data on sharks and rays in the form of a Shark Assessment Report. Then use this data to develop your NPOA. While this does sound simple, and has been done in places like Australia, the EU and NZ (to varying degrees of vigour), the Pacific Islands have had to get by using the limited resources at their disposal. There are some NPOAs currently in existence in the region, such as the Cook Islands and Samoa. Other countries have draft versions waiting government endorsement, such Fiji and Tonga, while some countries such as Palau want to declare shark sanctuaries. These efforts for conservation & long-term planning are great, although all of these measures have one oversight in common. They are built on a lack of data. None of the countries have produced Shark Assessment Reports, so cannot fully know the issues within their territorial waters. This is not the fault of the Pacific Islands, gathering data can be time consuming for departments with limited resources, and the analysis requires specific technical expertise. Organizations such as the FFA and SPC are providing a great service, although their remit extends way beyond just looking at sharks.

So here is where WWF are stepping in.

As mentioned, we are collaborating with shark expertise far and wide to develop our shark ‘Rapid Assessment Tool-kit’ (or shark RAT). The main function of this is to design ways to collect and analyze data on coastal and pelagic sharks that can then be used to produce a Shark Assessment Report. The very basic baseline data in this report can in turn used by governments to develop conservation strategies that are then based on some sort of understanding.

Where is this data going to come from?

Well, there are a lot of sources we will be exploring from genetic and socioeconomic surveys at landing sites to extensive underwater video surveys, but one untapped goldmine is the information collected by divers. In Fiji, there is the Great Fiji Shark Count which is starting to produce comparable info. At present, this isn’t incorporated into management plans, so it’s high time it is.

There are also other things dedicated shark divers can be doing.

Ever been on a surface interval that seems to go on for ages? Sat at the bar for the post-dive drinks to talk about what you saw? How about these hours are spent helping screen underwater video footage that shows what happens at your dive site when no-one is in the water? Pretty much every diver would be able to recognise whether a shark or ray was in shot, and a huge number would even be able to say what species it was. Collecting and screening this type of data would take a massive burden off an already overstretched ministry or fisheries/shark specialist.

Obviously, we are well aware of the multitude of challenges that lay ahead for the project to be fully successful, and some methodologies that may look good on the page may fail spectacularly when introduced to the real world. But we have to try. Improved management for sharks and rays is the only thing that is going to directly reduce mortality. Not shark fin soup campaigns, or putting all your eggs into “ending finning” and certainly not cavorting in swimwear near sharks.

Last week WWF held a 3 day workshop where 12 of the best minds in their respective fields (I’m not including myself, I just took notes and provided the tea and coffee) provided input and direction.

As well as academic researchers from the fields of genetics, citizen science and eco-tourism, we had input from FFA, SPC and SPREP. Everyone we have spoken to has been enthusiastic and willing to support us. The people in attendance will now provide advice and recommendations to the project. Professor Colin Simpfendorfer, the co-chair of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group also gave us a name, although how serious he was is up for debate. WWF now convenes the Pacific Rapid Assessment Tool-kit Scientific Advisory Committee, or PRAT-SAC. Maybe the first thing we need to work on is the name?

The project is embryonic and there is a lot of hard work ahead, but with a little direction, continued enthusiasm and, more importantly, collaboration, then slowly we’ll restore the balance for sharks and rays

Here's to that - thanks buddy, appreciate!

Bringing back the Fish - good enough?

Mountain of Spiny Dogfish - apparently recovered, click for detail. Source.

First things first.

Congratulations, well done.

This report by the NRDC highlights the successes in rebuilding several Fish stocks under the Magnuson–Stevens Act.

For those species, that's great news.

But of course there's a big BUT.

Having checked the full report, I only find mention of one Shark, i.e. the Spiny Dogfish among the winners.

When it comes to the other Sharks, I read this.

