the unsustainable exploitation of wildlife

Running head: UNSUSTAINABLE EXPLOITATION

The Unsustainable Exploitation of Wildlife

Joshua Rinaldo

UNSUSTAINABLE EXPLOITATION 2

Definition:

The unsustainable exploitation of wildlife is a complex issue, and to fully understand

the issue it must first be defined. A practice or phenomena is defined as unsustainable when it

cannot be maintained or continued in the future, as the process will no longer be a viable

option (“Unsustainable”, n.d.). Exploitation is the making use of and monetization of

something, commonly raw materials, found in nature (“Exploitation”, n.d.). Exploitation has

a negative connotation, and often refers to something that is undesirable. When used together,

the unsustainable exploitation of wildlife is the negative use and monetization of wildlife in a

way that cannot be continued without causing serious damage or depletion of the species.

Significance:

A phenomenon isn't an issue if it has little to no significance or negative effects. The

unsustainable exploitation of wildlife is a worldwide issue because the trade of wildlife is

present in multiple market types, including food markets, commodities, and medicine, and the

vastness of this trade has far-reaching implications. To properly examine all of the adverse

effects of this issue, the cause and effects of unsustainable exploitation of wildlife must be

carefully examined. The interference with wildlife commonly results in a domino effect that

cascades into more than the declination of a species. The unsustainable exploitation of

wildlife leads to the endangerment and extinction of animals, which, in turn, creates changes

in the environment due to disruption of ecosystems, and causes declination of local and world

economy. The exploitation of wildlife also funds the criminal underworld.

The endangerment and extinction of animal life is the most highly publicized issue

caused by the exploitation of wildlife. Chapman, a research scientist at the Institute for Ocean

Conservation Science provides an idea of the enormity of the shark fin trade, with his report

that the median shark mortality rate is approximately one-hundred-million annually. The

impact of this rate of shark fishing is clear, as he states that “There is a really razor-thin level

of mortality that sharks can experience before their population trajectory becomes negative -

that is really what's been happening [...] They are not reproducing fast enough to keep up

with the rate we are pulling them out of the ocean.” (Chapman, n.d.). Chapman suggests that

the impending doom of sharks as a species is almost wholly due to the act of shark finning.

Further, sharks are not the only type of fish being decimated. Overfishing, which refers to a

rate of fishing that is not sustainable (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2009), is draining the

ocean of all types of fish. Marine biologists predict that the ocean will be completely empty


by 2048 if overfishing and aquatic poaching continues to occur at the current rate (Worm,

2006).

Poaching and unsustainable exploitation of wildlife is not limited to marine life.

Indeed, poaching is responsible for the extreme endangerment of many animals, including the

African elephant, the mountain gorilla, and the black rhino (WWF, n.d). Poaching is

becoming such a significant issue for these species that it has been predicted that “at current

poaching rates, elephants, rhinos, and other iconic African wildlife may be gone within our

lifetime.” (WWF, n.d.). This is because many of the animals being poached have slow

maturity rates, reach reproductive maturity late in life, and have a small number of offspring

(Kabukuru, 2013; Passantino, 2014). Poaching may also have a direct effect on the

reproductive output of at risk species as well. For example, Gobush, Mutayoba, and Wasser

(2008) found that elephant groups that had experienced disruptions due to poaching had

lower reproductive health than family groups that had not been affected by poaching. This

suggests that the more some animals are poached, the more negative their population growth

becomes (Kabukuru, 2013.). The prospect that many shark species and iconic African

animals may be entirely gone by the end of our lifetime is alarming. Not only is this prospect

ethically concerning, but there will also be unforeseen environmental consequences. Many of

the animals being targeted by poachers are apex predators and are vital parts of the food

chain, or major consumers (megaherbivors) and it is estimated that the decline of these

species may have a disproportionate impact on the systems in which they live. For example,

the exploitation of “high value” species, such as sharks, affects the marine ecosystem balance

directly by harvesting unsustainable amounts of the targeted species, and indirectly, by

unintentionally destroying other marine life as part of the fishing process (Fisheries and

Oceans Canada, 2009).When a predator species, such as shark, declines, the species that are

normal prey for the endangered or extinct predator will flourish, leading to an imbalance in

the ecosystem overall. The environmental impact of the endangerment or extinction of

megaherbivors may be more subtle, but they still exist. Cromsigt and te Beest (2014)

demonstrated that there was more variety of grassland in areas with a higher density of

rhinoceros compared with areas with a lower density of rhinoceros, and that this reduced the

risk and extent of fires and affected the habitat for other animals. Thus, the dramatic decline

of any species will disrupt the ecosystem and have environmental effects.

