Inverted Trophic Pyramids? Not so fast!

Bingo - watch.

Those inverted trophic pyramids are bullshit.

Stories here and here: all excellent stuff so no need for synopses and interpretations.

Paper here - read it, it's open access!

Well what can I say.

First and foremost, bless Darcy and Yannis et al, very well done!

But I must also say that for me, this was a given anyway.

I've been a traveling diver for more than 40 years, and some of my friends for decades longer than that; and having once again asked some of those friends, and with the obvious exception of the known aggregation spots: none of us remembers anything even remotely resembling Sala's hypothesized Shark Eden - and lemme tell 'ya, we all have been to some locations that back then were mighty remote and mighty pristine and certainly not overfished!

Don't get me wrong here.

Back then, those reefs were teeming with life, with amazing coral, heaps upon heaps of fishes including numerous large predators among which Sharks, see e.g. here, meaning that the postulated biodiversity loss and the shifting baselines are more than real and cause for great concern - but again, even those absolutely magic spots were nothing like what Sala et al would have us believe!

Long story short?

Prima vista, not to worry.

Re-examining and possibly, falsifying previous scientific findings is quite normal and in fact, dissent is often how science and our knowledge progress.

But this is now a pattern.

Starting with the bloody numbers where some quarters continue to recklessly disregard the latest peer reviewed science (and no you fucking morons, you did not fucking "find" 80 million "missing" Sharks - you know who you are!); to the bloody tourism numbers (and here!); to the bloody oxygen BS; to the bloody exploding Cownose Rays; to all the bloody pseudoscience surrounding e.g the thorny issue of Shark strikes, or those Shark repellents, or Shark feeding, etc; to those bloody petitions - and now those bloody inverted pyramids: all-too-often all that spurious garbage is being commissioned, or outright invented by so-called Shark conservation circles, this sometimes in the misguided opinion that it may constitute good marketing for the "cause".

It is not.

It is just spurious garbage - and like I never cease to repeat, it is bad conservation as the truth will eventually emerge, incidentally often at great expense of resources that could have otherwise been invested in better undertakings. Plus, the reality is already so dire that there's absolutely no need for all that hyperbole!

Can we please stop with this shit and tell it as it is?

Which brings me straight over to this op ed - read it!

I can certainly see where Shelley is coming from. 

Near Threatened (by the conservation-friendly IUCN no less!) equals NOT Threatened, and from a formal standpoint, this outcome was most certainly based on breathy marketing and not fact, and as such the wrong decision - and we can only hope that it doesn't eventually end up biting us all in the arse!

Again, we really need to stop those shenanigans!

But having said that, 

I must confess that given my advocacy for a change of paradigms (and here), I applaud any Appendix II listing because of the mandated NDFs; and I certainly fervently believe the precautionary principle to very much be one of the tools of public policy = e.g. specifically when declaring Shark sanctuaries as stop gap measures pending the implementation of proper Shark fisheries management, especially in lesser developed countries!

But all-in-all, fully agree, especially about the demise of expertise - so well said!

But I'm digressing as usual.

Great paper and great op-ed - and should you have some spare time, you may also want to consult this syllabus about bullshit! :)

Enjoy!

Shelley!

Source.

Check this out!

Yes that would be she, the one and only!

We met serendipitously a few years ago - and lemme tell you, it has been quite a revelation! Turns out that Shelley is very much one of the good ones, very impressive both professionally and as a person, and I've become a huge fan. And if you haven't read her latest papers, click on the above link and do - and above all, learn, especially that operating with faulty numbers and under faulty assumptions is doomed to fail!

We've since kept in touch and I must say that I've learned a lot, something that is very much reflected in this blog where I've gradually transitioned towards a more holistic and pragmatic definition of conservation as trying to keep mortality below sustainable levels = we need to focus not on individuals but at the (local) population level and we need to consider all causes of mortality very much including habitat loss and in the case of Sharks, the overfishing of their prey, etc - and there the situation is dire indeed!

