Conservation Solutions to Shark Finning: Insights from Past Efforts

A Thesis

Submitted to the University at Albany, State University of New York

In Partial Fulfillment of

In Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science

College of Arts & Sciences

Department of Biology

2014

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.All rights reserved. This work is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 1561995

Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

UMI Number: 1561995

ii

Abstract: Globally, shark species are in decline, largely due to shark finning. This practice has an

adverse effect on shark populations and could result in fishery and ecosystem collapses.

Past conservation efforts, including the dolphin-safe tuna campaign, large mammal

poaching, sea turtle conservation and the anti-whaling campaign, have used various

approaches to mitigate impacts on wildlife, including political, consumer and public

awareness, and science or evidence-based approaches. By examining and drawing from

these processes we can determine the most effective strategy to reduce the effects of

finning on shark populations around the world. A feasible conservation strategy for

shark conservation in the face of shark finning would involve identifying stakeholders

and creating an international forum to facilitate cooperation between nations and

enforce a multi-pronged approach to mitigate the negative effects of shark finning. The

first part of the approach would focus on increasing and expanding research on all shark

species, their stocks and ecology as well as using that information to create appropriate

management plans that are based on shark life histories instead of boney fish

management. That second part would include political reforms and templates for global

regulations, as well as the creation of internationally protected areas. The last part

would use education and tourism to promote a boycott of shark fin products, a

reduction in finning efforts, and an increase in community-led shark ecotourism efforts.

Using this three-pronged approach and international cooperation, we can save sharks

from the dangers of overharvest.

iii

Acknowledgements:

I would like to thank the University at Albany, SUNY for accepting me into their

Biodiversity, Conservation and Policy program and the Animal Welfare Institute whose

internship led me down the path of shark conservation. I also want to thank my

committee members Dr. Gary Kleppel, Dr. Katy Gonder, Jeff Zappieri and Dr. Joshua

Drew for their constant advice throughout the thesis-writing process. I also want to

thank my family and friends for their support of me and my goals, and of course the rest

of the BCP students, especially Jill Bonitatibus, for taking the journey with me and

Caroline B. Girard Cartier and Liz Coffey for being my unofficial mentors throughout my

time in Albany. And lastly I want to thank Joanne Baronner for all her advice and help in

my thesis process.

iv

Table of Contents:

I. Background on sharks and shark finning A. Shark species are in decline globally B. Effects of shark decline 1. Loss of species and fisheries collapse 2. Loss of apex predator and ecological effects C History of Finning Legislation 1. National 2. International D. Shark Management 1. National 2. International II. Analysis of conservation strategies in other commercially-relatable taxa A. Dolphin-Safe tuna B. Sea turtle egg consumption C. Large mammal poaching D. Whaling and the IWC E. Apex Predators and Human-Wildlife Conflict III. A Conservation Plan for Shark Finning A. Identifying Stakeholders 1. Governing bodies 2. Fisherfolk 3. General public B. Three-Pronged Approach 1. Scientific approach a. Increase research b. Create appropriate management plans

2. Political approach a. Create regulations to be followed by all members

b. Encourage national legislation reform c. Create protected areas 3. Consumer/Public awareness approach a. Create a database of products and companies to avoid b. Create education programs

c. Promote sustainable and safe ecotourism

IV. Goals V. Conclusion

v

List of Tables:

TABLE PAGE

1. 14 Most Finned Shark Species…………………………………………………………………………. 3

2. Shark species declines over the last few decades………………………………………….…. 4

3. Countries and regions with a National Plan of Action for Sharks developed under the FAO IPOA for the Conservation and Management of Sharks............................. 16 4. Appendices for Listing Species under CITES and Shark Species Included…….…… 17

5. Appendices for Listing Species under CMS and Shark Species Included…………… 18

1

I. Background on Sharks and Shark Finning

Fishes in the Class Chondrichthyes include sharks, skates, rays, and chimaeras

and total about 1,000 species. They are one of the oldest extant vertebrate groups on

the planet and have existed for at least 400 million years (Worm et al. 2013). Sharks

comprise about half of all extant chondrichthyans and show considerable diversity in

ecology, feeding habits and body size. They occupy coastal, demersal, and pelagic

habitats in every ocean (Feretti et al. 2010). Sharks range from scavengers to apex

predators and play important roles in most marine ecosystems. Despite their

significance, there is not enough data on most shark species (Techera and Klein 2011).

Historically, sharks had low commercial value and were not regularly recorded in

fisheries statistics. Industrial fisheries that began before the 1950’s had the highest

initial catches in the Northwest Pacific, Northeast Atlantic, and Mediterranean Seas.

Over time commercial shark fishing expanded and increased into other areas. Although

sharks are also threatened by habitat destruction and pollution, the International Union

for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Shark Specialist Group

determined that the main threat (96.1%) to elasmobranches (sharks, rays, and skates) is

fishing (including directed commercial, by-catch, recreational, and artisanal/subsistence)

(Feretti et al. 2010). Finning in particular is an incredible threat to sharks today.

Shark finning is the process of capturing a shark (usually by bottom longlines,

mid-water longlines, and large-mesh drift-nets) and removing one of more of its fins. In

many cases, the rest of the shark’s body is dumped into the ocean. The shark dies from

suffocation, blood loss, or predation. Shark meat is usually considered low value, while a

2

shark’s fins are some of the most expensive fish products globally and are used for shark

fin soup, a delicacy mainly served in East Asia (NMFS 2012). Shark fins first became

popular at formal Chinese events during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 AD) and are

sometimes (incorrectly) advertised as aphrodisiacs or tonics for general ailments.

Despite the fact that artificial shark fins exist, they are not commonly used because of

the status symbol equated with real shark fins. From 1985 to 2004 the production of

fresh, frozen, and salted chondrichthyan products more than doubled (Clarke et al.

2007). The global shark fishery is driven primarily by Indonesia, India, Spain, Taiwan, and

Argentina (Liu et al. 2013). Despite increasing legislation to protect sharks, there does

not appear to be a significant decline in global fin trade (Worm et al. 2013).

This thesis examines the threat that finning poses to shark species worldwide

and how we are managing sharks currently. It will then examine conservation efforts in

other taxa and determine which strategies worked and failed for them and which can be

applied to the issue of shark conservation. Conserving shark populations in the face of

shark finning will take a multi-pronged approach that combines scientific, political, and

consumer-based action.

A. Shark Species are in Decline Globally

Many shark populations are in various statues of decline throughout all of the

world’s oceans. For example, in 2011, four of 34 (12%) shark stocks or stock complexes

were being overfished while five of 34 (15%) were already overfished. 20 (59%) did not

have enough data to determine a status with regard to current overfishing rates and 19

3

(56%) did not have enough data to determine their status as to whether or not they

were already overfished (NMFS 2012). It’s estimated that anywhere from 63 to 273

million sharks are killed each year with an estimate of about 97 million in 2010 alone

(Worm et al. 2013).

According to Worm et al. (2013), “48% of exploited shark populations were

fished above their rebound rate, and 68% of species had rebound rates that were below

the median global exploitation rate (6.7%).” Various studies have shown that shark

species may be severely constrained when it comes to their potential to increase

population growth rates (McAuley et al. 2007). These data are reason for concern

because even if finning is stopped altogether, it may be too late for some species of

shark. All of the 14 most commonly finned shark species (Table 1) are now at risk of

extinction (Shark Savers 2014).

Table 1: All 14 species of shark most prevalent in the fin trade are at risk of extinction (Shark Savers 2014).

14 Most Finned Shark Species

Bull shark (Carcharhinus leuca) Dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus)

Tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis)

Smooth Hammerhead (Sphyrna zygaena) Shortfin Mako (Isurus oxyrinchus)

Sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) Blue shark (Prionace glauca)

Great Hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran) Scalloped Hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini)

Bigeye Thresher (Alopias superciliosus) Oceanic Whitetip (Carcharhinus

longimanus)

Common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus) Pelagic Thresher (Alopias pelagicus)

4

Many different species of sharks are currently facing threats. Both Carcharhinus

longimanus (oceanic whitetip sharks) and Prionace glauca (blue sharks) in the North

Pacific are experiencing declines in abundance (Clarke et al. 2013). Galeocerdo cuvier

(tiger sharks) are being fished at rates considered unsustainable, as shown by catch rate

data from the Queensland Shark Control Program (Holmes 2012). A study by Baum et al.

(2003) found that large oceanic and coastal shark populations (all species recorded with

the exception of mako sharks, genus Isurus) in the Northwest Atlantic are experiencing a

rapid decline. Their findings are presented in the table below:

Shark Species % Decline Since

Sphyrna lewini 89 1986

Carcharodon

carcharias

79 1986

Galeocerdo cuvier 65 1986

Alopias genus 80 1986

Prionace glauca 60 1986

Carcharhinus

longimanus

70 1986

Coastal Species* 61 (average) 1992

Table 2. Shark species declines over the last few decades (Baum et al. 2003). *Carcharhinus altimus, C. brevipinna, C. falciformis, C. limbatus, C. obscurus, C. signatus

In 2013, the IUCN Shark Specialist Group (SSG) identified 73 species (15%) of

sharks that are threatened in some way while almost half (214 or 44%) are “data

5

deficient,” meaning there is not enough data to determine their conservation status

(IUCN 2013).

B. The Effects of Shark Decline

1. Loss of Shark Species and Fisheries Collapse

Overfishing and finning of sharks have wide-ranging negative effects for shark

species, ecosystems, and even our own welfare. Perhaps the most obvious effect of

overfishing is species decline. Unfortunately, the Indo-West Pacific region not only has

the highest chondricthyan biodiversity but also the highest catch rates. This will lead to

a higher than average extinction rate and is indicative of the necessity of shark

protection. Fishing that targets large sharks can lead to changes in those species’

population dynamics. There will most likely be a decrease in abundance, especially for

larger size classes. Size-selection exploitation can also lead to changes in length

compositions with the population shifting to smaller sizes for many species having been

observed. This can have a significant impact on the species’ reproductive output. This

has already been observed in Mustelus antarcticus (gummy shark) where length-

selective fishing mortality has resulted in a decrease in mature individuals. Community

structure can also be altered by overexploitation since productivity correlates with age

at maturity. This means that some species of sharks, such as those that are smaller with

earlier maturity, have higher rebound rates (Stevens et al. 2000).

6

The loss of certain shark and ray populations can be detrimental to developing

communities which rely on them for food and other products. Most shark fisheries are

harvested above recommended levels (Simpfendorfer et al 2011). Shark fisheries are not

the only ones that will suffer a collapse with degraded shark population numbers. When

large sharks are removed from the ecosystem and mesopredators (such as smaller

sharks and large fish) become more abundant, those mesopredators will in turn

overharvest certain prey species that we harvest for our own food such as clams,

scallops and oysters (Myers et al. 2007).

2. Loss of Apex Predators and Ecosystem Collapse

Food webs are intricate parts of ecosystems and if they fall apart then the entire

ecosystem can as well, resulting in unnatural species declines. Apex predators are an

important part of any food web and ecosystem and their removal can cause a top-down

cascade. Being that large sharks (including many of the species overharvested for their

fins) are apex predators, their ecosystems are at risk of collapse if their numbers are

depleted.

The loss of sharks has already proven to be disruptive to marine ecosystems.

Myers et al. (2007) documented the cascading effects of losing 11 large sharks species

on the US Eastern Seaboard between 1970 and 2005, including an increase in 12

mesopredator species including smaller sharks, rays, and skates. This increase in

mesopredators led to an increase in predation on the lower trophic levels. Using the

University of North Carolina Shark Survey (the longest continuous shark-targeted survey

7

on the Eastern seaboard) the authors were able to identify not only a loss in these large

shark species, but also a specific loss of the largest individuals (indicating that few

mature individuals are left in the overexploited populations). As a result of the apex

predators being removed from the ecosystem the increase in mesopredators, especially

Rhinoptera bonasus (cownose ray), led to an increase in consumption of lower trophic

levels. The cownose ray’s overconsumption of bivalves led to not only a decrease in

those taxa, but that of seagrass as well, which was detrimental to nursery habitat. Thus,

the removal of apex shark predators caused major shifts and degradation in the entire

ecosystem.