In addition to the ethical, environmental and ecological effects of depleting the oceans

and land of entire species, the endangerment and extinction of critical species has severe

economic repercussions. In Canada, approximately eighty thousand people make a living


directly from the fishing industry, and in total, Canada exports around five and a half billion

dollars’ worth of seafood on an annual basis (dfo-mpo.gc.ca, 2015). Many Canadian people

and communities rely entirely on the fishing industry for their income and local economy.

The unsustainable exploitation of wildlife is becoming a problem in Canada because fish

stock are declining. If vital fish species are overfished to such an extent that they are unable

to reproduce and effectively keep their species alive, the entire fishing market will collapse,

effectively destroying every fishing-based community in Canada and the economy

surrounding it. This has already occurred in Canada during the historic East Coast Cod

Collapse (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2009). The size of the problem is magnified when

one considers that fishing is a significant piece of not only Canadian economy, but the

world’s economy, and the unsustainable exploitation of aquatic wildlife occurs worldwide.

The complete depletion of aquatic wildlife that can occur as a result of overfishing has the

potential to eliminate the primary food source for millions of people and crash a vital world

economy, effectively wiping out a massive global trade and threatening the well being and

and income of millions of people (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2009).

While the unsustainable exploitation of aquatic life occurs on a global scale and

threatens the world economy, poaching is more limited in scope and has effects on the micro

economy of African villages. While the poaching trade is extremely profitable to poachers

themselves, it drains sustainable profit from small African villages, many of which rely on

tourism. In total, Africa’s tourism industry raised 36 billion USD in 2013 (The World Bank,

2013), and while much of this was earned by corporations, tourism supports small African

villages, as many poor villagers work within the tourism industry. Recently, tourists have

begun to boycott African tourism because of the pitiful efforts made by the governments and

the tourism industry to address and stop poaching (SA News, 2013). The economic impact

was described by Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive

Director, in his statement that “The surge in the killing of elephants in Africa and the illegal

taking of other listed species globally threatens not only wildlife populations but the

livelihoods of millions who depend on tourism for a living…(as cited in Kabukuru, 2013). In

the short term, poaching has a negative economic impact on local communities and specific

tour operators and private land owners. In the long-term, the broader African economy will

be affected by the overexploitation of iconic African animals because, if continued, there will

be no more animals to see, and much of the African tourism industry will die, leaving many

African citizens out of a job (Kabukuru, 2013).


Another factor that makes the unsustainable exploitation of wildlife an important

issue is that fact that much of the trade in exploited animals in controlled by crime syndicates.

Organized crime gravitates to illegal and profitable industries, so it is no wonder organized

crime and poaching go hand in hand. The illegal trade of wildlife is estimated to generate

nineteen billion dollars annually; making poaching the fourth most lucrative form of crime

(Ifaw.org, 2013). Poaching has been almost entirely taken over by organized crime, and is

feeding multiple international criminal syndicates (Kabukuru, 2013). For example, the shark

finning industry in Costa Rica is dominated by the Taiwanese mafia, a criminal organization

(Bloddiger, 2003). Fully 95% of shark fin trading activity occurs in Puntarenas docks, which

are almost exclusively run by private Taiwanese owners, who can be assumed to be various

triads. The problem is not only that Taiwanese mafia are aggressively depleting shark

populations, but that organized crime operations are strongly associated with extreme

violence and corruption of justice. An example of this violence is provided by the case of

master chef Gordon Ramsay, who was held hostage and intimidated by criminal shark finners

while filming a documentary. Describing his experience, Ramsay stated

there were people pointing rifles at us, to stop us filming. A van pulled up

and these seedy characters made us stand against a wall. The police came and

advised us to leave the country. They said, ‘If you set one foot in there,

they’ll shoot you. [... I] ran up some stairs to a rooftop and looked down to

see thousands of fins, drying on rooftops as far as the eye could see. When I

got back downstairs, they tipped a barrel of petrol over me.” (2011).

Ramsay’s life was threatened by the brutal criminals responsible for the shark finning

industry that ravages the Costa Rican coastline. His frightening experience not only brings

the violence of these organizations to light, but also the political corruption surrounding

them. Rather than supporting the victims of the crime and taking action against the criminals,

the police defended the shark finners by advising the chef to leave the country if he was

concerned about his safety. This shows both the lack of concern about the shark finning

industry and the deep rooted corruption of justice that permits its continuation in Costa Rica.

The sight described by Ramsay also exposes the prolific exploitation of sharks due to the

shark finning industry. Ramsay reported that he saw “thousands of fins” yet he saw the fins

from just a single warehouse on a single day. If there are multiple warehouses harvesting


shark fins by the thousands each day, millions of sharks are being killed each year by

Taiwanese criminals alone.