Tuna Troubles
A number of migratory fish stocks that are caught in U.S. waters are subject to management under international agreements. The MSA contains an exception to the 10-year rebuilding requirement when management measures under international agreements dictate otherwise. Though multiple factors are at play, this weaker approach to rebuilding has not proved a conservation success: Of the 19 Atlantic highly migratory species of known status managed by NMFS, including multiple tuna, billfish, and shark stocks and stock complexes, 8 are overfished and 1 is approaching an overfished condition—about half of the total.
One relative bright spot is North Atlantic swordfish, which, after becoming overfished by the late 1990s, was put into a rebuilding plan and ultimately declared rebuilt in 2009.

Hmmm.

As far as I understand, those internationally managed species are Swordfish (North Atlantic), Blue Marlin (North Atlantic), White Marlin (North Atlantic), Sailfish (Western Atlantic), Bluefin Tuna (Western Atlantic), Bigeye Tuna (Atlantic), Albacore (North Atlantic), Porbeagle (Atlantic), Blacknose Shark (Atlantic), Dusky Shark (Atlantic), Sandbar Shark (Atlantic), Blacktip Shark (Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico), and the Large Coastal Shark Complex. 

And the Makos, Blue and OWT?

The Large Coastal Shark Complex is listed by its management complex rather than individual stocks. The complex includes Spinner Shark, Silky Shark, Bull Shark, Tiger Shark, Lemon Shark, Nurse Shark, Scalloped Hammerhead Shark, Great Hammerhead Shark, Smooth Hammerhead Shark, Dusky Shark, Bignose Shark, Galapagos Shark, Night Shark, Caribbean Reef Shark, Narrowtooth Shark, Sand Tiger Shark, Bigeye Sand Tiger Shark, Whale Shark, Basking Shark, and White Shark - a whopping 20 additional and completely heterogeneous Sharks that essentially comprise everybody else!

All those species were excluded from the NRDC report.

With that in mind: is it only me - or does that not mean that the report is actually way too rosy, and that the calls for weakening the rules may be actually totally unwarranted?

Does anybody know the status of those Sharks - David?

Is Fiji's Shark Fishing Industry sustainable?

Read this.

I fully agree.

Most of the 130mt of Shark fins exported from Fiji originate from the foreign distant water fleets that call into Fiji to offload their Tuna, with the bulk having been caught outside of Fiji under highly suspect circumstances (and e.g. here). This is thus not primarily (but also!) an issue concerning Fiji's domestic long lining fleet that is comparatively small. 

It however very much concerns Fiji's Shark fin trade.

And what about the coastal Sharks?

Coastal Shark fishing is rampant, targeted, indiscriminate and on the increase - and it is largely unregulated and certainly neither monitored not enforced. I can say this because having conducted a lengthy investigation, we have the data to prove it. Those data are presently being analyzed and interpreted, and will then be handed to the authorities for the formulation of adequate Shark protection and management measures.

So kudos to Coral and Pew for having made this point!

To be continued!

Pew - new Bible!

According to trade data from the Census and Statistics Department of Hong Kong, 83 countries exported more than 10.3 million kilograms (22.7 million pounds) of shark fin products to Hong Kong in 2011 - click for detail!

Kudos, once again, to Pew.

Someone there has been working really, really hard.
The result: the most comprehensive compendium of Shark management and conservation measures to-date. Navigating Global Shark Conservation Measures: Current Measures and Gaps is a remarkable feat of meticulous research and when coupled with the other excellent resources by Pew, it offers all the information and arguments every Shark conservationist should dispose of.

Executive Summary here, full report here - synopses here and here.
Or article here - the Bull is Nani, pic by Vitaly.

Required reading for everybody!

The Numbers - could they be lower?

Read the article - they are finning even the pups!

Back to those 38 million.
I really did like this article about how Shelley Clarke had to beg and cajole in order to get access to the data of the Shark fin traders, and about how difficult it is to get to those numbers and make the proper estimates when working in the real word and away from the desks and couches of the armchair statisticians.

But now comes this.
Listen carefully at 02:25 - the demand has likely gone up but due to the fact that too many Sharks are being caught and are thus becoming more scarce, it may well be that the number of Sharks that are being killed has gone down! And may there already be an effect from having established those sanctuaries and fin trading bans? I wish!
But worry not - in isolation, the numbers mean nothing anyway!

Anyway, check it out!