Many other studies have shown specific trophic cascades related to shark

decline. A study by Bascompte et al. (2005) revealed that shark overfishing may have led

to a depletion of herbivorous fishes in Caribbean reefs. Ferretti et al. (2012) also

supports this hypothesis. In this study, they examined the elasmobranch community of

the Adriatic Sea and discovered a highly depleted elasmobranch community with an

increase in mesopredators and an overall exploited community.

A study by Ferretti et al. (2012) shows that elasmobranchs can decline both in

abundance and diversity after only a short time of being harvested. Since large sharks

are the main predators of smaller sharks and rays, their decline has led to an increase in

these mesopredators. Ferretti et al. studied long-term changes in elasmobranches in the

Adriatic Sea and noted a depleted elasmobranch community with 25 species recorded in

1948 now missing. Of the species they detected, most had declined over time. They

noted a difference in elasmobranch abundance and diversity between the eastern and

8

western parts of the Adriatic which correlated with different amounts of fishing. They

also observed that this gradient may be useful if there is spillover from the less-fished

side to the more-fished side.

There are other ways that shark population depletion can hurt an ecosystem.

According to a study by Frid et al. (2008) “fishery removal of sharks can indirectly alter

predation pressure on different fish species via the behavioral responses of

mesoconsumers released from predator intimidation.” Since mesopredators alter their

behaviors to avoid their own predators (namely larger sharks) the removal of those

predators would change the mesopredators’ feeding behavior. These results indicate

stronger and perhaps previously unconsidered ecological effects of shark declines. This

has also been observed in mesopredators populations in Shark Bay, Australia. To avoid

seasonal Galeocerdo cuvier; dolphins, dugongs, and cormorants switch from their

preferred shallow seagrass habitats to deeper habitats. This way, Galeocerdo cuvier

indirectly reduce grazing on seagrass and their loss will shift the behavior of prey species

and change seagrass spatial patterns (Heithaus et al. 2012).

Ecosystem collapse through food web disruption is especially dangerous in reef

habitats where overfishing of larger predators was found to coincide with an increase in

creatures that eat coral such as, starfish, and subsequently with reductions in the most

important part of the reef itself; reef-building corals and coralline algae (Heithaus et al.

2007).

Fish community structure is often changed due to overexploitation, with the

largest fish being removed and the smaller faster-growing ones becoming dominant in

9

the community (Stevens et al. 2000). The Carcharhinus tilstoni (Australian blacktip) and

C. sorrah (spottail) shark populations in northern Australia have experienced changes in

size distribution over the past 25 years after being heavily exploited (Field et al. 2012).

This not only decreases diversity of the ecosystem but can upset the balance of its food

web as well.

Stevens at al. (2000) analyzed three published ECOPATH ecosystem models to

infer general trends that occur with the loss of shark species from an ecosystem. In

some trials, models showed a strong and permanent change while others showed

steadier, temporary changes in the ecosystems. These results may not be conclusive but

they help to show that we cannot truly predict what will happen to an ecosystem if its

shark population is severely decreased or removed.

C. A History of Shark Finning Legislation

1. National

There are several different avenues for wildlife conservation nationally. The

Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed in 1973 to protect and recover imperiled

species in the United States. A species listed as Endangered or Threatened is offered

protection from exploitation by law, as well as a specific recovery plan. Although there

have been petitions submitted for some species, including Carcharodon carcharias

(great white shark) and Sphyrna lewini (scalloped hammerhead), no shark species is

currently listed under the ESA.

10

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA),

also known as the Magnuson–Stevens Act was first created in 1976 and amended many

times through the years. The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 was created to amend

the MFCMA in order to add the promotion of catch and release programs to

conservation and management principles as well as essential fish habitat protection. The

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006

amended the MFCMA to “authorize activities to promote improved monitoring and

compliance for high seas fisheries, or fisheries governed by international fishery

management agreements, and for other purposes,” (H.R. 5946--109th Congress:

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of

2006).

The Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 (SFPA) was signed by President Clinton

on December 21, 2000. It served to amend the MFCMA to eliminate shark finning in

United States’ waters. The SFPA not only made it illegal to remove a shark’s fins and

dump its body into the water but also made it illegal to possess or land fins without their

respective carcasses. The act also included initiatives to establish research programs and

promote international shark conservation (H.R. 5461--106th Congress: Shark Finning

Prohibition Act 2010). Another stipulation of the SFPA was to require the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS) to implement the act, initiate discussion with other nations, and collect data

through research programs (NMFS 2012).

11

The 2010 Shark Conservation Act or International Fisheries Agreement

Clarification Act was signed on January 4, 2011 by President Obama to close the

loopholes of the 2000 SFPA. Specifically, this was created in order to increase shark

conservation efforts by amending the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection

Act (a bill that prohibits the US from entering into any international agreement which

would prevent full implementation of the United Nations moratorium on large-scale

driftnet fishing on the high seas) and the MFCMA. The law directs the Secretary of

Commerce to urge international fishery management to adopt shark conservation and

anti-finning practices. The law also amends the MFCMA to make it illegal to:

“(1) remove any shark fin (including the tail) at sea; (2) have a fin aboard a fishing vessel unless the fin is naturally attached to the carcass; (3) transfer a fin from one vessel to another or receive a fin unless it is naturally attached; or (4) land a fin that is not naturally attached to a carcass or land a carcass without fins naturally attached,” (H.R. 81--111th Congress: International Fisheries Agreement Clarification Act 2009).

In May of 2010, Senator Clayton Hee sponsored legislation making Hawaii the

first state (and place in the world) to ban the possession of shark fins. In 2011,

Washington, California, and Oregon followed suit as did Illinois and American Samoa in

2012 (Losing the taste for shark fins 2013). In 2013 New York joined the ban as well.

Unfortunately, NOAA’s 2013 Proposed Rule to Implement the Shark

Conservation Act of 2010 does not offer complete protection. The act includes language

that not only overturns state laws on shark fins but overrules any future ones as well in

an effort to not only create streamlined protection across the nation, but to not restrict

fisherman as well. This language is highly controversial and states with extra protection

12

are fighting it. So far, NOAA has agreed that California, Washington, and Maryland’s

individual state laws are already “consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act” and is still discussing the issue with other states

(FIS 2014). While that is good news for states with existing bans, the ruining makes it

difficult for states to create bans in the future. This is going to be an issue that United

States conservationists will need to deal with in the coming years while fighting the

battle against shark finning.

2. International

There are varying types of international protection afforded to sharks as well.

Several countries, such as India, have adopted a “fins attached policy” requires fisheries

to land sharks with their fins attached. This helps in identification of species but can also

limit the amount of sharks killed in zones with a catch weight limit. This policy has been

adopted in countries such as India (the world’s second-largest shark catching nation),

the United States, and much of Europe; and is recommended by the IUCN World

Conservation Congress (Godin and Worm 2010).

In 2010 the Philippines became the first place outside of the United States to ban

the sale of shark by-products. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,

Guam, and the Canadian city of Toronto adopted similar legislation in 2011. In 2012

multiple municipalities in British Columbia, The Cook Islands, and French Polynesia

banned the shark fin product trade. French Polynesia even banned fishing for all shark

species in their economic zone, thereby creating the world’s largest shark sanctuary.

13

That same year the Chinese government declared that they would no longer serve shark

fin dishes at official functions (Losing the taste for shark fins 2013). Ecuador has the

strongest anti-finning legislation and has prohibited the sale and export of fins

completely since 2004 (Godin and Worm 2010).

The European Union banned shark finning in 2003 and closed dangerous

loopholes to tighten legislation in 2013 (Heimbuch 2013). Banning shark finning does

not mean that all fishing for sharks itself is banned, however. Fin to weight ratios were

created to regulate finning and allow for a more sustainable rate of shark finning,

ensuring that landed fins correspond to landed carcasses rather than ones discarded at

sea. The five percent fin to dressed carcass ratio was introduced in the U.S. Fishery

Management Plan (FMP) for Sharks of the Atlantic Ocean (NMFS) in 1993 in hopes of

reducing the pressure of finning on shark species (Cortés and Neer 2006).

There is much speculation about the validity of the five percent fin to carcass

weight ratio for shark finning management. A study by Cortés and Neer (2006) found

that a shark’s fin to carcass ratio is in fact highly variable and suggest that the best way

to set fin to carcass weight ratios should be on a species specific (or group specific) basis

and that if this is not feasible, then landing sharks with all fins attached is the best way

to protect against finning.

14

D. Shark Management

1. National

Sharks are managed by both state and federal governments in the United States.

State waters extend from the shoreline to three miles off the coast (nine nautical miles

off Texas, the west coast of Florida, and Puerto Rico). Federal waters begin where state

waters end, extending 200 miles offshore. States generally manage sharks in their own

waters with their own set of regulations. The NMFS manages sharks in the Atlantic, Gulf

of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Three councils manage sharks in the Pacific: Pacific, North

Pacific, and Western Pacific. If a fishery occurs in two or more jurisdictions,

management may be coordinated by a commission. There are three interstate

commissions: Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), Atlantic States

Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission

(GSMFC). Eight out of 12 of the United States’ Regional Fishery Management

Organization and Programs have adopted finning prohibitions (NMFS 2012).

The 2011 NMFS report included annual U.S. import and export of shark fin data

collected from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Census Bureau. In

2011 shark fins were imported through ports in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami,

Seattle, and New York from Hong Kong, New Zealand, China and in small numbers from

Australia and India. Fins from United States were mostly exported to Hong Kong, China,

Poland, and Canada and small amounts to Germany and Japan. Hong Kong remains the

biggest importer and exporter of shark fins by far (NMFS 2012).

15

The American Fisheries Society (AFS) recommends that shark and ray

management be given high priority by regulatory agencies because of their vulnerability

to overfishing. Their policy statement also advises against mixed-species fisheries

because sharks’ life histories are so different from those of teleost fishes and, therefore,

should be managed differently. The most effective management should also include

integration between federal and state agencies and for some species, between multiple

nations (Musick et al. 2000).

2. International

Each country is responsible for the management of marine resources within its

exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (Moore et al. 2009). Countries report catch to the Food

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) voluntarily; for the most part,

catches are thought to be underestimates (NMFS 2012). The FAO has an International

Plan of Action (IPOA) for the Conservation and Management of Sharks that developed in

1999. The United States follows and works to encourage other countries to follow the

IPOA. The IPOA’s aims include improving data collection and research, implementing

action plans to mitigate threats to sharks, identifying priority species, developing

education, and increasing collaboration. The IPOA is a guideline for countries to create

their own national plans and suggests that they review the plan every four years and

report their findings to the FAO. Only 13 countries have National POAs (Table 3; Techera

and Klein 2011).

16

Table 3: Countries and regions with a National Plan of Action for Sharks developed under the FAO IPOA for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (Techera and Klein 2011).

Countries/Regions with a National Plan of Action for Sharks (2011)

Argentina Ecuador Uruguay Taiwan Mediterranean Sea

Australia Japan Mexico United Kingdom

Canada Malaysia Seychelles United States

Unfortunately, most countries’ NPOAs do not completely adopt FAO’s

recommendations (Davis and Worm 2012). While the IPOA is a useful framework for

regulatory action, it does not create strict rules that states are bound to (Techera and

Klein 2011). Furthermore, having an NPOA also does not assure that finning is being

reduced. Taiwan has an NPOA, yet their fleet has the 4th largest shark catch in the world

(Liu et al. 2013). The FAO is an extremely helpful tool for guiding states in creating their

own shark conservation plan. It is essential that more countries not only participate, but

do so more thoroughly. It is also extremely important that countries include issues

specific to finning in their reports, plans, and legislation.