Militant groups are also profiting from the poaching industry. For example, the Al

Shabaab militia, responsible for a mass murder of sixty-seven people, with another one-

hundred seventy-five people injured in an African shopping mall, is said to be funded by the

illegal ivory trade. Activists have claimed that the illegal ivory trade “could be supplying up

to 40 percent of the funds needed to keep them in business” (Crosta, 2013). The extremist

group is likely not the only group of militants using ivory to acquire commodities of war. For

example, the Lord’s Resistance Army has been proven to traffic ivory as well, “defectors

from Kony’s group have emerged with large amounts of fresh ammunition that w[ere]

obtained by trafficking ivory.” (Cakaj, 2015). It is reasonable to assume that many other

organizations use poaching, and more specifically, ivory, as a tool to finance the expenses of

war (Olivares-Mendez, et al., 2015).

The unsustainable exploitation of wildlife is poaching is a serious problem. Not only

is the extinction of an animal species by humans issue of ethics, but it also has a serious

negative impact on environmental and ecosystem health, and has far-reaching implications

for the wellbeing of people world-wide, due to the disruption caused to the food web and

local and global economies. In addition, it is an issue of security because primarily

dangerous people are leading the illegal trade of exploited wildlife.

Background:

During humanity’s primal days, small settlements and nomads took from the land and

sea only what was needed to survive and very little was wasted. Nature was respected and

cared for. However, with the genesis of trade, new prospects became possible to people and

economy was born. With economy came the pursuit of wealth, and people began looking for

ways to gain wealth. Today, the “rat race” mentality is as strong as it has ever been, and

many people desperately claw their way to wealth by any means possible. This behavior

results in activities such as poaching and unsustainable harvesting of wildlife. The

overexploitation of natural resources has progressed into a pressing world issue due to greed,

unsustainable consumption, and poverty.

Greed is responsible for many current global issues, including the unsustainable

exploitation of wildlife. When thinking about greed and the overexploitation of wildlife,

people may imagine CEOs and government officials, or men wandering through dense jungle

with assault rifles strapped to their backs, but many average people are participating in the


exploitation of wildlife. A common example of this is overfishing by fishermen. Overfishing

occurs when people take too many fish each season, and the populations are unable to

replenish. Quotas are put in place to keep people from entirely depleting the oceans, lakes,

and rivers of fish. Unfortunately, many fishermen go over the quotas to pull in a greater

harvest and increase profits. This desire for immediate gratification has long term

consequences because the result of harvesting more than the identified quota results in a

significantly smaller harvest the following season due to the lack of fish left to breed (WWF,

n.d.). This cycle continues until there are practically no fish left, and the industry is ruined by

greed and poor regulation. Although quotas were meant to be a solution to the problem of

overfishing, they have done little to address the problem. Overfishing is fueled by a drive to

maximize profits and is enabled by the carelessness of fisheries and a disregard for the

environment. Poaching, most frequent in Africa, is also primarily driven by greed. Poaching

attracts greedy people because it is an easy way to make a lot of money. At a price of

$65,000/kg on the black market, rhino horn is worth more than gold or cocaine (Emslie,

Milliken, & Talukdar, 2012).

The unsustainable exploitation of wildlife is possible not only because of the people

supplying the unethically gathered goods, but also because of the people who are consuming

them. If there was no consumer base paying extremely high prices for unnecessary items,

there would be no trade or overexploitation of many African animals and shark fin. The

demand for some animal parts, particularly rhino horn, shark fin, and ivory, reflects greed on

the part of the consumer. Ivory is primarily harvested to be carved into various trinkets as a

symbol of wealth. Author Rebecca J. Rosen offers a unique comparison when she explains

that “Diamonds, like ivory, are a natural substance with little inherent value but prized social

significance.” (2012). Rosen is making the point that ivory is only as valuable as humans

perceive it to be. Initially diamonds were considered worthless, but new methods of cutting

them suddenly made them beautiful, expensive, a symbol of status, and sought-after. When

one considers that ivory is nothing more than the teeth of an animal, the demand for it seems

ludicrous and demonstrates that the ivory trade is driven by nothing more than the desire to

flaunt wealth and collect rare and now, taboo, items. The consumption of rhino horn and

shark fin is almost exclusively Asian based, and is due to unsubstantiated beliefs about their

medicinal properties (Lever, 2014). For example, shark fin is believed to have various health

effects, such as “rejuvenation, appetite enhancement, nourishing to blood, beneficial to vital

energy, kidneys, lungs, bones and many other parts of the body.” (Woo, 2010). These beliefs

are likely founded on the fact that sharks are strong animals, but they are not backed by any


kind of science. However, the market for shark fin is not just fueled by pseudo-science, it is

also sustained because shark fin dinner is perceived to be a meal of the upper class, and thus,

is a display of wealth (Clarke, Milner-Gulland, & Cemare, 2007). The use of rhino horn is

also primarily based on superstition, but is a status symbol as well. The horn is believed to

cure impotence, enhance pleasure, and even cure cancer (Lunstrum, 2013). These

superstitious beliefs partially drive the trade of rhinoceros horn, but the trade is also

perpetuated by the need to display status. Rhinoceros horn is worth more than cocaine, so the

act of ingesting the substance as a drug is viewed as an activity only the rich are able to do. In

summary, greed for wealth and greed for status drives much of the unsustainable exploitation

of wildlife.