This dive has been in the planning for as long long time.

You truly only become a real friend once we've thrown you to our Sharks - but Shelley is incredibly busy so finding an adequate time has been challenging. But finally all stars did align as the WCPCF did hold its latest meeting here in Nadi, and she was able to slip down to Pac Harbour a day in advance - and throw her to the Sharks we did.

Despite of not having dived for 25 years, she not only survived but did so admirably - so here's to continued friendship and continued collaboration!

The WCPFC meeting btw was, again, shite.

It looks like ultimately, and contrary to the ICCAT that appears to have at least saved the Atlantic Tuna where stocks appear to be recovering (and btw Patric: you owe me a bottle of vintage Chateau Petrus!), those guys don't even care about properly managing their Tuna - so don't be surprised about zero progress for the Sharks that are treated like pests and at best a side show!

Anyway, this can't go on like that. 

Methinks in a few years the WCPFC will have lost all relevance: the North Pacific with its large tracts of international waters will become a free-for all where stocks will get hammered by the Asians; the Tropical Tuna will be more or less managed by the PNA; and the Southern Pacific Tuna, by the parties to the Tokelau Arrangement.

We shall see - but that's my prediction.

To be continued!

Shelley Clarke - even more Inconvenient Truth!

Source.

This Shark is possibly being finned.

Long-held belief among Shark conservationists has it that the body will be likely thrown overboard as fishermen are only interested in the fins because the meat has little to no value.

But how about the following pictures.

Kesennuma, Japan - source.

Ranong, Thailand - source.

Tung Kang, Taiwan - source.

Vigo, Spain - source.

Lombok, Indonesia - source.

Mirbat, Oman - source.

USA - source.

Mogadishu, Somalia - source.

Mexico City - source.

Think those Sharks have been killed for their fins?

More importantly: think that a single one of those Sharks would have been spared owing to a finning ban? Or for the matter, as a result of some bikini bimbette changing perceptions by snorkeling with Sharks at TB, or some bimbo illegally riding GWS at Guadalupe? 

Think again!

Shelley has done it - again!

In a rather monumental tour de force that leaves me quite in awe, she has meticulously rummaged through the data like only she can, and presents us with an equally amazing and frustrating opus about the Status of the Global Market for Shark Products. Read it!

And here are the two principal illustrations - click for detail.

See what I mean?

This is not about to go away anytime soon. 

And if like I believe, Shark Conservation consists in reducing Shark mortality to sustainable levels, then Shark conservation efforts need to start focusing on the whole range of present challenges: global overfishing, including the still rampant IUU, to aliment the trade in both their fins and other products; the important and largely unresolved issue of incidental bycatch; the widespread lack of data, let alone proper stock assessments impeding proper conservation and management measures; and last but certainly not least, the many-fold threats to both the Sharks, their prey and their habitats.

And talking about bycatch.

Remember this?

Source.

Read this report by, again, Shelley. 

Long story short, even with legislation and even if we naively were to assume the best intentions of everybody, the situation on the ground remains complex and frustrating to the max.

Just saying.

Please, do read and above all, understand the implications of Shelley's paper = sustainability not prohibition!

Enjoy!

Shelley Clarke - more Inconvenient Truth!

So, you didn't like that last post much huh.

I understand.

Much easier to declare victory, preferably on social media and with a selfie, and then ride off into the sunset huh.

But real conservation demands a long term commitment and perseverance, and things are complicated, meaning that the job is really never done. The "other side" are certainly not stupid and will ruthlessly lie and cheat, and exploit any weaknesses and loopholes - so as a minimum we must remain vigilant and continue learning and refining what we do and what we advocate.

Anyway.

Here's some more myth-busting for you, courtesy of Shelley.

Again, please download and keep it, the more as it is once again compelling and really easy to understand.

Again, I'm not gonna dwell.