A case study by Davis and Worm (2012) examined and reviewed Canada’s

National Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) and compared it to the original FAO

guidelines. Canada developed and implemented their plan in 2007 and included nine

action categories. Each category was reviewed by the authors to determine both its

implementation and how it matched up to FAO’s guidelines. They determined that

Canada had achieved 61% of its proposed goals. They found that while Canada’s NPOA

attempts to address eight out of the ten IPOA objectives, it does not provide any

17

timelines for completion or address Canada’s role in the shark fin trade. Improving

Canada’s shark fishery policy is important because Canada is ranked 27 out of the 87

countries that export fins to Hong Kong. Canada’s plan also does not include actions to

mitigate threats to non-commercial or threated shark species. Despite its shortcomings,

Canada is one of one of only 13 of the 130 states who report shark landings to the FAO

that actually participates in the IPOA-Sharks (Godin and Worm 2010).

There are other international organizations that address shark conservation as

well. The International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North

Pacific Ocean (ISC) created a shark working group in 2011 (NMFS 2012). The Convention

on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an

international treaty that allows states to control international trade of threatened and

endangered species. Participants of CITES can list species under one of three

appendices (Table 4).

Table 4: Appendices for Listing Species Under CITES and Shark Species Included (Techera and Klein 2011).

Appendix Reasoning Specifications Shark Species Listed

Appendix I Species threatened with extinction

International trade in these species and their parts is prohibited

None

Appendix II Species traded with regulations

Permit system used to prevent species from becoming threatened

Great white, whale, and basking shark

Appendix III Alert parties to concern over a species and its trade

Trade in these species permitted with permit and certificate of origin only

None

18

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals is

another mechanism for listing species (Techera and Klein 2011). Shark species listed

under the CMS are listed below in Table 5;

Table 5: Appendices for Listing Species Under CMS and Shark Species Included (Techera and Klein 2011).

Appendix Reasoning Specifications Shark Species Listed

Appendix I Any migratory species endangered throughout all or a significant portion of their range

States with jurisdiction over any part of said species’ range are prohibited from taking the species

Great white, whale, and basking shark

Appendix II Migratory species that need or would benefit from international cooperation

Requires range states to create agreements with each other to benefit the species

Spiny dogfish, porbeagle, shortfin mako, and longfin mako

The Conservation on Biological Diversity uses an ecosystem approach to

establish protected areas. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can be useful in protecting

fish stocks and their entire habitat, especially because it is easier to restrict access to an

area than it is to control fishing activity. However, it can be difficult to create effective

MPAs if you are restricted by jurisdictions. International fisheries regulation is done

through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). According to UNCLOS,

state sovereignty over fisheries extends out 12 nautical miles and their right to

“conserve, manage, and exploit the living resources” of the EEZ which extends up to 200

nautical miles. Within the EEZ, states must set maximum sustainable yields. UNCLOS

also imposes on states to cooperate with international organizations regarding highly

19

migratory species. On the high seas states are required to cooperate in conservation

efforts by exercising authority over vessels flagged to them. Unfortunately, the US is not

a signatory to UNCLOS (Techera and Klein 2011).

II. Analysis of conservation strategies in other relatable taxa

There is ample evidence that shark finning is devastating species worldwide. Although

there are various sorts of national and international policies in place to protect sharks,

nothing is fully effective and we are still losing sharks at a worrying rate. In order to find

new ways to protect sharks, I analyzed past conservation efforts of different taxa to

determine what worked for them and which strategies can be successfully applied to

shark conservation.

A. Dolphin-Safe Tuna

The dolphin-safe tuna movement can serve as a template for an anti-shark fin

soup movement. Yellowfin tuna are often preyed upon by dolphins. Fisherman have

exploited this knowledge and used dolphins as their targets to lead them to their prey.

During the process of capturing tuna, many dolphins were accidently killed as well. From

1960 to 1972 it was estimated by the National Research Council that an average of over

100,000 dolphins were killed every year by US tuna fishermen. After the Marine

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and its subsequent amendments the tuna fleet was

forced to begin preventive measures to reduce dolphin fatalities and tuna fishing

20

related dolphin deaths dropped to a quarter of its previous estimates by 1991 (Teisl et

al. 2002).

During the 1980’s the media began to focus on these tuna-related dolphin

deaths. Calls for boycotts of canned tuna (led by the Earth Island Institute and their

infamous Sam La Budde video which exposed the killing of dolphins during tuna fishing

operations) led the three biggest tuna canners in the US market to agree to a dolphin-

safe labeling policy in 1990. Soon other canners followed suit and the US government

passed the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act of 1990 which mandated that

dolphin-safe labels be verified and sanctioned by an official observer (Teisl et al. 2002).

The aim of eco-labels is to educate consumers about the environmental impacts

of the product as well as to encourage better practices by changing supply and demand.

Eco-labels will only work, however, if consumers care about the issues at hand. Despite

canned tuna being the most important seafood product in the US, consumers cared

enough about the welfare of dolphins to support eco-labels, thereby supporting more

sustainable fishing practices. Teisl et al. (2002) asked whether or not dolphin-safe tuna

labels dictated consumer purchasing. Their results support the idea that consumers can

and will respond to eco-labels by showing the increase in market share of canned tuna

that is labelled dolphin-safe.

Society is willing to pay for environmentally-friendly products if they can get

behind the cause. As we have seen with dolphin-safe tuna, people will use their

purchasing power to support businesses that support their causes and boycott those

that have practices they disagree with. This can be useful to shark conservation if a

21

mandated labeling system is created for businesses that sell shark fin products. Most

businesses in the United States already do not sell fins; however, this labeling system

would put pressure on those establishments that do still sell fins, as well as those

conglomerates that sell shark products internationally. A labeling system would not only

help to educate the public about the issues but it would give them an easy way to

contribute to the anti-finning cause and be a creative way to put pressure on

establishments with national and international investments in shark finning to put an

end to the behavior, since it could lead to a decrease in customer support.

B. Sea Turtle Egg Consumption

Many parallels can be drawn between shark consumption and harvest and that

of sea turtles. Both are large marine vertebrates vulnerable to overexploitation because

of their life history traits such as their highly migratory lifestyle and their slow

maturation. As marine species, they are both difficult to manage because of

international jurisdiction issues. Sea turtles, like sharks, play an important role in their

ecosystems as both consumers and prey species and also like sharks; their consumption

is symbolic of wealth and power (Senko et al. 2011). All seven species of sea turtle are in

decline and six are classified somewhere between critically endangered and vulnerable

on the IUCN Red List (Hart et al. 2013).

In Pacific Mexico sea turtles are becoming extinct commercially and ecologically.

Egg harvesting and increased commercial fishing caused sea turtle populations to

decline in the 1950’s and then to crash in the 1970’s. In 1978 the Mexican government

22

implemented a recovery program that included closing nesting beaches and in 1980

they issued a quota for commercial sea turtle collection. Populations continued to drop

and in 1990 a complete moratorium on sea turtle use in Mexico was issued. Despite

these protections, various problems still exist that are still contributing to sea turtle

decline including inadequate funding and staffing of federal environmental agencies,

lack of protection in important coastal foraging areas and the black market (Senko et al.

2011).

The Baja Magdalena and Baja California Sur regions of Mexico have created the

conservation organization Grupo Tortuguero to provide coastal communities access to

training, funding, and support for sea turtle conservation. Being a member of the

organization has benefits, including ease of access to biological monitoring permits. The

communities that are part of the organization not only monitor sea turtles in the water

but also implement education programs, social marketing, and even festivals celebrating

sea turtles in order to raise awareness and appreciation for these creatures (Senko et al.

2011).

A study by Senko et al. (2011) sought to gain an understanding of regional

attitudes toward these community conservation measures. They surveyed community

members and found that almost all of them were willing to participate in a sea turtle

conservation programs or attend educational meetings or workshops. However, only

three percent of them had ever been invited to participate in these meetings held by

the Center for Coastal Studies in Puerto San Carlos. This is clear evidence that while

these programs are useful, there has to be an increase in outreach to go along with

23

them. The survey also showed that fisherfolk who responded were all willing to share

locations of sea turtle by-catch. They genuinely seemed interested in stopping

accidental by-catch and helping to conserve these species.

Despite these positive responses, the authors did identify key issues in

community attitudes towards sea turtle conservation. Some respondents said they felt

peer pressure to consume sea turtles from community members. Another issue they

noticed was that many did not really believe or understand that sea turtle populations

were in danger. Respondents also noted challenges associated with community

conservation issues including conflict within the community, discrepancies with

transient fisherfolk and the unavailability of meeting places for educational seminars

(Senko et al. 2011).

What this shows us is that communities do care about wildlife and are willing to

protect local habitats and species if they have the means to do so. Communities with

local shark populations (specifically those with reef ecosystems where sharks reside)

have the power to protect those populations by designating protected habitat either for

conservation and/or ecotourism reasons. This way, members of the community will

appreciate and value that habitat and its species, including sharks, and will be less likely

to harvest them.

Ecotourism is another thing that sea turtles have in common with sharks.

Ecotourism is defined as “environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively

undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any

accompanying cultural features-both past and present) that promotes conservation, has

24

lower visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of

local populations” (Hart et al. 2013). Sea turtles are also attractive for voluntourism.

Both ecotourism and voluntourism can bring jobs and revenue to communities as well

as promote the importance of sea turtle conservation. The majority of responders in

Senko’s et al. (2011) survey believe that voluntourism would benefit their community.

There have already been positive outcomes from sea turtle voluntourism. SEEturtles and

RED Sustainable Tourism have provided local communities and sea turtle conservation

efforts with money, training, and jobs.

Sea turtle poachers have a variety of motives, and understanding the major

motives of each area is essential when it comes to designing conservation plans. A

marine protected area in the Seychelles experiences poaching primarily because of

economic factors, while areas of limited resources and employment opportunities lead

to poaching for sustenance (Hart et al. 2013). Tortuguero, Costa Rica has recorded a

decrease in illegal poaching as a result of ecotourism on sea turtle nesting beaches

(Senko et al. 2011). As tourism increases, sea turtles become valued more as non-

consumptive resources rather than a consumptive one (Hart et al. 2013).

A study by Hart et al. (2013) evaluated stakeholder perceptions about sea turtle

sustainability in three different communities near Cahuita National Park, Costa Rica.

They found that Cahuita Town was the most dependent on tourism with the greatest

awareness of the local sea turtle conservation project and the highest degree of social

cohesion. The second community, Home Creek, had limited social cohesion and little

awareness of the sea turtle conservation project. The third community, Playa Negra, had

25

the lowest amount of social cohesion and the lowest level of awareness. These results

support the idea that a community must first be stable in resources before they will be

willing to care about conservation. Despite these differences, a majority of respondents

in each community said they would be willing to participate in sea turtle conservation.

Sea turtle egg consumption and conservation is an issue similar to that of shark

fin consumption and conservation. Both taxa include migratory marine species both

include many endangered or threatened species, and both are threatened by human

consumption of individuals that result in complete mortality. By examining the ways

communities and organizations seek to prevent the consumption of see turtle eggs, we

can apply these successful strategies to sharks.

Communities are clearly willing to participate in the conservation of local

species. While older generations continue to eat turtle eggs, younger generations tend

to be more educated about conservation issues and less conformed to culture. This is a

similar situation to shark fin soup in many societies. When communities are provided

with more education on a topic, as well as given more opportunities to participate in

workshops, they are more willing to invest in conservation, not only for the species

itself, but to allow for sustainable levels of future harvest. From studying sea turtle

conservation efforts we also notice that by creating a sustainable ecotourism market in

a community, we can eliminate some of the need for harvest of animals. Like sea turtles,

sharks are attractive subjects for ecotourism and if managed correctly, could bring in

more revenue to a community as a renewable and sustainable resource than harvesting

would.

26

C. Large Mammal Poaching

Elephant ivory and rhinoceros horns are similar products to shark fins in that

they are illegal or fairly unused in many countries, highly coveted in others, and their

harvest results in the death of the animals they are taken from. Despite the CITES ivory

trade ban since 1990, elephant poaching remains a problem throughout much of Africa.

There has been debate about whether an ivory ban alone can reduce elephant poaching

and studies have yielded varying results. A study by Heltberg (2001) determined that a

trade ban can result in reduced poaching if paired with actions that intercept smuggled

goods, reduce official production and do not negatively affect law enforcement efforts.