And if this is true?
Then the trade may have become even more supply limited, with the consequences I continue to talk about, i.e. here, here and here!
Solutions?

Seriously, do read the links and think about it!

Singapore - the Shark Fin industry strikes back!

Infographic by the SOSF - read this!

Gotta hand it to the man.
Dr Choo-hoo Giam (BVSc, MRCVS (England), Member, Animals committee, UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is crafty.
From the document.

By repetition and media advertorials, the world is misled into believing that

• 73 million sharks are killed specifically for their fins

• Most of the fins are cruelly taken from live sharks.

The world is repeatedly told that sharks are endangered, and in a dire strait. The shark status is posited as equivalent to that of the orang utan, panda, gorilla, elephants, and caviar. An examination of the facts, and practices of countries, shows otherwise.

• 1. There are more than 400 shark species.
  It is wrong to say that sharks are endangered. It is akin to saying birds are endangered. Some cockatoos are, but not crows and house sparrows.

• 4. It would seem that no country considers sharks to be globally endangered.
  No country has proposed to list sharks in CITES Appendix I after the listing of the sawfish in 2007. This is not the case with other wildlife. At the last CITES Conference of the Parties (COP), Qatar, 2010, Monaco proposed that the Atlantic blue fin tuna be in Appendix I. This proposal was supported by many countries. Only a few sharks were proposed to be listed in Appendix II. They were all rejected by the meeting.

Of course he is right.
The only verified number we currently dispose of is 38 million (plus or minus) for the number of Sharks whose fins were being traded more than ten years ago. Now, that trade is probably larger and there are obviously also Sharks that are being killed but whose fins are not being traded - but at this point in time, that's all we can really say.
It is also true that not all Sharks are threatened with extinction etc.

The lesson?
We need to stop bullshitting because we will get caught out!

But the man is of course a total moron and hypocrite.
What he says sounds right but is of course bullshit - at best disingenuous and actually nothing more than (crafty) denialism and classical disinformation, and very likely paid for by the Shark fin industry.
A friend informs me that

Despite the "CITES" credentials, Giam and Jenkins are shark fin trade lobbyists with a major conflict of interest. They claim that CITES listing determines whether or not a species is threatened, yet have used their positions within CITES to actively lobby against listing for every shark species (and other marine species) ever proposed for CITES listing.
Not because the species don't meet the criteria --- but because they say that CITES should not regulate ANY marine species.

I actually happen to concur with the latter part as I also think that the best forum for managing, and thus regulating fisheries are local governments and RFMOs - but that's certainly debatable and another story altogether.

The story here is this panel discussion in Singapore.
I've done some digging and found this transcript that depicts a narrative which is, very much unsurprisingly, completely different from the sloppy (or maybe biased?) reporting by the journalists. Much of what has been actually said has merit and that, not the article will be the basis of the following.
And check out this remarkable video.

Prof. Steve Oakley's presentation here!
Now, compare that to the article!

There have also been some reactions.
I must confess that despite of several valid points he raises, I did not like the undertone of David's post - alas!
Sorry buddy, you know that I really do like you - but in the softest possible way, framing the debate in terms of class warfare does not address the problems and just adds another layer of unproductive acrimony. Do we really want to establish fair trade practices that will make it more appealing for those poor people to target Sharks? And what's wrong with managing stocks and advocating sustainability?
But such is the nature of rants - sometimes one (not me!) gets a bit carried away ! :)

Conversely, I am totally impressed by this post by Shark Savers!
Awesome! This is a must read, and the different fact sheets are as good as it gets - do keep them handy as they provide for excellent arguments for any such debates!
Anyway, the post completely dismantles Giam's propaganda and pseudo-arguments and for once, there is really nothing I could possibly add to the debate about this particular event!
Huge kudos!

There's one lesson to be learned however.
Media control is incredibly important! When getting the message out always submit written materials etc - especially when confronting crafty opponents!
The good news: in all the brouhaha, this has ended up by generating excellent pro-Shark media and Giam is now definitely outed as the shit he is! :)

But what about the big picture?
I very much concur with Oakley and Louis: long term, the solution can only consist in strict sustainability and proper management!