Readers of this blog are well aware that those campaigns to stop finning are now a thing of the distant past and only waste precious and scarce resources that would be better invested elsewhere. And latest since the epic 97 million paper, we know that the traders are nimble and always manage to source their product from new places and species. And finally, we also get an estimate of that incidental mortality I mentioned the other day - rather shocking isn't it, meaning that the call for better legislation, better trade data, better reporting of incidental mortality, and sustainability through fisheries management is all-the more urgent!

Two topics did however particularly pique my interest.

• First, this.
  

  Less encouraging is the finding by the new Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) analysis (Clarke and Dent in press) that Thailand has surpassed Hong Kong as the world’s largest exporter, and its main trading partners — Japan and Malaysia — may be among the world’s top four importers, particularly of small, low- value fins. Not only do these markets show no sign of slowing down, they are all among the world’s top shark fishing nations and, thus, the full scope of their shark fin markets may be even larger than trade-based estimates suggest (Clarke and Dent in press). When we add to this the facts that most consumer-orientated conservation campaigns target shark fins rather than meat, and that shark meat consumption is both growing and often unrecognized as “shark”, it is clear that the campaigns have more work to do.

  Indeed - like I said the job is really never done!

• And then, what about those remarks about the Marshalls and Palau.
  Yes it sucks but those are developing, comparatively poor countries and full compliance will take time to achieve. But they are certainly trying their darned best, see here and here, and I also want to add that contrary to the usual underhanded sniping, Pew are very much assisting them in achieving better outcomes!
  But NGOs only have so much money and can only help in building capacity - the monitoring, patrolling, apprehending and prosecuting remain the job of those countries and not of the NGOs. And there are plenty of other funding sources all the way to the World Bank and the ADB that could be tapped given the necessary urgency, the more as the poaching and overfishing of the high seas by those distant water fleets is clearly threatening the long-term economic but also cultural viability of those islanders!

So there you have it.

Yes it's once again not only good news - but it is vital information that will only make us better going forward!

And do consider these suggestions - and those by Shelley!

Shark Fin and Sea Cucumber Trade - epic Paper!

Totally unsustainable marine products - proudly brought to you by the Heep Tung Hong Group!

Wow - busted again!

And by the same person!

But first.

Download the PdF in this temporary link before it goes back down - chop chop!

And then read it - and keep the PdF handy!

So there we have it.

After years of outright speculation, conflicting reports and breathy propaganda by both the Shark fin industry and conservation circles, Shelley Clarke has once again reached past all the bullshit, rummaged though the piles of data hoarded in Hong Kong and is finally presenting us with real, scientific and unbiased evidence.

In her own words, the situation boils down to this.

• Shark fin capture production has peaked, sea cucumber production is increasing.
• Sourcing networks for both products are dynamic and resilient to changing conditions.
• Conservation attention and regulatory environment differ between taxa.
• Conservation and anti-corruption campaigns may have dampened shark fin trade.
• Better tracking of traded quantities is necessary for management and conservation.

This is really as good as it gets.

On top of the above, it contains a wealth of other details and really is a must-read and must-keep - so if you haven't already, do download and do read it, the more as this time, I'm certainly not gonna paraphrase anything!

Anyway, I say bravo and thank you!

I really got the feeling that for the very first time, we are finally being shown the entire, highly nuanced picture, and this without any self serving agendas. And no I'm not gonna dwell on the bullshitters - you all know all-to-well who has asserted what and can certainly draw your own conclusions!

My personal take-away?

• Yes there have been reductions both in the trade and the consumption of Shark fins in Hong Kong and possibly also China, and this owing to a variety of factors among which the recent conservation successes but quite possibly also the fact that Shark populations continue to get depleted at unsustainable rates.
  In fact, anecdotal evidence from here in Fiji but also many other locations indicates that the price of Shark fins has fallen below a tipping point whereby it does not anymore make much commercial sense to target Sharks and then ship the fins to Asia - so bravo to the various anti-consumption advocates in Asia for a job well done!