Despite the ivory trade ban, African elephants (Loxodonta africana and L.

cyclotis) are still in decline. A recent study on forest elephants in central Asia determines

that population size decreased by 62% from 2002 to 2011 due to the combination of

habitat loss and illegal poaching despite previous thoughts that they are well-protected.

An increasing demand for ivory (especially from China) combined with a lack of effective

governance has given poachers the means and motivations to illegally hunt these forest

elephants (Maisels et al. 2013).

A study by Burn et al. (2011) used a hierarchical Bayesian analysis of elephant

carcass data to determine global trends and factors associated with poaching. Similar to

other studies they found that poor governance was an important driver of illegal killing.

This study showed that a trade ban on products alone is not enough to stop illegal

poaching of animals and that other actions including enforcing anti-poaching laws

27

through monitoring and policing, as well as decreasing demand for products must also

be implemented for it to truly be effective.

One of the biggest issues with ivory trade is that inability to properly determine

the geographic origin of ivory being traded. A study by Wasser at al. (2007) attempted

to infer the geographic origin of African elephant DNA from the largest seizure of

contraband elephant ivory since the ban in 1989. Using this method the researchers

could identity with near certainty whether an individual elephant was from the savanna

or forest. By identifying where these elephants were killed, law-enforcement efforts can

be focused on these areas as well as smuggling routes.

Just as conservationists are using elephant DNA from ivory to trace poaching

routes, scientists are also using DNA barcoding from shark meat to identify species

composition. Liu et al. (2013) did this for markets in Taiwan and found that Alopias

pelagicus (pelagic thresher sharks), Carcharhinus falciformis (silky sharks), Isurus

oxyrinchus (shortfin mako sharks), and Prionace glauca make up 80% of samples. They

also found that 5% of the tissue samples belonged to Sphyrna species, Carcharhinus

longimanus, and Carcharodon carcharias sharks; all species listed in CITES Appendix II.

Rhincodon typus, or whale shark, was not identified in any samples, possibly because

they are the only shark species with a restricted ban on fishing and trading in Taiwan.

This is a good sign that bans may actually be useful in reducing harvest. The authors

suggest similar bans for Appendix II species and reduced quota for the other highly

consumed shark species.

28

Another example of poaching-induced population decline in large mammals is

Diceros bicornis (black rhinoceros). By the mid-1990’s the population dropped by 95%

from its 1960 levels. Rhinos are poached for their horns which are used in traditional

remedies and in crafts, such as dagger-making. Diceros bicornis were listed under

CITES’s Appendix A in 1977 which banned trade in rhinoceros horn but did not actually

reduce the number of rhinos being killed. Some studies suggested that illegal Diceros

bicornis killing actually increased after the ban (Bulte 2003).

Rhinos have also been the center of some ecotourism efforts. The Khama Rhino

Sanctuary Trust in Botswana was created as a type of community-based natural

resource management. Ideally, this would protect habitats and species while

simultaneously benefiting local communities. A study by Sebele (2010) sought to

investigate the benefits and setbacks of the program and found some of both. The

program was successful initially in providing employment for local citizens. However,

the number of employees did not increase concurrent with the number of tourists. The

program was also successful in assisting the needy within the community with funds,

although long-term benefits are not established. The program also assists the

community by providing them with sourcing of goods and services. As for conservation,

the program was successful in facilitating the introduction of rhinos in an area where

they did not previously occur. Setbacks in the program include poor management, lack

of community involvement due to lack of interaction with community members,

reliance on donor funding and an imbalance in board representation. This study tells us

29

that community-based ecotourism and conservation efforts can be successful for

communities, but only if done correctly.

Studying the issues of elephant ivory and rhino horn in parts of Africa illustrates

that conservation efforts must be strengthened with improved governance and

enforcement of trade restrictions on illegal items; simple bans are not enough. Shark

finning is already highly regulated in many places but enforcement is necessary in order

for those regulations to be effective. By identifying hotspots for finning the way

conservationists did for elephant poaching enforcement can be focused on the areas

that most need it. Previous conservation efforts show that bans alone can be useful but

are usually not efficient and that they need stricter enforcement, improved governance,

and identification of hotspots for better effectiveness.

D. Whaling and the IWC

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has been suggested as a model for

shark management. Whales, like sharks, are migratory marine creatures with complex

life histories. Whales, like sharks are killed for economic use. Also like sharks, whales

have been hunted since ancient times and their continued exploitation is an

international “hot button” issue. According to Mazzanti (2001), whales can be depicted

economically as a mixed good, representing different values to different people.

Viewing whales this way can help to create an effective management plan that deals in

compromise and caters to multiple stakeholders. Despite these similarities, the IWC is a

largely ineffective institution that does not work for whales and would presumably not

30

work for sharks. We can, however, learn from these experiences and apply certain

lessons from the IWC to shark conservation.

The IWC was created in 1946 with the intention of making decisions based on

scientific findings such as stock assessments. Stock assessments, however, are usually

based only on the “best” set of assumptions and include a high level of scientific

uncertainty. In 1974 the IWC adopted the “New Management Procedure,” which uses

harvest control rules (HCR). The HCR were then reformulated into the “management

procedure approach” with management based on a specified set of rules created from

simulations (Punt and Donovan 2007). As the IWC continues to mature, scientists and

policy-makers tweak the decision-making process yet no real progress has been made in

the last three decades.

The IWC has been stuck in a deadlock since their 1982 whaling moratorium. The

majority of IWC members are against whaling, yet some countries have completely

disregarded the moratorium. Pro-whaling countries do not want to compromise and

anti-whaling countries do not want to review the moratorium for fear of losing it

altogether. Therefore, no further action has been taken. The deadlock prevents the IWC

from being effective or stable (Mazzanti 2001). In order to create an effective body, the

IWC needs full membership and cooperation, which can be achieved through a

bargaining effort and compromise between all parties.

While creating a similar commission for shark conservation would likely be as

ineffective as the IWC, an international forum could be useful in bringing stakeholders

together. Countries with high demand for shark fins could meet with countries with

31

strong shark conservation measures in place. Unlike the IWC, a forum would simply be a

place for representatives to speak their minds and keep each other updated on their

conservation efforts. An international forum could increase communication between

parties without the decision-making pressure of a commission.

E. Apex Predators and Human-Wildlife Conflict

Canis lupus (gray wolves), like sharks, are apex predators that are often feared by

and sometimes compete with humans. Public fears towards predators can interrupt

conservation efforts. A longitudinal study by Treves et al. (2013) looked at the causes

and changes in public opinions of Canis lupus in Wisconsin following an increase in

population numbers between 2001 and 2009. Researchers found that the strongest

inclination to poach wolves was correlated with competition over deer hunting (a large

part of Wisconsin’s culture). Researchers also determined that allowing regulated public

hunting of wolves would raise public tolerance towards them. This study is an example

of how much of the intolerance towards apex predators comes from fear of competition

for prey resources and personal safety. Education is important when it comes to

creating more positive attitudes towards apex predators. Attitudes towards wolves in

Scandinavia were all more positive with an increase in knowledge on the species

(Ericsson and Heberlein 2003) and hopefully the same correlation can be made for

sharks.

When managing for any species it is important to understand the attitudes and

feelings of all stakeholders. This is especially true when managing apex predators such

32

as sharks or wolves because opinions can be starkly polarized. Rather than trying to

sway stakeholders Mazur and Asah (2013) believe it is important to first understand

everyone’s point of view. Decisions on conservation can then be made that will work as

a compromise for all parties involved. Because some fisherman object to stricter shark

protection, their opinions and needs must be included in the decision-making process,

but ultimately scientific data should be used to determine whether or not such

conservation measures would interfere with these businesses.

Drawing inferences from terrestrial animals such as Canis lupus can be useful for

similar apex predators like sharks. Wirsing and Ripple (2010) found that the relationship

between Galeocerdo cuvier and dugongs is comparable to that of Canis lupus and elk.

While terrestrial conservation and marine conservation may not always seem

comparable, conservationists should not forget to consider that many ecological

processes in fact are.

Other apex predators suffer from human-wildlife conflict as well. Lions (Panthera

leo) are at odds with humans more often than not. Despite these conflicts, there have

been studies showing that there are ways for humans and lions to co-exist, including

government-protected areas and specific grazing techniques (Schuette et al. 2013).

Attitudes of these people who interact with predators range across the board. In South

Africa, poll respondents expressed diverging attitudes towards predators with more

positive views correlated with higher education and negative views linked with fear of

human and livestock loss. Despite these fears, a majority of respondents of the poll

showed favorable opinions concerning apex predator conservation, mostly due to their

33

natural heritage (Gusset and Lagendijk 2008). What we can learn from how other

communities interact with apex predators is that although conflicts do rise do to

competition and fear; education and cultural heritage can work in conservationists favor

when it comes to protecting large carnivores.

While managing human-wildlife conflicts (HWC) with sharks is different from

managing HWC with terrestrial predators, those experiences can still provide

knowledge. HWC occur when the goals of humans negatively impact wildlife and/or the

needs of wildlife negatively impact humans. One of the problems of dealing with HWC is

that stakeholders may not have the knowledge or resources necessary for effective

solutions for the problem. Many HWC are rooted in communities where human-human

conflict is prevalent. By solving human-human conflict, some HWC may be alleviated.

One thing often observed with HWC is the disproportionate fear over certain

issues with public outcry being driven much more by perceptions of risk rather than

actual risk. This is a factor that is obvious when it comes to fear of sharks. Many people

are afraid of shark attacks while in reality, only an average of four or five people a year

actually die from shark attacks (Madden 2004). In this case, the perception of fear is

much greater than the actual risk.

When it comes to dealing with apex predators, facilitation between human

needs and animal needs must be incorporated into management plans. For some

terrestrial species, a change in farming, ranching, etc. can reduce predator interactions

but for marine predators like sharks, the issue is more about perceived fear. In order to

reduce human fear of sharks, education should empathize how fear people actually are

34

attacked by sharks each year. When people view sharks more as interesting creatures

and less of dangerous predators, they will be more likely to back conservation measures

supporting them.

III. Conservation Solutions against the Threat of Finning

Using what we know from past conservation efforts, both for sharks and other taxa, we

can determine the best practices for conserving sharks against the threat of finning. I

suggest taking a three-pronged approach to the issue and that addressing shark finning

in these three directions simultaneously would be more effective that just one avenue

of conservation.

A. Identifying Stakeholders

Before considering any conservation plan, it is essential to identify stakeholders

and understand how to make the best decisions while incorporating the needs of all of

them. In the case of shark finning and conservation there are a few main stakeholder

groups.

1. Governing Bodies

Each country and region has a different opinion on the issue of shark finning.

Many countries, especially those in the Western hemisphere, have enacted anti-finning

legislation. Because shark fin soup is a delicacy in some countries, mostly located in East

and South Asia, there will be varying degrees of concern and willingness to implement

35

anti-finning legislation. Similar to the issue of whaling, anti-finning and pro-finning

countries must work together to govern open waters and come up with comprehensive

cross-boundary plans for shark conservation. While the focus should stay on

conservation, the needs and wants of pro-finning countries must be considered and

discussed in order to facilitate discussion and cooperation between countries and

regions.

2. Fisherfolk

Fisherfolk rely on fishing as their livelihood. Whether they fish teleost fishes or

sharks their needs and wants will likely be different than conservationists and scientists.

If strict conservation measures are put in place, there must be consolation efforts for

fisherfolk accompanying them. This would include educational programs on

sustainability as well as avenues for other sources of income. Another way to minimize

the negative effects on fisherfolk is to get them involved in ecotourism projects that

would replace shark finning in certain communities. This would not only be better for

the sharks, but it would allow the people involved to continue providing for their

families, but in a more sustainable way. Studies have shown that sharks are worth more

dead than alive and that ecotourism can help reverse that relationship. In the Maldives

$2.3 million was generated from shark-observing dives in 1993 alone and a single

Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos (gray reef shark) was found to be worth over $3,000 a year

and $35,000 in a lifetime to the industry, which makes it 100 times more valuable alive

than dead. Shark interactions have generated about $78 million a year in the Bahamas

36

(Gallaher and Hammerschlag 2011). Communities can be shown the relative benefits of

shark tourism over shark harvesting.