Ironically, poverty is also a driving force behind the unsustainable exploitation of

wildlife. Indeed, it has been proven that people in poverty are much more likely to poach

animals than those not impoverished (Onyeiwu, 2015). Poverty is a contributing factor

because many people are poaching as a means of survival. People who are without jobs or

any source of viable, legal income sometimes resort to poaching simply to keep themselves

alive. Some poaching cases occur because impoverished Africans hunt the restricted animals

to feed their families with the meat, called “bushmeat” (Lindsey, Romanach, Matema,

Matema, Mupamhadzi, &, Muvengwi, n.d.). However, most poaching occurs because people

in poverty are tempted into becoming poachers by the promise of high pay. With substances

such as rhino horn being among the most expensive on Earth, it can easily be seen how taking

up a career in poaching would be extremely tempting and profitable for somebody living in

poverty. Poaching is a prime example of how poverty pushes people into committing crimes.

People in poverty are also drawn to poaching because it is the industry in their area.

Expert:

Dr. Bettina Saier, an expert in the unsustainable exploitation of wildlife, grew up in a

small Nova Scotia fishing town. Saier studied at the University of Hamburg, where she

acquired her Ph.D. She then went to Dalhousie University for postdoctoral studies on

invasive species and marine ecology. Saier went on to work at Greenpeace as a sustainable

seafood advisor for one year, but eventually began a job with the World Wide Fund for

Nature (WWF). Saier started her career with WWF as the advisor in the cod bycatch

initiative, where she coordinated a WWF team whose goal was to reduce the unintentional

catching of cod in Eastern Canada. Saiser worked her way up to her current position of Vice

President of Oceans, where she is tasked with developing sustainability strategies, primarily

in Canada (Saier, n.d.). Saier has contributed greatly to the field by working on both local and


international scales. Saier has worked in hands-on environments and uses her education to

work towards sustainability in the world’s oceans. Saiers has worked primarily in Canada,

but the position she currently holds at WWF requires her to consult multiple world leaders in

order to encourage cooperation and spread environmental consciousness outside Canada. Dr.

Bettina Saiers takes a logical approach to the issue of overfishing. She is able to empathize

with the millions of people who rely wholly on fishing as a means of support, likely because

she grew up surrounded by them. Saiers believes that fishing should not be halted, but should

be properly documented. In her professional blog, Saiers claims that “nearly a quarter of fish

is estimated to be mis-labelled” (Saier, 2010). If all catches are properly documented, fishing

quotas will be very hard to evade and disobey. Saiers also believes that environmental

organizations should not be fully responsible for the fish population in Canada, and that they

should be supported by the government. Overall, Dr. Saiers is a remarkable figure in the

world of overfishing, has many efficient and reasonable goals for the environment, and is an

international environmentalist.

The role of control:

The role of control of the unsustainable exploitation of wildlife is a complex one

because the issue occurs in many different forms; the control of unsustainable exploitation in

the fishing industry is very different from the unsustainable exploitation of wildlife in the

poaching industry. To determine who has the role of control in the different situations, the

types of unsustainable exploitation of wildlife must be separated. Poaching is illegal, and the

organizations controlling this type of exploitation are much more brutal than the

organizations controlling the legal exploitation of wildlife. Fundamentally, there are two

different roles of control regarding the overexploitation of wildlife, one being the legal role of

control, and the other, the illegal role of control.

The legal role of control is more temperate than the illegal role of control, but it is not

necessarily less environmentally damaging. Worldwide, many people rely on fishing

worldwide as a food source and a source of income. For some people, “fish accounts for more

than 25% of protein intake,” while many producers rely heavily on the trade, with a total of

158 million tonnes of fish being produced annually worldwide (Marine Stewardship Council,

n.d). It can be inferred that millions of people worldwide are consuming and producing fish

products at an unsustainable rate. Many people rely on fishing for much of their nutritional

intake, while other people rely on fishing for an income. Primarily, the government controls

the fishing trade, albeit poorly. Many government organizations attempt to build

sustainability in the fishing industry through a specialized type of law called “Fisheries Law”


(NOAA Fisheries, n.d.). Fisheries law is a practice of law used specifically to govern

fisheries and keep the economy and environment sustainable.