• But looking at the evidence, it appears equally clear that Shark fishing in general and the Shark fin trade in particular ain't gonna go away anytime soon - meaning that on top of the traditional conservation work, we must also advocate full sustainability = better fisheries management in terms of quotas, monitoring, enforcement and prosecution.

• There, I strongly advocate to reverse the burden of proof for both the fishermen and the traders as it greatly helps enforcement - and I equally continue to advocate that exactly like we do for other Fishes from sustainably managed Salmon to pole-and-line-caught Skipjack to MSC-certified Lobsters from Mexico and Australia, we need to help develop a market for sustainably managed Shark (fins and meat and possibly even other products) as if it is successful, this will drive the industry towards sustainability.
  It's stuff I've advocated before, and you can re-read it e.g. here, with links.

But now to something I've so far totally neglected - my bad!

In order to achieve any meaningful results both in traditional conservation but also in fisheries management, we absolutely require better data!

Methinks those data already exist, namely with the fishermen but above all, with the comparatively few traders. 

The problem of course is that those folks continue to lie and obfuscate whenever they get a chance, meaning that most official statistics are way off due to underreporting and that only very rarely, people like Shelley get access to robust data sets and are able to report more accurately about what is really going on.

With that in mind, fisheries legislation especially at the level of licensing should include strong wording mandating detailed and meticulous reporting to the management authorities and stiff penalties for non-adherence. This must also include mandatory reporting of bycatch, including whether the animals were released alive or discarded dead.

And what about those sanctuaries? 

Yes despite of the continued sniping by some quarters, I remain convinced that they work in that they greatly reduce Shark mortality as targeted fishing and the trade are forbidden and poachers are increasingly being apprehended - but let's be clear that even with those measures in place, there's still a ton of Sharks being killed!

For one, some sanctuaries contain exemptions for subsistence fishing that is by no means irrelevant, the more as I cannot discern any bag limits that would at least somewhat contain the damage.

And then there's the mortality of all that bycatch, and of that exempted catch-and-release game fishing. Many, many Sharks die on those lines, purse seines and coastal gillnets; and even assuming  that the fishermen want to release them alive (and the majority of commercial fishermen do not as handling feisty Sharks on deck is dangerous), many die before they reach the vessel and whilst they are being handled, and many more die post release.

And as far as I know, the current sanctuary legislation contains no wording about the need to collect data on that mortality. This must change in line with the preceding paragraph about fisheries legislation, as this incidental mortality is certainly significant and needs to be known in order to ascertain the ultimate success of the sanctuary legislation but also, in order to enact better mitigation measures.

So there you have it.

At the risk of repeating myself, this is excellent and required reading.

And as an aside, it's also really interesting to find a comparison between the Shark fin trade and that for Sea Cucumbers. Like I said, here in Fiji and in the SoPac in general, the Sea Cucumber traders have diversified into Shark fins and are very much the driver of the current unsustainable slaughter of our coastal Sharks.

Well done!

100% Observer Coverage?

Source.

I wish!

Anyway, interesting remarks by Angelo.

First the good news.

Shelley Clarke's ominous report appears to indicate that coverage of the purse seine fleets operating in the WCPFC is certainly at, or near that target. Let's also assume that most of those observers are reporting accurately which is by no means a given in light of persistent reports of corruption.

But of course that's not the whole story.

Especially the data from the foreign distant water fleets remain poor.

Plus if I remember correctly (Angelo?), the by far more important source for Shark "bycatch" is the longline fishery and there, the observer coverage rate  is under 2%, and some Pacific Island countries (including some with declared shark “sanctuaries”) appear to have 0% longline observer coverage for their own flagged vessels, meaning that the door for abuse is still wide open!

So, there remains much to do!

And the remarks about China?

Very interesting! At least in HK, the anti-graft campaign is undoubtedly having an effect, as does the relentless pressure by the various advocacy groups. But this is a supply limited fishery and it remains to be seen whether and when this will translate into less Sharks being killed. Maybe one day but not now - and more likely with respect to the pelagic fisheries than for the coastal ones where alas, the trend is for more people targeting and eating Sharks as the other more prized big Fishes are being fished away.