3. The General Public

The general public has the ability to pressure their governments and

communities to make conservation changes and hence, the public needs to be

considered as an important stakeholder. Citizens of different countries will have

different opinions on the issue depending upon their background, culture, and exposure

to the issue. Many might be unaware of the issues facing sharks and the first step for

involving the general public would be to educate them on shark conservation issues, the

aspects of finning itself, and shark fin products. Some people may not find their views

changed by this education but others may. The general public, once educated on the

topic, should be allowed a say in shark conservation issues facing their local

communities, states, and countries through boycotting products and communicating

with representatives.

a. Shark fin culture

Within this group there is a subgroup of those citizens who have cultural

backgrounds that include eating shark fin soup. For these people shark fin soup is

something they have grown up knowing and learning about and it might not be possible

to convince them to stop buying these products. They need to be educated about shark

conservation issues in order to convince them that although the behavior of consuming

shark fin soup does have a strong foothold in their cultural history, it is extremely

37

damaging to shark populations worldwide. This may not work on all shark fin soup

eaters but we can also educate the younger generations in these cultures and prevent

the practice from becoming ingrained in them.

B. Three-Pronged Approach

I have organized possible conservation solutions to shark finning into three different

categories, as a combination of all three is necessary, in my opinion, to be effective.

1. Scientific Approach

a. Increase research on shark stocks and broaden topics

Shark research has increased drastically over the past few decades. In the past

30 years there has been a seven-fold increase in citations for the topic “shark” in Web of

Science. There has also been an increase in people who study sharks, especially

students, as well as societies and organizations dedicated to shark research and

conservation (Simpfendorfer et al 2011).

Rather than disproportionately studying high-profile studies like Rhincodon

typus, research should be focused on the most at-risk and finned species. Simpfendorfer

et al (2011) suggests that research should fall under a broad range of topics including

life history, spatial ecology, environmental effects, ecosystem role, fishery status,

population status, and human dimensions. Only with extensive research covering

multiple topics can we really understand how and why sharks are at risk and what can

be done to help them. There is definitely an inequality in species research. For example,

Carcharhinus falciformis has been greatly reduced in population due to the shark fin

38

trade. In fact, its Gulf of Mexico population has declined by more than 90%. Despite

their obvious peril, there is spotty research on Carcharhinus falciformis (Clarke et al.

2011). Research needs to be more distributed throughout species and especially

focused on species that are in the greatest danger.

Another problem with data is that although shark catches are supposed to be

reported to the FAO by countries, reports are often incomplete or not done at all.

Sharks that are caught and discarded are often not reported, severely skewing shark

catch data and making it unlikely that reported catch represents anything more than a

fraction of total shark mortality (Worm et al. 2013). Countries need to be encouraged to

provide complete catch data to the FAO.

Shark research may also benefit from incorporating social science. Jacques

(2010) proposed the creation of a discipline called “social oceanography” which would

incorporate human dimensions along with physical and biological oceanography. Since

the biological oceanography of sharks is so intrinsically linked to its human dimensions,

incorporating these dimensions into research and theory is necessary for a more

complete understanding of shark conservation. An example of how this is already being

done is Rhincodon typus conservation efforts in Eastern Indonesia that combines

traditional knowledge and new technology to develop management strategies (Stacey

et al. 2012).

Most RFMOs use stock assessments when creating management plans and few

shark species actually have complete stock assessments (Godin and Worm 2010).

Assessing shark stocks can be difficult because there is a lack of historic catch data.

39

Scientists have been experimenting with ways to better estimate historic shark data,

such as Clarke (2008), who used Hong Kong trade-derived estimates to create estimates

for the Atlantic. Their study resolved that neither trade-based estimates nor alternative

catch-based estimates are best, yet they may be preferable to existing catch reports.

Another method for inferring past shark presence is by looking at cultural

artifacts. Drew et al. (2013) examined 19th century shark tooth weapons from the

Gilbert Islands in the Central Pacific and were able to identify two different shark

species that once inhabited local ecosystems but no longer do. This is a useful way of

identifying changes in shark species composition. Identifying shark species composition

in the finning market is equally important. We have a general idea about which species

are targeted for their fins but we do not know many specifics (Clarke et al. 2007). There

is a need for better data, and finding acceptable estimates may be just as important.

Creating complete stock assessments and drastically increasing data collection

on sharks is imperative to this plan. Complete data are necessary in order to make

inferences about which stocks are at risk, where they are at risk, and what will happen

to their ecosystem if they are removed. Research needs to shift focus from just a few

charismatic species to include more species, with an emphasis on those that are

considered to be highly at risk from finning or with already depleted numbers. Research

should also be conducted on shark ecology, nursery habitat use, migration, and roles in

the ecosystem.

Monitoring is just as important as initial stock assessments and can be essential

in managing fisheries, but is often overlooked. Monitoring is most commonly done by

40

collecting fisher logbooks, but this strategy often does not get reliable by-catch data.

Scientific observer programs can be useful for monitoring; however, their

implementation is difficult to accomplish (Godin and Worm 2010).

While initial research is necessary for setting yield limits and fishing restrictions

monitoring of populations and ecosystems is also necessary to be sure that the laws are

effective. Monitoring is also important in determining that nations are complying with

laws or regulations. In Canada, finning policies are enforced with almost 100% dockside

monitoring and enforcement is believed to be effective (Godin and Worm 2010). In

order for best management practices to be developed, there needs to be an ample

amount of data available, not only at the beginning, but throughout the process as well.

b. Encourage management plans based on life histories

One of the biggest problems with the management and exploitation of sharks is

that they are often treated like fish species when in reality; they should be managed in a

manner similar to marine mammals. Sharks’ life histories are more similar to marine

mammals than teleosts. Unlike many teleost fishes, which can recover easily from

overfishing due to their high fecundity-high mortality, sharks have a K-selected life-

history strategy that includes long life spans and low fecundity (Stevens et al. 2000).

They take much longer than other fishes to mature and because of this, shark

populations cannot recover as rapidly as fish populations. This sort of management

would include lower quotas and protection of areas important to shark development.

41

Variation in the life-history traits of sharks (including growth, age at maturity,

fecundity, and offspring size) is usually correlated with adult body size. This means that

rebound potential (and other demographic parameters) may also be correlated with

body size. This has been observed in the North Sea where the four largest

chondrichthyan species have declined while the two smallest species have seen an

increase in abundance. There is also evidence of large species shark extinction in the

Irish Sea. Knowing that this correlation between demographic parameters and body size

exists, it is something to take into consideration when ranking species for conservation

priority (Stevens et al. 2000).

Sharks have very different life histories from teleost fishes, yet they are managed

the same way. There should be a completely unique set of standards for managing shark

fisheries that should be based off of management for other longer-lived species such as

marine mammals and sea turtles. By managing sharks as fish, they become

overexploited quickly; however, by managing them appropriately, shark fisheries may

still be able to function sustainably and economically.

2. Political Approach

a. Creating standardized legislation recommendations

Despite existing legislation on shark management from international and

national groups, current international rules have limited authority, a lack of

enforcement, minimal active management, and are usually not reinforced by National

Plans of Actions (Jacques 2010). If a group of scientists (either through an international

42

forum or through the FAO) were to come up with a set of recommended minimum

regulations for all nations, some countries may choose to use them as a tool for

implementing policies. While the five percent fin to carcass weight ratio may not be

appropriate for all shark species, it is an important step in setting regulations for finning

and can at least be an improvement in nations without any anti-finning legislation.

Countries can then be encouraged to investigate species- or group-specific standards or

other stricter legislation by communicating with scientists and with workers in other

nations. Mandatory unharmed release of all live individuals would also be

recommended. Monitoring of these regulations should be done by a non-biased third

party so that no payoffs or loopholes can be arranged.

b. Encourage national legislation

In 2000 Hawaii prohibited shark finning. This act coincided with a 54% drop in

USA to Hong Kong fin imports in 2001. Drops in imports to Hong Kong have been

observed to coincide with the implementation of shark fin regulations by other

countries (Clarke et al. 2007). Despite the uncertainty with NOAA and the Shark

Conservation Act, we should continue to encourage federal and state governments to

enact stricter shark protections. Banning shark products outright nationally would not

necessarily be an easy task, but it would be extremely useful. If we cannot convince the

federal government to enact a wide-reaching anti-shark product ban then the next best

way to accomplish this would be on a state-by-state basis (assuming NOAA will accept

future state bans).

43

In the United States sharks (along with other fish species) are managed under

NOAA’s NMFS in the US Department of Commerce. However, as previously discussed,

sharks’ life histories differ so much from other fishes that they should be managed

differently. I suggest changing the management and conservation of sharks in the

United States to mimic that of marine mammal conservation because of the similarities

between sharks and marine mammals, both in life history traits and conservation issues.

Marine mammal management was originally divided between the Department of the

Interior (FWS) and the Department of Commerce (NOAA). In 1972 the Marine Mammal

Commission (MMC) was created under the MMPA “to review and make

recommendations on the policies and actions of the Service and NOAA related to their

implementation of the MMPA” (Marine Mammals 2014). I suggest a similar federal

commission be created for sharks that would serve to coordinate their management and

encourage to other agencies (such as the FWS) to get involved in shark conservation.

c. Create regulated MPAs

Frid et al. (2008) stress the importance of international cooperation and

management. One way conservation groups and scientists advocate for shark protection

is through the creation of MPAs. Since these areas are protected from exploitation, they

are often used as management tools for sheltering both species and habitat. This is a

common tool for habitats such as coral reef and kelp forests which can protect shark

species with smaller home ranges. Whether or not mobile species benefit from MPAs is

debated (Frid et al. 2008).

44

The IWC established two ocean sanctuaries: the Southern Ocean Sanctuary (SOS)

and the Indian Ocean Sanctuary (IOS) with the object of providing a safe area for

cetaceans. Zacharias et al. (2006) discusses how one of those in particular, the SOS,

needs significant improvement. According to the authors, all IWC sanctuaries are

somewhat arbitrary and based on vague goals that are difficult to measure and lack

effective monitoring. They consider it a “shotgun” approach because it is a large area

chosen to be protected without any real reasoning or management guidelines. The

authors suggest steps to implement to improve the SOS including formal goals,

measurable objectives, a management plan that includes a monitoring framework, and

appropriate review criteria. By evaluating existing marine reserves and sanctuaries, we

can better determine which steps are necessary to fix them as well as in the creation of

new ones.

Poaching still happens, often in areas that are protected from by law fishing.

Illegal shark fishing occurs globally; especially since many of the places where it occurs

in have poor law enforcement. Carr et al. (2013) demonstrated the concern for illegal

shark fishing in the Galápagos Marine Reserve, an area of high biodiversity. Due to a

loophole in the 1993 law in which Ecuadorian fisherfolk are allowed to sell and export

fins from “incidental catch”, the area has experienced a large amount of shark finning

over the years. In 1998 the area was proclaimed nationally protected and fishing and

finning were prohibited. Further regulations came when the Ecuadorian Ministry of the

Environment expressly prohibited shark fishing, landing, and trading in 2003. Despite all

of this protection, in 2011 a fishing vessel was seized and found to be carrying 379 shark

45

carcasses, the majority being females and juveniles. This raid was proof that no matter

how strict regulation may be, unless it is enforced shark finning will continue.

Even if protective measures for shark conservation are instilled, they will not be

effective unless they can be enforced. Countries should be held accountable for

breaking the laws, even if countries or fisherfolk find a loophole to go through. As

shown in other conservation situations (such as that of elephant ivory poaching)

enforcement of laws and regulations is necessary (but probably not sufficient) for

conservation efforts to truly be effective.

Both national and international legislation must be enforced if it is to be

successful. Not only must each country work to enforce its laws and regulations

regarding shark finning, but also be able to enforce no-take laws in any protected areas.