Please, do re-read this post - seriously, please do!
So there.

• Like those of most big predatory Fishes, the stocks of most of those Sharks that are being targeted commercially have crashed.
  That's a well documented fact and no amount of rhetoric will ever detract from it. Other Shark populations are equally greatly diminished by wasteful fishing practices like bottom trawling that is ravaging the demersal Sharks, and others have been practically wiped out by too much pressure by too many artisanal fishermen. In that respect, I do not at all subscribe to so-called "indigenous rights" or whatever if it means that those fisheries are not to be managed.
  The above effects are often local/regional rather than global and thus each local/regional fishery must be examined separately.
  
  
• Those depleted stocks must be allowed to recover before we can even begin to start talking about sustainability.
  That recovery will take many years and until that happens (which is unlikely as fishing is certainly not the only threat Sharks face), we the conservationists must continue to push for Shark conservation by every strategy we can possibly think of - including Giam's hypocritical if campaigners want to protect sharks, they should get their governments to ban shark catching!
  We may sometimes differ about what are the best strategies, but certainly not about the ultimate goal!
  
  
• We must also invoke the precautionary principle and turn around the burden of proof.
  Instead of us having to do all the heavy lifting, let the fishermen prove unequivocally and attain independent certification that a particular stock has recovered (not so easy: read this!!!) and that it can be fished sustainably. Doing so is in their very own interest as only sustainable fishing will ensure that the industry (and the jobs and the income) can survive in the long term.
  
  
• Sustainability has to be defined in the broadest possible sense, meaning that the definition has to encompass all aspects of the fishery like population & management parameters but also e.g. fishing techniques (no finning!), bycatch mitigation and collateral effects on the habitat etc - and yes, why not also David's fair trade!
  
  
• But once the criteria have been met, there is no objective reason to prohibit Shark fishing and if by then, people in Asia still want to eat the fins, they can certainly do so.
  Right now, the BC Spiny Dogfish fishery is certified and despite of the widespread reservations against the MSC, at least one researcher deems that the certification is OK. If so, I really see no reason why the fins cannot be consumed - but let the fin traders, not the authorities, prove whether the fins they are selling are legit!
  
  
• Some countries may still opt not to fish for Sharks even if it could be done in sustainable numbers. I'm thinking about those highly tourism dependent island countries where other considerations may prevail, like in this case study from Kiribas. But of course, I'm principally thinking of those countries that have already established sanctuaries and are already reaping the benefits of having done so.
  If so, kudos to them for looking beyond the strict short term!
  

Anyway.
As always, just my two cents!

Trackback.
David's riposte here - now I'm embarrassed! :)
Patric on developing new talking points whilst ditching the old ones here.

The Numbers - more Backlash?

Lookee lookee!
The European Elasmobranch Association is meeting in Berlin - and who is the first keynote speaker? None other than Shelley Clarke who is obviously poised to once again rant against the abuse of her numbers!

I'm of two minds about this.
Yes it is terribly frustrating to see how some of the Sharktivists continue to spew the same old tired nonsense, as in this brand new press release by Sea Shepherds that prattles on about almost 100 million (the "number", if you really want to use one, is 38 million!) and about the oceans providing for up to 80% (really???) of our oxygen, as if the latter had anything to do with Sharks!

On the other hand, Ms Clarke's public wailing is frankly starting to become irritating.
More and more, this is looking like a self serving crusade, the more as everybody and his dog has read her original piece in SeaWeb - especially her audience at that meeting!
I would be much more impressed if Ms Clarke decided to become part of the solution and started working on a new peer reviewed paper about the actual numbers more ten years later - and I would be incredibly impressed and thankful if Bayesian inference or no Bayesian inference, she could provide us with something a little more specific than a number with an error margin of 92%!

Or, may this be no more than some rather thinly veiled angling for funding - and if so, any takers givers?

But that's just cantankerous me.
Others may differ, and I shall undoubtedly hear about the reaction of her fellow researchers, the more as Juerg will be in Berlin to present the results of Kirsty's foray into the arcane realm of the shy-bold continuum.

So, here's to a positive outcome of this controversy!