Yes as always it is complicated!

To be continued!

Managing and Protecting Sharks in the Central and Western Pacific - Report!

Read this - seriously, do!

Yes it's a bloody mess!

Shelley Clarke has analyzed the status of the current Shark management and conservation measures in the WCPFC and comes to the conclusion that essentially, the current framework is not working. 

There is a lack of specific and uniform objectives, there are no adequate stock assessments and research, the fishing data are highly questionable and sketchy, there are not nearly enough observers, overfishing continues, Shark mortality is not being reduced, finning is rampant, compliance, implementation, monitoring and enforcement are inadequate - in brief, it continues to essentially be a free-for-all and even where there is a willingness to do the right thing (which is certainly not a given everywhere), the managing authorities are hopelessly outmatched and any improvements under the present regime appear highly questionable.

As just one example, take the case of finning - remember?

Here's what the report states.

Finning rates are lower than they were prior to the effective date of the cornerstone measure but they do not appear to be continually decreasing.

Furthermore, finning continues at levels of ~15‐25% in the purse seine fishery and 30‐40% in the longline fishery. Although the reduced finning rates in the purse seine fishery are encouraging, most sharks in the purse seine fishery will already be dead when they reach the vessel, therefore this reduction in finning is likely to translate into only a very small increase in survival. 

Furthermore, according to catch estimates for 2010, the longline fishery catches over ten times as many of the key shark species as the purse seine fishery does (Lawson 2011), and therefore effects in the longline fishery will be considerably more important to shark populations. With the reduction in finning rates, it appears that the percentage of observed sharks that are released alive in the longline fishery has increased, but it is not known how many of these survive and the percentage of sharks with confirmed mortality remains above 72% in all but one year (2010). 
In summary, on the basis of existing information the expected benefit of the cornerstone measure to sharks in terms of increased survival appears negligible.

Starting with ICCAT in 2004, and followed by IATTC and IOTC in 2005, and CCSBT in 2008, all of the other tuna RFMOs have adopted a 5% fins‐to-carcass ratio as a means of controlling shark finning. Most of these measures have similar provisions relating to the mitigation of fishing impacts to sharks including waste minimization and encouraging live release.

Several problems have arisen with regard to interpretation of the 5% fins-to‐carcass ratio (Fowler and Séret 2010, Biery and Pauly 2012, Santana‐Garcon et al. 2012). 
First, while provision is made in the measures for the ratio to be reviewed and modified, it is now well‐understood that the actual ratio of fins‐to‐carcass weight will vary by species, the number of fins utilized from each shark, and the type of cut used to remove the fins from the carcass. Nevertheless, none of the ratios have been amended since the measures were adopted. Second, the measures do not make clear whether the ratio applies to fresh or dried fins, and to what form of the carcass (i.e. whole weight, dressed or partially dressed carcass) the fins are to be compared. These interpretation issues, along with the difficulties of weighing fins and carcasses in an enforcement setting, have led some countries to replace fins‐to‐carcass ratios with national requirements for fins to remain attached to the carcass until landing (IUCN SSG 2013).

Although similar measures have been discussed within tuna RFMO forums for several years, to date no tuna RFMO has adopted a fins‐attached policy.

See what I mean?

Finning is certainly one of the least controversial issues insofar as everybody agrees that in theory, it must go - but look at the mess they've made when implementing the ban!

And, it does not reduce Shark mortality anyway!

And what about Clarke's other recommendations?

Check out the WCPFC members and other parties to the treaty in the link above, and then, re-read this post. Many of those members are the very countries who have obliterated their own marine resources and whose distant water fleets are now pillaging the Fish stocks in the Pacific. They have zero interest in promoting any sustainability and continue to use dirty politics in order to block any positive developments as last seen in December. And if those folks cannot adequately manage the Tuna stocks despite of knowing what needs to be done - do you really think that anybody is going to bother investing their scarce resources into the management of Sharks that in the big scheme of things are merely an afterthought?