Specific areas in need of enforcement should be identified similar to the case for

elephant ivory in the study by Wasser at al. (2007). Using complete data assessments on

which species are being targeted and from where, we can determine the most at-risk

locations for sharks and pinpoint enforcement efforts in those locations.

One way of monitoring illegal animal harvesting is through the use of eco-

drones. Eco-drones are unmanned aerial vehicles used to monitor locations for

destructive activities such as poaching or habitat destruction. Eco-drones can be useful

because they are low-cost and low-impact and can provide high-resolution data to

supplement other monitoring efforts in areas that are difficult to get to or monitor.

These drones are already being used in Africa, Asia, and South America. Despite these

46

benefits, the use of eco-drones over the ocean will have to rely on international

cooperation with regard to airspace jurisdiction (Harriman and Muhlhausen 2013).

When considering the use of an MPA to protect shark species, certain variables

must be measured including, probability of capture outside the MPA and life stages

spent in particular areas. It is as important to protect nursery grounds as it is to protect

shark breeding stocks to keep levels of recruitment high (Knip et al. 2012). Basic

knowledge of geographic distribution and diversity of a species is necessary to design a

proper protected area. However, there are few shark species with enough information

available on them to do so. Some studies, such as the one by Lucifora et al. (2011) have

attempted to map global shark diversity to identify hotspots and potential areas for

conservation priority. Studies like these can be extremely useful in prioritizing

conservation areas for sharks; however, they should be corroborated by multiple

sources and would realistically require much more species-specific data to be complete.

Deciding where to establish an MPA is a difficult process. One strategy is to

create protected areas for spawning and nursery grounds, or other areas commonly

used by mobile species. Another idea is to plan around habitats that are used most

extensively and set boundaries along non-contiguous habitat with natural boundaries.

Another design scheme to consider is the “onion ring” approach which buffers core

areas with outer zones that allow some take but excludes high impact fisheries (Knip et

al. 2012).

A study by Knip et al. (2012) evaluated the degree to which MPAs may shelter

shark populations. They tracked two tropical coastal species (Carcharhinus amboinensis,

47

the pigeye shark, and C. sorrah) in two MPA regions in the Great Barrier Reef Marine

Park, Australia. They found that the two species spent a high proportion of time within

the MPAs. Plenty of other species exhibit site fidelity at various life stages including

juvenile Sphyrna lewini in Hawaii (Holland et al. 1993) and juvenile Mustelus californicus

(gray smooth-hound sharks) in California (Espinoza et al. 2011). This suggests that

spatial closures could indeed have significant benefits for management and

conservation of sharks, even if they are only receiving partial protection due to their

mobility.

Juvenile marine fishes, including sharks, often inhabit nurseries: “a region where

juvenile fishes occur at higher densities, avoid predation more successfully and grow at

a faster rate, thereby providing a greater relative contribution to adult recruitment than

other areas” (Beck et al. 2001). By protecting nursery areas, we can increase

recruitment to shark populations, especially since most elasmobranches are born at a

large size which leads to a close relationship between stock size and recruitment. These

juveniles often display site fidelity so identifying nursery areas is not altogether difficult

(Francis 2013).

Francis (2013) studied the temporal and spatial patterns of habitat use in

juvenile Mustelus lenticulatus (spotted estuary smooth-hound) in New Zealand. Using

three criteria; small juveniles occurring in high numbers at specific locations, repeatedly

being found in these locations, and remaining in these locations for up to seven months,

they determined that for this small coastal shark species, the entire harbor they lived in

would need to become an MPA for effective protection. This is a daunting and

48

seemingly impossible task. Determining the size necessary for an effective MPA is

challenging for a single species, and those difficulties only become amplified when

attempting a multi-species approach toward management.

The Australian Great Barrier Reef supports high levels of biodiversity, including

many shark species. Despite being one of the least-degraded reefs in the world, shark

populations are still collapsing. The two most abundant reef shark species, the

Triaenodon obesus (whitetip reef shark) and Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos were

evaluated in four levels of coral reef management zones on the Great Barrier Reef (no-

entry zones, no-take zones, limited fishing zones, and open-fishing zones). Highest levels

of reef sharks were found in no-entry zones. There was also a dramatic difference

between abundances in no-entry and no-take zones, which can be attributed to illegal

fishing in no-take zones and their proximity to fishing zones that sharks can swim in and

out of. These species also showed site fidelity. These results demonstrate the

importance of no-entry zones and the failure of no-take zones and regulation within

them. The study also showed that both species have a high probability of population

decline. This is especially important since reef sharks serve an important role as apex

predators in coral reef ecosystems (Robbins et al. 2006). Francis (2013) notes an

important fact when considering MPAs for shark protection; they do not control for

terrestrial impacts including metal pollution and sedimentation. MPAs would be most

effective when combined with land-based legislation to mitigate these affects. While

creating protected areas can be extremely useful in reducing finning and fishing

pressure on shark stocks, the best protection would include a multi-pronged approach.

49

3. Consumer/Public Awareness Approach

a. Create a database of shark-fin free companies

As we have seen with the Dolphin-Safe Tuna movement, consumerism and

public awareness can be an incredibly effective tool in reducing the demand for

unsustainable products. Identifying shark products (especially fins and fin soup) is

relatively easy to do but by labeling these products with a warning and/or labeling

sustainable substitutions for these products with an accommodation may sway some

consumers. By creating a database of businesses that sell shark products or support

shark finning in any way, we can encourage consumers to boycott those establishments.

We can also create an official “stamp of approval” for establishments that have gone

shark-fin free, especially in communities where they may be expected to serve these

products (such as pre-dominantly Asian neighborhoods) or have done so in the past. By

having a stamp of approval in their window, an establishment can appeal to a

consumer’s sense of environmentalism and attract more business. Many institutions

have their own lists of establishments that do or do not sell shark fins but organizations

should come together to create a single, streamlined database that could be showed off

to the general public.

Targeting should extend past just those establishments that participate in the

shark fin trade here in the United States, but the ones who do so overseas as well. Many

companies and corporations have both national and international investments and if

they are threatened by a boycott here in the United States, they may be willing to

change their actions overseas. For example, Hilton Hotels do not serve shark fin soup at

50

their hotels here in the United States but they do serve it in their Asian Pacific

establishments. Because Hilton is an international business, concerned citizens from

around the world can join together to boycott their hotels until they agree to stop

serving shark fin soup completely. Some large corporations have already given up their

involvement in the shark fin trade, including many airlines. Philippine, Korean, Asiana,

and Qantas Airlines all have a blanket ban on fins while Air Pacific only allows fins from

sustainable sources (Robles 2014).

One thing to keep in mind is the backlash from certain parts of the Asian

community. In 2012 shark fin dealers in California filed a lawsuit against the state’s ban

on shark fin sale and possession citing discrimination against Asians. The lawsuit was

thrown out but the fact that protection measures will face opposition by some members

of the community is something that needs to be considered. Despite the disagreement,

a 2011 poll showed that 70% of Chinese-Americans in California do in fact support the

ban (Sankin 2012). This gives us hope that while there will be objections to finning bans,

there is hopefully enough support to push them through.

b. Create educational programs

The U.S. National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks

requires US management entities to cooperate with education and outreach activities.

So far, multiple programs have been used to do this including brochures on safe catch

and release techniques, efforts to encourage live release of specific at-risk species like

51

Isurus oxyrinchus, mailers, online live-release maps, and identification guides as well as

websites, hotlines, and meetings (NMFS 2012).

It can be difficult to determine the public’s opinion on sharks but one study

compared survey results from before and after a shark bite incident. Neff and Yang

(2013) surveyed residents in Cape Town, South Africa in June 2011 and then again in

October 2011 following a shark attack in September. They determined that attitudes

towards sharks might be more independent of shark bite incidents than previously

thought and that policy makers should consider those attitudes more “sophisticated”

than they have so far. Their study was evidence that not all shark bite incidents result in

a decreased support for sharks and they attribute it to the fact that pollers have had

experience with sharks in the past, details about the incident itself, and a thorough

understanding of sharks and their relationships with humans. Their study lends support

for the idea that endemic value can be a key issue when it comes to protecting sharks,

as well as education and proper information regarding shark attacks.

Another important aspect of education is how sharks are portrayed in the media.

Muter et al. (2012) compared Australian and U.S. news media portrayals of sharks from

2000-2010 and found that shark conservation was only the focus of 11% of articles while

shark attacks was the focus on over half. They also determined that Australian news

articles focused on shark attacks and politicians while those from the U.S. often

referenced popular shark-based entertainment and cited scientists for conservation

issues (Mutter et al. 2012). Most media outlets focus on sharks as a danger to humans

rather than as an important and threatened part of our ecosystems. Scientists and

52

conservationists need to push more conservation-based shark information in the media

if they want the public to see sharks as endangered rather than dangerous.

Public perception of sharks dictates what type of research is being done at any

given time. Simpfendorfer et al (2011) recounts a history of that correlation. When fear

was high research was focused on sensory biology and attack prevention. Communities

developed shark-control programs to reduce shark numbers off their shores. Although

these programs have been largely unsuccessful they have provided us with long-term

data on sharks. The authors have noted a shift in divers’ attitudes since the 1950’s from

wanting to hunt sharks to wanting to observe them. This correlates with the current

acknowledgment for the need for shark conservation and management.

One way to increase public rejection of shark products is by educating on them

on the dangers of its consumption. Mercury (Hg) is a highly toxic contaminant in marine

systems. There is evidence that mercury is dangerous to humans and public concern

over its consumption is strong (Pethybridge et al. 2010). Many fish species are known to

harbor mercury levels dangerous for human consumption and shark meat and fins is no

exception. The rules of bioaccumulation would suggest that as sharks are apex

predators, they accumulate more mercury the more mercury-filled prey they consume.

A 1999 study by Adams and McMichael found that shark catch from important

recreational and commercial shark stocks on the east-central coast of Florida contained

mercury levels as high as or higher than regulatory levels. Elevated mercury levels in

sharks have also been recorded in the southeastern US, Canada, Great Britain, and

Australia. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warns against

53

eating shark or other fish with high mercury contents. One Australian study tested 16

demersal shark species, many of which are commonly consumed in local markets, and

found that in all adults mercury concentrations were high enough to cause potential

human health concerns (Pethybridge et al. 2010).

The Hong Kong Government published tests in 2004 which indicated that ten

percent of all dried seafood samples (most of which were shark fins) contained

hazardous impurities not safe for human consumption including hydrogen peroxide and

formaldehyde. About ten years ago there was a campaign against shark fin soup led by

schoolchildren at Disney’s Hong Kong theme park because of its apparent toxicity. The

campaign was successful and Disney withdrew shark fin from their menu (Clarke et al.

2007). Increasing awareness on the dangers of consuming shark meat is a good way to

convince people not to eat these animals and to support legislation against killing them

for food.

Another important part of shark conservation is getting people to care about

shark welfare. This is done by focusing on the taxa itself, its role in the ecosystem, and

the dangers it faces. We already have plenty of evidence that people are fascinated by

sharks; movies such as Finding Nemo and Shark Tale have drawn huge audiences. The

Discovery Channel dedicates an entire week every year to just programs about sharks.

Granted, many of those programs focus on negative shark-human interaction, however;

they have been getting better at incorporating conservation and ecological programs as

well. There are even apps for smartphones that track Carcharodon carcharias sharks as

they travel through the world’s oceans (Expedition White Shark 2013). For many, sharks

54

are the most fascinating creatures in the sea. In 2008 American scuba divers listed

sharks as their top attraction, above even corals and turtles (Gallagher and

Hammerschlag 2011). The public loves watching sharks on their screens and going on

actual adventures in the sea with them, so it stands to reason they would be willing to

protect them.