The illegal role of control is more complex due to its criminal nature. The role of

control is similar to the legal trade of wildlife, in which there are producers and consumers,

but with a different dynamic. Regarding the illegal overexploitation of wildlife, no consumers

necessarily require what is being produced, as it is an industry based on desire rather than

need. Consumers want what is being produced because they want to display wealth, use it in

medicinal practices, and maintain culture. Substances such as ivory, rhino horn, and shark fin

soup are used to display wealth specifically in East Asia (Woo, 2010). The poaching industry

is primarily controlled by the producers and the police in the country in which the trade

occurs. Unfortunately, the countries in which poaching occurs are often financially unstable,

and many “underpaid wildlife officials, police and military personnel are easily threatened,

recruited or bribed.” (Argall, n.d.). This essentially means that the government’s feeble

attempt to stop poaching, if made at all, is squashed by the rich criminal organizations.

Essentially, the trade is dominated by criminals, and fueled by greedy and/or uninformed

consumers.

Logic of Evil:

Cognitive dissonance is a theory that explains that everybody subconsciously justifies

their actions so that their attitudes and behaviors are congruent. According to the theory,

people believe there is a way to act, and there is a way they do act; if the belief conflicts with

the behavior, either the attitude or the belief must change in order to eliminate the dissonance

that results from the conflict (Weiten & McCann, 2013). This could also be called the logic of

evil, which is the idea that even the most horrible actions can be justified in some way.

Regarding the issue of the unsustainable exploitation of wildlife, the logic of evil can be

displayed in multiple, complex ways. The logic of evil is exhibited by all people contributing

to the unethical trade, but in different ways. Cognitive dissonance regarding the issue of the

unsustainable exploitation of wildlife is shown by both consumer and producer, and each

relates to the relationship between one another.

A strong consumer base is good news for an economy, but is it good news for Earth?

Consumers drive producers, enabling them to justify the unsustainable exploitation of

wildlife using the rationale that the wildlife product is what the consumers want. Consumers

have interesting complexes when dealing with the trade of unethically acquired resources.

Consumers show cognitive dissonance by arguing that the elimination of rhino horn and


shark fin trade would repress their culture. Shark fin soup, directly translated to “fish wing

stew” has been a common dish in Asian nations since the Ming Dynasty (Bird, 2001). Since it

has been around since the Ming Dynasty, people argue that it is heavily ingrained in Chinese

culture. However, the preservation of culture argument to justify shark fin consumption is

somewhat tenuous, since only the most wealthy individuals were able to consume shark fin

soup until the modern era (Green, 2014). Chinese people living in countries that have banned

the trade or consumption of shark fin have gone as far as to say that banning shark fin soup is

racist. Leland Yee, a man who ran for mayor of San Francisco, stated that the banning of

shark fin soup is an “attack on Asian culture” (2014). The logic of evil is shown by these

consumers: they believe that the use and consumption of products that are being

unsustainably harvested are ingrained in their culture, so it would be immoral to take their

products and their culture away from them for ethical reasons. Some consumers may be

generally opposed to the consumption of goods produced through unsustainable means,

specifically rhino horn, but do so despite their opposition because of faulty beliefs. In

Vietnam, and possibly other Asian countries, rhino horn is in the realm of pseudoscience.

There are beliefs that rhino horn can cure cancer, and is consumed for various other

medicinal purposes, including body detoxification (Ellis, 2013). Cognitive dissonance is

shown by people that consume rhino-horn products for medicinal purposes because they may

feel as if they must consume the product to become healthy again. The superstitions and

beliefs run so far that some medical doctors in Vietnam are recommending that patients

purchase rhino horn (Barton, 2012). The use of rhino horn for medical treatment has no

scientific support, but a medical doctor is more than enough to convince a dying person that

rhino horn is what they need to save themselves.

The opposite end of the logic of evil comes from the producers that unsustainably

exploit wildlife. There are two ways that producers justify their actions; they are meeting

demands of the consumers, or they are forced to exploit the wildlife due to unfortunate

financial circumstances. Cognitive dissonance occurs commonly in the fishing industry

regarding the needs of consumers being met. It can only be hypothesized what fishermen

think or how they give logic to their actions, as no fishermen have come outright and openly

explained why they overfish, and exactly how they justify their actions. From an economic

standpoint, the producer is doing nothing wrong by meeting the needs of the consumer. The

fisherman could even be doing such a thing without going over quotas or committing any

crime due to poor regulation of the fishing industry. The logic of evil is that they are not

committing any crimes, and that they are simply doing their job by harvesting their fish


stocks as much as the consumer demands them to. The logic of evil is apparent in poachers

who were drawn to the trade by poverty. People that joined poaching groups in Africa are

often tempted by high salaries. Many African poachers justify their actions because they were

previously in extreme poverty, or still are. If an individual is unemployed and their family is

starving, a lucrative job offer of any kind would be accepted. Poverty is directly linked to

poaching because people living in poverty feel hopeless about finding a source of income,

and are willing to poach even though it is illegal and unethical. Essentially, the need to

survive and provide for their family outweighs the risks associated with the trade; the

behavior is justified by the rationale that poaching is a necessity of life.