Only glimmer of hope: the PNA members that comprise several countries that have already enacted Shark sanctuaries and that continue to show those foreign fleets who is boss whilst raking in ever increasing revenues!

And that's only the beginning!

CITES 2 compliance, i.e. the implementation of all the necessary paperwork but above all, the onus of proving that Sharks are being managed sustainably is just around the corner! Think that any of those Pacific island countries that have not declared a sanctuary will be able to meet their obligations - the more as compliance is subject to public scrutiny?
Fiji?

Oh yes we're back to square one - read this post!

Clarke's recommendations are theoretically impeccable - but let me re-iterate that in practice, they will, if at all, take years to implement whilst the indiscriminate overfishing will continue. It's the old ways and by now everybody should agree that those have been weighed, tested and found wanting.

Right now, what works are those sanctuaries.
They are the new, elegant and practicable solution - not for eternity but as stop gap measures, until adequate management measures have been implemented. And the onus for making that happen lays squarely with the fishing industry and the trade: it is they who control their own behavior, it is they who know how and where they fish and what they catch and trade, its is they who make the profits - and it is they that can easily make the necessary changes and then fork out the money in order to prove that what they do is legit!

And what about us?

Screaming is easy - following through much more difficult and certainly way less glamorous.

So what's it gonna be?

A whole lotta noise for ultimately zero outcome like the occupy movement, or in the case of Sharks, quite possibly those Canadian and US fin bans - or should we maybe tone it down a bit and advocate smart, pragmatic and hopefully, effective and efficient policies instead? 

Maybe even start thinking outside of the box?

The choice, as always, is ours!

97 Million - Paper!

I finally got my hands on the paper!

Published, undoubtedly by pure coincidence, on the eve of the CITES CoP, it comes to the conclusion that as of 2010, the annual number of Sharks that were being killed by fishing-related activities was about 97 million, this within a total range of possibly 61 to 267 million (for 2010).

This is obviously a massive increase over previous estimates.
But whereas Shelley Clarke has analyzed the data from the Shark fin trade, the authors have analyzed Shark fishing data and have added estimates about discards and IUU.
Thus, the numbers are not directly comparable.

So what's the infamous Magic Number now.

97 million as stated in the paper, 100 million as already posted everywhere or up to 267 million in line with what was being done with regards to the Clarke numbers?

Let the spin begin!

And incidentally, could somebody please post the paper online so that the public can at least consult the source? Pew?
NOTE: done, see at bottom!

Abstract 

Adequate conservation and management of shark populations is becoming increasingly important on a global scale, especially because many species are exceptionally vulnerable to overfishing. Yet, reported catch statistics for sharks are incomplete, and mortality estimates have not been available for sharks as a group. 
Here, the global catch and mortality of sharks from reported and unreported landings, discards, and shark finning are being estimated at 1.44 million metric tons for the year 2000, and at only slightly less in 2010 (1.41 million tons). 

Based on an analysis of average shark weights, this translates into a total annual mortality estimate of about 100 million sharks in 2000, and about 97 million sharks in 2010, with a total range of possible values between 63 and 273 million sharks per year. 

Further, the exploitation rate for sharks as a group was calculated by dividing two independent mortality estimates by an estimate of total global biomass. As an alternative approach, exploitation rates for individual shark populations were compiled and averaged from stock assessments and other published sources. 
The resulting three independent estimates of the average exploitation rate ranged between 6.4% and 7.9% of sharks killed per year. This exceeds the average rebound rate for many shark populations, estimated from the life history information on 62 shark species (rebound rates averaged 4.9% per year), and explains the ongoing declines in most populations for which data exist. 

The consequences of these unsustainable catch and mortality rates for marine ecosystems could be substantial. Global total shark mortality, therefore, needs to be reduced drastically in order to rebuild depleted populations and restore marine ecosystems with functional top predators.