Education and outreach can make all the difference when it comes to conserving

a species being overexploited for its products. There are different types of education

and outreach that have shown to be successful in the past and would be recommended

for sharks as well:

i. Educating the general public about the importance of sharks as apex predators

in their ecosystems, the unsustainability and cruelty of the shark finning

industry, and how and where products are used.

ii. Educating fisherfolk about sustainable yields and providing them with correct

management plans and techniques for sharks including proper equipment usage

as well as teaching them how to identify different species by their fins so as to

have complete data when reporting.

iii. Educating governments about the conservation issues regarding shark finning,

the dangers of eating shark meat, and the possibility of using tourism as a means

of sustainable income.

Australia is currently experiencing a public outcry against its recent shark culling

efforts. From January through April of 2014 the government of Western Australian

instituted a shark cull that targeted Carcharhinus leucas (bull sharks), Galeocerdo cuvier,

and Carcharodon carcharias over three meters in length. The government received an

exemption from Australia’s Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

55

to do this and cited recent shark attacks as their reasoning (despite only suffering 20

fatal shark attacks in their area in the past 100 years). The cull has caused a great stir in

the Greens political party, as well as the general public, with many Australians opposed.

The Greens are currently attempting to push the Save Our Sharks bill to end this and

future culls (Wildlifeextra.com 2014). This outcry tells us that a majority of the general

public understand that the threat of shark bites is overestimated, especially compared

to their conservation concerns.

c. Promote sustainable and safe ecotourism as a substitute to finning

Whale watching and other tourism activities have been contributing to marine

mammal conservation for years. The same strategy can and is being used for sharks as

well (Clua et al. 2011). Ziegler et al. (2012) examined the Rhincodon typus tourism

industry in Isla Holbox, Mexico. Using an importance-performance analysis they

pinpointed key issues with the industry including false advertising, tour cost, lack of

educational information, and perceived crowding. The authors discussed these factors

as a representative of the issue of uncontrolled growth of the tourism industry. While

shark tourism can help to instill value for sharks into the public as well as provide a

source of revenue other than finning, it’s clear that tourism must be managed

appropriately. Rhincodon typus tourism is also popular in Eastern Indonesia where

sharks seasonally aggregate in shallow coastal waters. By observing these patterns,

many countries have been able to develop ecotourism ventures (Stacey et al. 2012).

56

Some shark tourism companies (an estimated 40% of sites) use the process of

wildlife provisioning or using bait to attract sharks. A study by Maljkovic and Côté (2011)

investigated the effects of over 20 years of provisioning on a population of Carcharhinus

perezi (Caribbean reef sharks) in the Bahamas. Despite certain individuals monopolizing

the bait, the study found no evidence that provisioning caused a shift in behavior that

would affect the sharks’ ecological role. Provisioning should only be used if studies

suggest it does not negatively affect any other species in the area. If done correctly (i.e.,

not putting the ecosystem or tourists in danger) provisioning can be a useful tool in

shark tourism and therefore, conservation.

One type of tourism is shark feeding, which entails using natural bait to attract

animals to a given location where divers pay to observe them in the water. This can be a

useful way to guarantee satisfied tourists. However, it does have some drawbacks.

Decreasing mobility by keeping sharks in one area may possibly lead to inbreeding,

behavioral shifts, and increased aggressiveness (Clua et al. 2011). One study on

Carcharhinus falciformis showed that baiting populations allowed for closer observation

and identification of individuals and that even though the sharks are drawn to these

reefs originality, baiting can cause them to linger there (Clarke et al. 2011).

Ecotourism can be a useful tool not only to protect shark species and instill value

for them into local communities, but to provide those communities with a source of

income as well. Shark and ray tourism is becoming increasingly popular and comes in

many forms including drift diving, cage diving, and shark feeding; and shark tourism can

be found in more than 40 countries (Vianna et al. 2012). One of the best ways to

57

convince stakeholders and communities to participate in ecotourism is to attach

economic values to wildlife so their non-consumptive use can be directly compared with

consumptive use. By educating communities on how conserving shark species and using

them non-consumptively can save them money, they will be more likely to participate in

conservation and tourism activities (Clua et al. 2011).

For many island countries in the Indo-Pacific region, fishing has played a large

role both economically and culturally for many years. One of these nations, Palau, has

recognized the importance of sharks as a tourism resource. Tourists visit the country to

dive with sharks and manta rays and in order to protect this budding investment, the

government of Palau declared all surrounding waters a shark sanctuary. This act

prohibits the capture, killing, or sale of sharks or shark-fishing related gear within their

waters. A study sought to estimate shark diving’s contributions to Palau. They found

that for the fiscal year of 2009/2010 tourism was the main source of income and

compromised 56% of the nation’s GDP. Results of the study proved the importance of

sharks and shark tourism to the country’s economy. Other countries have benefited

financially from shark tourism as well, including the Canary Islands, the Maldives, South

Africa, and Moorea, French Polynesia. Shark diving is valued at millions of dollars all

over the world (Vianna et al. 2012).

A study by Clua et al. (2011) took this to the next level by assigning monetary

value to individual sharks. Moorea, an island in French Polynesia, uses shark tourism to

generate $5.4 million per year. They determined that a single resident Negaprion

brevirostris (lemon shark) can generate up to $474,000 per year ($2.64 million over its

58

lifetime). Using figures like these, we can easily compare tourism to fishing and show

the immense economic benefits of conserving sharks rather than consuming them.

Sometimes tourism can inspire research. In Indonesia Rhincodon typus tourism

and community-based monitoring can provide information on Rhincodon typus seasonal

movements (Stacey et al. 2012). In the Seychelles the recreational scuba diving industry

spurred the creation of a formal study on Rhincodon typus by the Marine Conservation

Society, Seychelles (MCSS). The project included public monitoring activities that

increased education and awareness. The project set up the Whale Shark Monitoring

Network early on to induce community involvement right away. The MCSS program also

helps the local community by paying participants and giving business to local

establishments that rent out boats, etc. It was clear from the onset that early-on

community involvement was essential to the Seychelles Rhincodon typus conservation

plan and will be just as important to shark conservation efforts around the world (Rowat

and Engelhardt 2007).

One concern with tourism is regulation. For example, in Australia, there is no

single regulatory body that controls tourism. In Western Australia licenses are required

for tour operators. Techera and Klein (2013) believe that the best regulations of shark-

based ecotourism includes enforceable licenses and “non-binding codes of conduct” but

only insofar as they include strict compliance and enforcement.

By convincing local governments that ecotourism centered on sharks can bring

more revenue than shark finning (and there is ample data to support this) we may be

able to accomplish multiple goals at once. If a community were to forgo finning in return

59

for an ecotourism business they would not only be benefiting their community and

shark populations but would also serve as a way to increase awareness and education

about sharks and their conservation.

Analyses can be done to determine which local governments and communities

could best benefit from shark ecotourism and which it would be feasible to do so in.

Communities viable for ecotourism efforts should be stable enough to support a new

venture, include habitat tourists would be willing to visit, have community members

who are interested in protected that habitat and in participating in an ecotourism

venture, and can make enough money off of said venture. Veteran ecotourism

communities from around the world could work together to provide useful documents

and templates for startup communities. It would be especially beneficial if communities

could access start-up funds to start their own ecotourism effort. Research has shown

that shark ecotourism can be extremely beneficial to both shark populations and the

communities that instill it.

IV. Goals

In this paper I have outlined a three-pronged approach for shark conservation

related to shark finning. I believe that if scientific, political, and consumer-based

approaches are taken simultaneously then conservation plan would be most effective. A

long-term goal for any conservation plan is the protection of a species or taxon against

extinction, as well as protection of its habitat and prevention of ecosystem collapse that

would accompany the loss of those creatures. This is the same for this plan. Long-term

60

goals would be the stabilization of shark populations currently teetering on the edge of

extinction, and protection of the habitats they occupy, as well as a reduced, if not

completely eradicated, shark finning industry.

Short-term goals must be identified as well to determine if a conservation plan is

working. For this three-pronged approach, the short-term goals would include an

increase and re-focusing in shark research and monitoring, seeing an increase in

national and international protection of shark species and important shark habitats

(including the creation of MPAs), an effective system for labeling and identifying

companies that participate in the shark fin trade, a better and more scientifically

accurate portrayal of sharks in the media, an increase in shark ecotourism ventures, and

an increase in general knowledge and understanding of sharks and their conservation

needs.

V. Conclusion

Despite increasing anti-finning legislation and media coverage, shark populations

are declining around the world. Sharks are a relevant topic not only to scientists

studying their decline but also the general public who has shown considerable interest

in the taxa as well. Now is the time to create better management techniques before too

many shark species are lost altogether By examining past conservation efforts such as

large mammal poaching, whaling, sea turtle egg consumption, and the dolphin-safe tuna

campaign, one can identify the conservation strategies that have worked and those that

have failed.

61

The best way to create an effective shark conservation plan would be a three-

pronged approach. The first part of the three-prong approach is a scientific one. Nations

and NGOs work to increase shark research on a broad variety of topics and species and

to apply that data to better techniques for sharks that include life-history appropriate

management. The second prong would be political; encouraging stricter legislation both

nationally and internationally, coupled with the creation of protected areas. Lastly,

would be a consumer-based approach, educating the public on shark conservation,

boycotting shark fin soup and other products, and encouraging shark-based ecotourism.

Sharks are mobile species, which do not belong to any one country and,

therefore, their conservation efforts must be international. Only through a combination

of different approaches can we create conservation plans that will be effective in

protecting shark populations against the damage of shark finning.

62

Literature Cited

Adams, D.H. and R.H. McMichael Jr. 1999. Mercury levels in four species of sharks from the Atlantic coast of Florida. Fisheries Bulletin. 97: 372-379.

Bascompte, J., C.J. Melián and E. Sala. 2005. Interaction strength combinations and the overfishing of a marine food web. PNAS 102 (15): 5443-5447.

Baum, J.K., R.A. Meyers, D.G. Kehler, B. Worm, S.J. Harley, and P.A. Doherty. 2003. Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science 299: 389-391.

Beck, M.V., K.L. Heck, K.W. Able, D.L. Childers, D.B. Eggleston et al. 2001.The identification, conservation and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. Bioscience 51: 633-641.

Bulte E.H. 2003. Open access harvesting of wildlife: the poaching pit and conservation of endangered species. Agricultural Economica 28: 27-37.

Burn, R.W., F.M. Underwood, and J. Blanc. 2011. Global trends and factors associated with the illegal killing of elephants: A hierarchical Bayesian Analysis of carcass encounter data. PLoS ONE 6(9):

Carr, L.A., A.C. Stier, K. Fietz, I. Montero, A.J. Gallagher, and J.F. Bruno. 2013. Illegal shark fishing in the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Marine Policy 39: 317-321.

Clarke, C., J.S.E. Lea and R.F.G. Ormond. 2011. Reef-use and residency patterns of a baited population of silky sharks, Carcharhinus falciformis, in the Red Sea. Marine and Freshwater Research 62: 668-675.

Clarke, S. 2008. Use of shark fin trade data to estimate historic total shark removals in the Atlantic Ocean. Aquatic Living Resources 21: 373-381.

Clarke, S., E.J. Milner-Gulland, and T. Bjorndal Cemare. 2007. Social, economic, and regulatory drivers of the shark fin trade. Marine Resource Economics 22: 305-327.

Clarke, S.C., S.J. Harley, S.D. Hoyle and J.S. Rice. 2013. Population trends in Pacific oceanic sharks and the utility of regulations on shark finning. Conservation Biology 27: 197-209.

Clua E., N. Buray, P. Legendre, J. Mourier, S. Planes. 2011. Business partner or simple catch? The economic value of the sicklefin lemon shark in French Polynesia. Marine and Freshwater Research 62: 764-770.

Cortés, E. and J.A. Neer. 2006. Preliminary reassessment of the valifity of the 5% fin to carcass weight ratio for sharks. Col.Vol.Sci.Pap. ICCAT 59(3): 1025- 1036.

63

Davis, B. and B. Worm. 2012. The International Plan of Action for Sharks: How does national implementation measure up? Marine Policy 38: 312-320.

Drew, J., Philipp, C., and M.W. Westneat. 2013. Shark tooth weapons from the 19th century reflect shifting baselines in central pacific predatory assemblies. PLoS ONE 8(4).