The Numbers - a Conspiracy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

but much more importantly,

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



But now, I know better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree?

Going going.......

Read this post by WhySharksMatter.

And here are the latest figures (May 2009) published by TRAFFIC, the Wildlife Trade Monitoring Network by the WWF and the IUCN.

The preface to the numbers reads as follows.

REPORTED WORLD SHARK CATCH
Species and species groups
The FAO Fishstat Capture Production database reports capture production of sharks for 100 shark species and a further 30 groups. While there appears to have been some improvement in the level of species-specific reporting in recent years, most shark catch remains recorded in generic shark categories.
In 2007, only 20% of the shark catch data reported to FAO was reported on a species basis (up from 15% in 2003). The remaining 80% was reported as various groupings of shark species with over 35% in the single category of “Sharks, rays, skates etc nei5” and a further 18% in the “Rays, stingrays, mantas nei” category.
Total reported shark catch peaked at just under 900 000 t in 2003, then declined to 750 000 t in 2006 before increasing to 780 000 t in 2007.

Trends in catch by species and generic shark categories in the period 2000 to 2007 are shown in Table 1.
Notable trends in the species-specific data over that period include that reported catch of:
• Blue Shark Prionace glauca continued to increase with catch more than doubling to reach 45 000 t in 2007
• Spiny Dogfish Squalus acanthias halved from 32 000 t to around 16 000 t
• Leafscale Gulper Shark Centrophorous squamosus has fallen from over 3000 t in 2000 to 570 t in 2007
• Pacific Guitarfish Rhinobatus planiceps fell from 2600 t to 20 t in 2006 and no catch was reported in 2007
• Portuguese Dogfish Centroscymnus coelolepis fell from over 4000 t in 2004 to just over 700 t in 2007
• Silky Shark Carcharhinus falciformis fell from over 11 000 t in 2000 to around 2500 t in 2007.

Nei refers to ‘not elsewhere included’
In the generic shark categories, reported catch of:
• “Sharks, rays, skates, etc nei” fell from 413 000 t in 2003 to 291 000 t in 2007
• “Various sharks nei” fell from 33 000 t in 2000 to 783 t in 2007
• “Rays, stingrays, mantas nei” peaked at 221 000 t in 2003, but had fallen to 139 000 t by 2007
• “Dogfish sharks nei” increased from 9000 t to 19 000 t, while “Dogfishes and hounds nei” fell from around 3000 t to around 1200 t
• “Raja rays nei” increased from around 6300 t in 2000 to just under 45 000 t in 2007
• “Mantas, devil rays nei” increased from 900 t to over 3300 t
• “Thresher sharks nei” increased from just over 500 t to around 16 000 t in 2007
• “Hammerhead sharks etc nei” increased from around 2000 t to over 3600 t.

As noted above, trends in the data are, however, difficult to interpret.
It is unclear, for example, whether a decline in reported catch of a species represents a decline in abundance, deterioration in reporting of catch data or improvements in species identification which results, over time, in transfer of reported catch from generic categories to species categories. Further, declines in overall shark catch may reflect the impact of stricter national and/or regional controls on shark catch and by-catch, or on fisheries for species in which sharks are taken as by-catch.

You will have to click the pics to get a better magnification

Yes the figures are probably difficult to interpret.
But see the Silkies and Oceanic Whitetips? Going going........
And how they are slaughtering the Blues, Scalloped Hammerheads and Makos?
Luckily the Bulls and coastal Sharks in general seem much less affected. Fingers crossed!

And here are the perpetrators:

Table 3: Average catch of key shark catchers, 2000–2007 (t)

1 Indonesia 110 528
2 India 70 758
3 Spain 57 685
4 Taiwan 48 493
5 Mexico 34 535
6 Pakistan 34 270
7 Argentina 33 639
8 USA 29 909
9 Japan 25 930
10 Malaysia 24 500
11 Thailand 24 156
12 France 22 328
13 Sri Lanka 22 029
14 Brazil 20 498
15 New Zealand 18 260
16 Portugal 15 137
17 UK 14 301

Do you still think this is just an "Asian" problem?
Well - think again.