Bingo.

Like I never cease to repeat, the absolute numbers mean nothing unless put into context, and one must commend the authors for having finally done so and documented that global Shark fishing is totally unsustainable - something we have of course suspected all along but were never able to adequately substantiate at the global level.

From the Discussion - emphasis and links are mine.

(About Shark catch volumes)
Several explanations may account for these observations of near-stable catches and fin trade volume.
First,fishing effort likely has been geographically displaced over the last decade as the primary fishing grounds supplying the fin trade in the1990s and early 2000s became increasingly depleted or regulated. Additionally, catch levels may have experienced a certain amount of resiliency if fishers started using other, lower-value species or smaller  individuals that were previously discarded.

(About Shark finning bans)
Further, the apparent failure of anti-finning laws to curb global mortality may indicate that these laws have yet to be adequately enforced. 
On the other hand, anti-finning laws primarily address animal welfare and food security issues (i.e.to reduce waste). Although an important first tep, these policies are not explicitly designed to reduce catch or ensure sustainability. The premise that anti-finning legislation would contribute to sustainable fisheries  rests on the assumption that most fishermen target sharks for their fins only, and would refrain from targeting sharks if they had to retain the carcass.

This assumption is weak. 
Many countries consume shark meat and fishermen opt to land whole sharks,even if the meat is not as valuable as the fins. It is not surprising that anti-finning measures have been introduced widely given the intense public pressure that arose, especially since anti-finning laws are more palatable to industry than stringent catch reductions when local markets for the meat exist.
In contrast, the monitoring, assessment and enforcement capacity required to sustainably manage shark fisheries is often perceived by regulatory agencies as being prohibitively costly relative to the simple adoption of anti-finning legislation. Regardless, some nations have recently invested in sustainable shark fisheries management, introducing catch limits, effort control, time-area closures, and other protective measures for the most vulnerable species. In some cases, such local measures appear to have been successful in halting declines. 

The findings reported here highlight the fact that shark conservation policies generally need to focus on sustainability, as there is no evidence that a legislative focus on anti-finning has reduced global landings and shark mortality rates.

(About the IPoA Sharks and the various NPoAS)
In a recent paper, evidence for the rebuilding of depleted elasmobranch populations under management was evaluated and these authors found little general support as of yet that rebuilding was occurring.

Given the results of this paper, and much previous work on the vulnerability of sharks to overfishing, it is imperative that robust strategies for shark management and conservation be designed
...there is a general concern that localized protective measures just displace the problem into less regulated areas, including many developing countries and the high seas ... there is no evidence that global shark catch or shark fin trade is declining.

Compare to here - q.e.d.!

But now comes the interesting part, i.e. possible Solutions!

Given the failure to effectively reduce the unsustainable mortality of sharks on a global scale, there appears a need for a more binding international agreement on the protection of sharks.
This could be similar to what has been done for the global conservation of whales through the establishment of the International Whaling Commission. In that case, a globally threatened group of large marine animals was effectively saved from extinction by imposing stringent global catch regulations, and ultimately a global moratorium on commercial whaling.

This is not a new concept.

It makes me instinctively cringe, both at the thought of establishing yet another layer of bureaucracy and CoPs, but also when thinking about the kind of people a moratorium by such an ISC would encourage - think Dolphinization of the Shark movement!

But if an ISC would concentrate on temporary species-specific moratoria and on managing Shark fisheries sustainably via globally binding agreements, I'd be all for it!

Chances for it to eventuate?

Assuming a ridiculously conservative average value of 50 bucks (this depending on size, species and of course market) for a complete set of fins, Shark fishing is already a multi-billion industry, and the push-back by those commercial interests and the nations doing their bidding like Japan will be tremendous.
As per my comment here, this will require political Leadership - and as we all know, that is a scarce commodity indeed!

But back to the paper.