Case Study: Costa Rica

A man sits down at a table and enjoys a hot bowl of shark fin soup. It seems innocent

enough, and if he can pay for it, why should he not be able to enjoy a meal of his choice that

is part of his culture? What the man may not know is that his and others’ desire for this

particular type of soup is the sole reason for the dwindling numbers of shark at sea, primarily

those with migratory paths through shark finning “hot spots”. In addition, the industry

currently controlling shark finning is a brutal one, dominated by organized crime (Fendt,

2015), which he is supporting by purchasing their product. Costa Rica is one of the world’s

shark finning “hot spots” due to its high shark population and weak government, and as a

result, it is a country that is both contributing to the extinction of a species, and becoming a

stronghold for organized crime networks.

Every year, tourists flock to the port of Puntarenas in Costa Rica, an area that is

widely known as one of the most beautiful coasts in the world. However, the Puntarenas

waters are also the location of the ecologically destructive industry of shark finning. Despite

the fact that shark finning is illegal in Costa Rica, it is estimated that in 2012 about 67 tonnes

of shark fins were exported from Costa Rica, mostly for distribution to Asia (Fendt, 2015).

The high rate of shark finning despite a law banning it can be explained by a number of

factors. First, the fishing of sharks is legal; only fishing for the sole purpose of harvesting fins

is illegal. Thus, as long as a fisherman brings the entire shark into the fishery, no law is

broken (Shark Savers, n.d.). The theory is that if the entire shark is brought ashore, all of it

will be used and sharks will be harvested at a much lesser rate. However, a significant flaw in

the law is that it only states that the fins must be attached to the body of the shark. Fishermen

use this legal loophole to continue the shark finning; they simply hollow the shark out,

discard the flesh, and bring ashore only the spine and fins attached to the carcass, which


according to Costa Rican law is technically legal. Shark finning also continues in Costa Rica

despite laws implemented to prevent it because the shark fishing industry is almost entirely

unregulated. A law is only as good as its level of enforcement and only approximately 20%

of shark fishing boats are inspected by Costa Rican police (Boddiger, 2003). One reason for

the lack of regulation may be a corrupt political system and the dominant presence of

organized crime in the industry.

Organized crime syndicates gravitate toward illegal or unethical businesses that are

extremely profitable and low in risk of consequences (Adomoli, Di Nicola, Savona, & Zoffi,

1998). Therefore, it is not surprising that the majority of the shark finning industry is

controlled by the Taiwanese and Indonesian Mafia. Various mafias own most of the port of

Puntarenas, and are able to slaughter tens of millions of sharks annually. These brutal crime

syndicates are able to openly and prolifically shark fin because of deep rooted political and

bureaucratic corruption and public fear of the violent criminals that control the industry

(Boddiger, 2003). Very few investigations have been launched to investigate shark finning in

the port of Puntarenas, despite a serious need for regulation in this area. The Taiwanese and

Indonesian mafia control government officials, and are able to openly illegally fin sharks

without any consequences. The depth of the corruption was exposed in recent years, with a

federal inquiry set into motion by a coast guard named Manuel Silva. Silva witnessed a late-

night shipment of approximately thirty tonnes of shark fin being unloaded onto a private

dock. Silva quickly issued reports on the blatant illegal activities, but no investigations were

completed by any of the four government organizations designated to regulate Costa Rican

fishing. However, environmental groups heard about the report and publically spoke out

against the Costa Rican government for its dismal enforcement of the shark finning ban. This

resulted in media reporting the issue, and it eventually came to the attention of the Costa

Rican president, Abel Pacheco. Pacheco, who has worked to build an international reputation

for being environmentally friendly, was publicly embarrassed and began a campaign to

investigate shark finning in Costa Rica. This initiative eventually uncovered the appalling

extent of the shark finning industry (Boddiger, 2003).

It was a time for Costa Rica to admit its guilt and attempt to solve the issues that were

rotting its fishing industry. Costa Rican fishermen came to the media and shared their

accounts, one explaining that “we always cut the fins and throw the body into the water”. A

second fishermen reported that “On the boat where I worked, we always did it. Every boat

does.” (Boddiger, 2003). The words of these two fishermen bring to light how an entire

industry disregards Costa Rican law, and how even civilian fishermen take part in the vice


that is shark finning. However, perhaps the most alarming detail that was uncovered during

the inquiry was that the government-sponsored environmental organization charged with

monitoring the shark fishing industry was itself corrupt, and enabling the industry to flourish.