Ericsson, G., and T.A. Heberlein. 2003. Attitude of hunters, locals, and the general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biological Conservation 111: 149-159.

Espinoza, M., T.J. Farrugia, and C.G. Lowe. 2011. Habitat use, movements and site fidelity of the gray smooth-hound shark (Mustelus californicus Gill 1863) in a newly restored southern California estuary. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 401(1-2): 63-74.

Expedition White Shark. 2013. http://www.expeditionwhiteshark.com/about-us.html

Feretti, F., B. Worm, G.L. Britten, M.R. Heithaus, and H.K. Lotze. 2010. Patterns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecology Letters 13: 1055-1071.

Ferretti, F., G.C. Osio, J. Jenkins, A.R. Rosenberg, and H.K. Lotze. 2012. Long-term change in meso-predator community in response to prolonged and heterogeneous human impact. Nature. Scientific Reports 3 Article Number 1057.

Field, I.C., R.C. Buckworth, G. Yang, M.G. Meerkan, G. Johnson, J.D. Stevens, R.D. Pillans, C.R. McMahon, and C.J.A. Bradshaw. 2012. Changes in the size distribution of commercially exploited sharks over 25 years in northern Australia sing a Bayesian approach. Fisheries Research 125-136: 262-271.

FIS. 2014. Three state shark finning laws consistent with conservation act: NOAA. Fish Info & Services Co.Ltd, from http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=&day=5 &id=66301&l=e&special=0&ndb=0

Francis, M.P. 2013. Temporal and spatial patterns of habitat use by juveniles of a small coastal shark (Mustelus lenticulatus) in an Estuarine Nursery. PLoS One 8 (2).

Frid, A., G.G. Baker, and L.M. Dill. 2008. Do shark declines create fear-released systems?. Oikos 117: 191-201.

Gallagher, A.J., and N. Hammerschlag. 2011. Global shark currency: the distribution, frequency, and economic value of shark ecotourism. Current Issues in Tourism 14 (8): 797-812.

Godin, A.C. and B. Worm. 2010. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy 34: 995-1001.

64

H.R. 5461--106th Congress: Shark Finning Prohibition Act. 2000. In www.GovTrack.us. Retrieved July 13, 2013, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/h

H.R. 5946--109th Congress: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. (2006). In www.GovTrack.us. Retrieved July 13, 2013, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr594

H.R. 81--111th Congress: International Fisheries Agreement Clarification Act. (2009). In www.GovTrack.us. Retrieved July 17, 2013, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr8

Harriman, L. and J. Muhlhausen. 2013. A new eye in the sky: Eco-drones. Environmental Development 7: 155-164.

Hart, K.A., T. Gray, and S.M. Stead. 2013. Consumptive versus non-consumptive use of sea turtles? Stakeholder perceptions about sustainable use in three communities near Cahuita National Park, Costa Rica. Marine Policy 42: 236-244.

Heimbuch, J. 2013. Big win for sharks: European Union bans all shark finning. Treehugger. http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/big-win- sharks- european-union-bans-all-shark-finning.html

Heithaus, M.R., Frid, A., Wirsing, A.J., and B. Worm. 2007. Predicting ecological consequences of marine top predator decline. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23(4): 202-210.

Heithaus, M.R., Wirsing, A.J., and L.M. Dill. 2012. The ecological importance of intact top-predator populations: a synthesis of 15 years of research in a seagrass ecosystem. Marine and Freshwater Research 63: 1039-1050.

Heltberg, R. 2001. Impact of the ivory tade ban on poaching incentives: a numerical example. Ecological Economics 36: 189-195.

Holland, K., B.M. Wetherbee, J.D. Peterson, and C.G. Lowe. 1993. Movements and Distribution of Hammerhead Shark Pups on Their Natal Grounds. Copeia 1993(2): 295-502.

Holmes, B.J., W.D. Sumpton, D.G. Mayer, I.R. Tibbetts, D.T. Neil, and M.B. Bennett. 2012. Declining trends in annual catch rates of the tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) in Queensland, Australia. Fisheries Research 129-130: 38-45.

IUCN 2013. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. <http://www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 21 November 2013.

Jacques, P.J. 2010. The social oceanography of top oceanic predators and the decline of sharks: A call for a new field. Progress in Oceanography 86:192-203.

65

Knip, D.M., M.R. Heupel, and C.A. Simpfendorfer. 2012. Evaluating marine protected areas for the conservation of tropical coastal sharks. Biological Conservation 148: 200-209.

Gusset, M. and D.D.G. Lagendijk. 2008. Human–Carnivore Coexistence on Communal Land. Environmental Management 42: 971-976.

Bordering the Greater Kruger Area, South Africa. Environm. Manage. 42: 971-976.

Liu, V. S., C.C. Chan, O. Lin, C. Hu, and C. Allen Chen. 2013. DNA Barcoding of shark meats identify species composition and CITES-listed species from the markets in Taiwain. PLoS ONE 8(11)

Losing The Taste for Shark Fins. May 1 2013 The Humane Society of the United States. Retrieved 19 July 2013, from http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/shark_finning/timelines/shark_fin s.html

Lucifora, L.O., V.B. Garcia and B. Worm. 2011. Global diversity hotspots and conservation priorities for sharks. PLoS ONE 6(5): e19356.

McAuley, R.B., Simpfendorfer, C.A. and N.G. Hall. 2007. A method for evaluating the impacts of fishing mortality and stochastic influences on the demography of two long-lived sharks. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64: 1710-1722.

Madden, F. 2004. Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: Global perspectives on local efforts to address human-wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9: 247-257.

Maisels F, Strindberg S, Blake S, Wittemyer G, Hart J, et al. 2013. Devastating decline of forest elephants in Central Africa. PLoS ONE 8(3)

Maljkovic, A., and I.M. Côté. 2011. Effects of tourism-related provisioning on the trophic signatures and movement patterns of an apex predator. Biological Conservation 144:859-865.

Marine Mammals. 2014. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved from: http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/marine_mammals.html

Mazur, K.E. and S.T. Asah. 2013. Clarifying standpoints in the gray wolf recover conflict: Procuring management and policy forethought. Biological Conservation 167: 79- 89. Mazzanti, M. 2001. The role of economics in global management of whales: re- forming or re-founding IWC. Ecological Economics 36: 205-221.

Moore, J.E., B.P. Wallace, R.L. Lewison, R. Žydelis, T.M. Cox, and L.B. Crowder. 2009. A review of marine mammal, sea turtle, and seabird by-catch in USA fisheries and the role of policy in shaping management. Marine Policy 33: 435-451.

66

Musick, J.A., G. Burgess, G. Cailliet, M. Camhi, and S. Fordham. 2000. Management of sharks and their relatives (Elasmobranchii). Fisheries 25 (3) 9-13.

Muter, B.A., M.L. Gore, K.S. Gledhill, C. Lamont, and C. Huveneers. 2012. Australian and U.S. news media portrayal of sharks and their conservation. Conservation Biology 27(1): 187-196.

Myers, R.A., J.K. Baum, T.D. Shepherd, S.P. Powers, and C.H. Peterson. 2007. Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science 315: 1846-1850.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012. 2012 Shark Finning Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Neff, C. L. and J.Y.H. Yang. 2013. Shark bites and public attitudes: Policy implications from the first before and after shark bite survey. Marine Policy. 38: 545-547.

Pethybridge, H., D. Cossa, and E.C.V. Butler. 2010. Mercury in 16 demersal sharks from southeast Australia: Biotic and abiotic sources of variation and consumer health implications. Marine Environmental Research 69: 18-26.

Punt, A.E., and G.P. Donovan. 2007. Developing management procedures that are robust to uncertainty: lessons from the International Whaling Commission. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64: 603-612.

Robbins, W.D., M. Hisano, S.R. Connolly, and J.H. Choat. 2006. Ongoing collapse of coral-reef shark populations. Current Biology 16: 2314-2319.

Robles, R. 2014. Philippine Airlines agrees to stop shipping shark fins. South China Morning Post. Retrieved from: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong- kong/article/1495191/philippine-airlines-agrees-stop-shipping-shark-fins

Rowat, D. and U. Engelhardt. 2007. Seychelles: A case study of community involvement in the development of whale shark ecotourism and its socio-economic impact. Fisheries Research 84:109-113.

Sankin, A. 2012. Shark fin ban challenged as discriminatory against Asians in new lawsuit. Huffington Post San Francisco. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/shark-fin-ban-challenged- in- new-lawsuit_n_1684581.html

Schuette, P., S. Creel, and D. Chistianson. 2013. Coexistence of African lions, livestock, and people in a landscape with variable human land use and seasonal movements. Biological Conservation 157: 148-154.

67

Sebele, L.S. 2010. Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and challengers: Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Central District, Botswana. Tourism Management 31: 136-146.

Senko, J., A.J. Schneller, J. Solia, F. Ollervides, and W.J. Nichols. 2011. People helping turtles, turtles helping people; Understanding resident attitudes towards sea turtle conservation and opportunities for enhanced community participation in Bahia Magdalena, Mexico. Ocean & Coastal Management 54: 148-157.

Shark Savers. 2014. The Impact of the Shark Fin Trade. Shark Savers. Retrieved from: http://www.sharksavers.org/en/education/sharks-are-in-trouble/the- impact-of-the-shark-fin-trade/

Simpfendorfer, C.A., M.R. Heupel, W.T. White, and N.K Dulvy. 2011. The importance of research and public opinion to conservation management of sharks and rays: a synthesis. Marine and Freshwater Research 62: 518-527.

Stacey, N.E., J. Karam, M.G. Meekan, S. Pickering, and J. Ninef. 2012. Prospects for whale shark conservation in eastern Indonesia through bajo traditional ecological knowledge and community-based monitoring. Conservation and Society 10(1): 63-75.

Stevens, J.D., R. Bonafil, N.K. Dulvy, and P.A. Walker. 2000. The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimeras (chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems. Journal of Marine Sciene. 57L 476-494.

Techera, E.J. and N. Klein. 2011. Fragmented governance: Reconciling legal strategies for shark conservation and management. Marine Policy: 35: 73-78.

Techera, E.J., and N. Klein. 2013. The role of law in shark-based eco-tourism: Lessons from Australia. Marine Policy 39: 21-28.

Teisl, M.F., B. Roe, and R.L. Hicks. 2002. Can eco-labels tune a market? Evidence from dolphin-safe labeling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43: 339-359.

Treves, A., L. Naughton-Treves, and V. Shelley. 2013. Longitudinal analysis of attitudes toward wolves. Conservation Biology 27 (2): 315-323.

Vianna, G.M.S., M.G. Meekan, D.J. Pannell, S.P. Marsh, and J.J. Meeuwig. 2012. Socio- economic value and community benefits from shark-diving tourism in Palau: A sustainable use of reef shark populations. Biological Conservation 145: 267-277.

Wasser, S.K., C. Mailand, R. Booth, B. Mutayoba, E. Kisamo, B. Clark, and M. Stephens. 2007. Using DNA to track the origin of the largest ivory seizure since the 1989 trade ban. PNAS 104 (10): 4228-4233.

68

Wildlifeextra.com. 2014. Australian political party fight to end shark cull. Wildlife Extra. Retrieved from: http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/shark-cull-233.html#cr

Wirsing, A.J., and W.J. Ripple. 2010. A comparison of shark and wolf research reveals similar behavioral responses by prey. Front Ecol Environ

Worm, B., B. Davis, L. Kettemer, C.A. Ward-Paige, D. Chapman, M.R. Heithaus, S.T. Kessel, and S.H. Gruber. 2013. Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding options for sharks. Marine Policy 40: 194-204.

Zacharias, M.A., L.R. Gerber, and K.D. Hyrenbach. 2006. Review of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary: Marine protected areas in the context of the International Whaling Commission Sanctuary Programme. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 8(1): 1-12.

Ziegler, J., P. Dearden, and R. Rollins. 2012. But are tourists satisfied? Importance- performance analysis of the whale shark tourism industry on Isla Holbox, Mexico. Tourism Management 33:692-701.