If the goal was to at least partially rebuild depleted shark populations worldwide, what actions would be required?
Ward-Paige et al. recently reviewed the same issue for sharks.
These authors concluded that rebuilding depleted stocks is demonstrably possible, and occurs where a number of management instruments are combined to reduce mortality to an appropriately low level. This level depends both on the status of the stock, and its productivity, or rebound potential. As most shark populations have low productivity compared to other fish stocks, and stock status is typically poor or unknown, the case for ensuring a large decrease in catches and the establishment of a moratorium on fishing appears strong.

In the absence of a complete moratorium, the rebuilding of depleted shark populations requires very stringent controls on exploitation rates, the enforcement of appropriately low mortality rates, the protection of critical habitats, monitoring, and education.
Such controls have been implemented with some success in parts of the United States, for example, but would be more difficult to enforce elsewhere.

Given that the costs of these measures can be considerable and are currently carried by taxpayers in shark fishing nations, some of this burden could be shifted to the shark fishing and fin export industries.
Shark fins are a luxury product, which means that demand is unlikely to be curbed by modest price increases. Thus, imposing taxes on the export or import of shark fins will generate income that could be directed to these domestic shark fisheries management efforts.

I say, agree - but not quite bold enough!

Of course, those profits ought to be taxed - is that not already the case and if so, why?

But instead of further burdening the taxpayer, let us not only advocate applying the precautionary principle - let us be consistent, reverse the burden of proof and demand that the cost for coming up with that proof be fully borne by those who make the profits!

Yes I'm of course repeating myself!

• Let the fishing industry pay for and come up with something akin to those Ecological Impact Assessments that are already ubiquitous everywhere else people meddle with nature, i.e. let them come up with independent third-party certification that the fishery is fully sustainable!

• Let the trade prove that it sources its produce from sustainable and legal fisheries!

• And finally, let us help establish a premium market for sustainable Shark products!

And this not only for Sharks but for all fisheries!

And CITES?

It has its role to play, and I cite

Another option is to focus on the most vulnerable species, particularly those that are heavily affected by the global fin trade.

CITES currently protects three of the most charismatic species, the whale, basking, and white sharks.

These species are well-known and support large dive and ecotourism industries, hence there is also an economic incentive for their protection. Many other species, however, are of similar conservation concern, yet their attempted listing under CITES has so far failed due to opposition from shark-fishing and -consuming countries.

In any case, trade bans for the most depleted species need to be combined with scientifically-based catch limits, and appropriately-sized protected areas, such as the shark sanctuaries recently established by a handful of developing nations.

Well, yes and no.

CITES listing on Appendix I bans the trade and directly protects those species. CITES II is more about establishing a paper trail and thus inhibiting IUU, which is indirect protection. Yes the rule that An export permit may be issued only ... if the export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species can be interpreted as a mandate for sustainability - but what would constitutes a permitted export under that rule is certainly wide open for interpretation!
Thus, claiming that those 3 Sharks are being protected by CITES is somewhat disingenuous as the most important conservation measures are the scientifically-based catch limits that are not being defined by CITES but instead, by individual nations and supranational treaties!

Just like this latest video by Pew.

It showcases species that are listed under CITES I so the analogy to the currently proposed Elasmobranchs is somewhat cheeky.

But it's a nice video and for a good cause, so there.

Enjoy!

PS1: the paper is online here - read it!
PS2: and here we go: an estimated 100 million sharks are killed each year – and staggeringly, perhaps as many as 273 million. Didn't take long did it...

WCPFC - great news for OWTs, but...

Looks like I've been too optimistic.
Japan has stalled the decision to ban the appalling practice of abusing Whale Sharks as FADs by setting purse seines around them. What possible argument could they have raised against banning this abomination - Angelo?

But the parties have protected the Oceanic White Tips.
As always, it's a mixed bag but I guess that we must be grateful for any progress. More about the status of Sharks in the Central and Western Pacific here!

Baby step by baby step...

And the Tuna?
Dunno but I'm gonna find out - appeal by Pew here, infographic here!

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!

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?