In the now infamous port of Puntarenas, Indonesian and Taiwanese mafia have had nothing

to worry about, because although 95% of Pacific Costa Rican shark fin lands there, there has

been little to no chance of being persecuted. Indeed, in 2003, only three inspectors patrolled

the port of Puntarenas (Boddiger, 2003). Ligia Castro, the president of Incopesca, an wrote in

a letter stating that “the majority of boats” are inspected in the port of Puntarenas, but later

claimed that inspectors only investigate boats when explicitly requested by the owner of the

fishing vessel (Boddiger, 2003). Castro is the head of the largest organization tasked with

regulating the shark fishing industry, meaning that the slaughter of sharks in the port of

Puntarenas is completely disregarded by the organization tasked with regulating it.

Overall, Costa Rica is drowning in crime, and is contributing to an impending

ecological disaster. Despite legal policy to prevent shark finning, it could be argued that the

law was only implemented to humour the nations and organizations that have spoken against

the Costa Rican government for allowing such massive numbers of shark to be pulled out of

their harbours. The only way to eliminate the shark finning industry is to become more

serious about combating and regulating the shark fishing industry, completely reforming the

organizations put in charge and monitoring the legitimacy of their appointed officials.

Case Study: South Africa

Wildlife is trafficked and poached throughout the continent of Africa, but perhaps the

region with the most prolific poaching is South Africa. South Africa is a nation in which

much of the population lives in poverty, and because of this, criminal organizations have an

easy time finding new recruits to partake in this macabre business (Mulero-Pazmany, Stolper,

van Essen, Negro, & Sassen, 2014). With an unemployment rate of 25%, South African

people are struggling to live and even illegitimate ways of acquiring a steady income are

appealing. When the majority of a country’s citizens are desperate to find a livelihood, there

is no shortage of people willing to join the criminal organizations that carry out poaching. A

park ranger explains the futility of the war against poaching: “For every poacher we kill or

arrest, 10 more [South African people] are willing to join these syndicates” (Sky News,

2015). Before poaching exploded in South Africa, the country provided habitat to

approximately 20,712 rhinos; since 2010, park rangers have reported a total of 4,691 dead

rhinos, a number that might well be underestimated (Buscher, 2016). The now labelled


critically endangered species (Mulero-Pazmany, et al., 2014) is coming under ever more

threat with each passing year as the poaching industry expands due to the growing demand

for rhino horn as a traditional medicine and status symbol in Asian countries (Kabukuru,

2013).

Although poaching occurs across South Africa, it is most prominent in Kruger

National Park. The massive game reserve is a diverse African ecosystem and the poaching

problem is not only endangering the existence of the rhino species, but is also threatening the

ecosystem (Cromsigt & te Beest, 2014). Kruger National Park disproportionately makes up

68% of rhino deaths compared to other South African provinces for two primary reasons.

First, Kruger National Park is a large, open, and easily accessible expanse of land that is well

populated with African wildlife. The size of the reserve and its accessibility make it difficult

to patrol and easy for poachers to hunt undetected (Olivares-Mendez, et al., 2015). Secondly,

due to a reintroduction program in the 1960s’s, South Africa is home to 83% of Africa’s

rhino population and has about 73% of the world’s remaining 28,000 rhinoceros. About half

of the rhinos live in Kruger National Park (Lundstrum, 2013). Combined, these two reasons

make the Park an area where poachers are likely to have a high degree of success in their

hunt.

The South African government has significantly improved its efforts in the war on

poaching (Steinmetx, Srirattanaporn, Mor-Tip, & Seuaturien, 2014). Due to the density of

poaching incidents in the area, Kruger National park is a sort of ground zero for the war on

poaching; it is where most park rangers patrol, and it is an area where solutions to rhino

poaching are being tested. Park rangers and various organizations have teamed up to test and

execute a plethora of methods attempting to conserve rhino species in Kruger National Park,

including but not limited to dehorning, translocation, and prosecution of poachers. Each of

these solutions brings their own benefits and drawbacks.

When rhinos are dehorned, they are no longer suitable to kill and harvest because the

only valuable part has been removed from their body. The theory behind dehorning is that if

every rhino is dehorned, poachers would cease to unsustainably kill these severely

endangered animals because there would be no way to profit from them. The concerns with

dehorning are economic and ethical. The horn of a rhino is partially what makes them iconic

and draws tourists, and if they are dehorned the tourism industry may be negatively affected.

More importantly, removing the horn of a rhino is an extremely painful and difficult

procedure. Despite this, environmental officials have given the green light on dehorning,

simply because it is one of the few ways to ensure that a wild rhino will not be killed.


However, dehorning as a means of eradicating poaching is implausible, partially due to the

sheer number of rhinos and the challenges of tracking and operating on every one, as well as

the economic feasibility of conducting the surgery on every rhino in South Africa.

Translocation is another method of eliminating rhino poaching. The method of

translocation is to artificially move a rhino from one area to another, often to an undisclosed

location, or to private buyers who own exotic farms. This method assures that poachers are

unable to find the transported rhino, but it is also difficult to move rhinos, as they can reach

weights in the thousands of kilograms. In addition, translocation is not a feasible solution to

prevent rhino poaching because only a fraction of rhinos can be protected without the aid of

private donors and owners. Biologists predict that realistically, only a few hundred rhinos can

be moved via translocation, which is not even as many killed annually at Kruger National

Park (Kruger National Park, n.d.).

The most undisputed method of conservation so far is the use of park rangers to cut the

weed of poaching at its root. The duties of a park ranger are to actively track and arrest

poachers. One of the largest problems facing South African park rangers is the disposability

of poachers. Once a poacher is captured and arrested or killed, another one is there to take

their place (Mulero-Pazmany, et al., 2014). Although the rhino horn industry is ever growing,

it does not stop the South African park rangers, who relentlessly search for poachers in the

brutal landscape, littered with the corpses of previously harvested rhinos. The South African

government has funded park rangers to such an extent that they could be mistaken for a

military unit. On the ground, they wield heavy rifles and wear military-like uniforms. The

ground units are able to call in one of four helicopters equipped with night vision to assist

them in locating possible poaching groups.

Unfortunately, even with the variety of measures being taken to conserve the iconic

African Rhino, the outcome of the war on poaching is an uncertain one, and despite the best

efforts of the South African government, poaching continues to be rampant across South

Africa. The current situation unfolding has not yet concluded, and it is impossible to tell

whether the next generation of Africans will be able to witness the beauty of a live African

Rhino. Until South African poachers retire, or African Rhino become extinct, the bloody war

on poaching will likely continue.

Case Study: Kenya.

Killing elephants has been a norm in Kenya since colonial times, when European men

would kill elephants for sport. This is also when more developed nations decided that ivory


was a valuable commodity, and should be stripped from elephants post mortem, along with

their meat as an exotic meal. Killing elephants only became illegal in Kenya in 1973 (wiki

source), at which time elephant poaching was approaching a high, in the 1980s,

approximately 8300 elephants were killed for their ivory. Suddenly, the rate at which

elephants are poached significantly went down in the 90’s due to a near extinction (Mulero-

Pazmany, et al., 2014.), and all time low was reached in 1997, when 34 were poached.

Unfortunately, elephant poaching has been on the rise again, in 2004, 35% of elephants that

died in Kenya were killed for their ivory, and that number has increased to a concerning 80%

as of 2012 (Kabukuru, 2013). This recent increase is primarily due to a stronger middle class

in Asian countries. Although other nations do consume ivory or ivory-related goods, Asia is

the most prominent consumer of this particular substance. The middle and upper classmen of

these regions collect ivory statues and various other trinkets as a symbol of wealth and status.

Ivory is a valuable good, and because people purchasing ivory are willing to pay extortionate

prices for it, the temptation to poach is a strong one. Poaching is even more tempting to

Kenyans because of the extreme poverty in villages surrounding areas populated with

elephant. Where many people are starving, it can become very frustrating to see elephants

carrying tens of thousands of Kenyan shillings on their mouths, the temptation grows to such

an extent that many average Kenyan villagers turn to poaching as a way of feeding

themselves or their families. Poaching is made worse by corrupt Kenyan police officers, who

are bribed out of enforcing Kenya’s laws on poachers. The rate at which elephants are being

killed in Kenya is highly unsustainable. Due to Kenya’s contribution to the lowering of

elephant population, elephant are now ranked as a “vulnerable” species. Although they are

not yet endangered, or critically endangered like the African Rhino, if they continue to be

hunted at the current rate, African elephants may soon face extinction (Wasser, Brown,

Mailand, Mondol, Clark, Laurie, & Weir, 2015). Although corruption occurs in Kenya, this

does not mean that there has been absolutely no talk of the issue facing Kenya. Some officials

believe that the legalization of elephant hunting would allow the trade to be better regulated.

This radical notion is based on the fact that many other legal hunting industries are

sustainable, due to the fact that catches can be reported and properly regulated. This would

also narrow down the search for poacher because less people would be poaching, since

hunting legally would be as simple as acquiring a license. Another effective way of

combating the poaching industry is to educate the consumers on how destructive their

collections of ivory are. Conservationist Dame Daphne Sheldrick states that “a lot of people

in China just think the tusks drop out.” (n.d.) It could be possible that many of the consumers


of ivory are unaware of the damage they are causing, and the fact that by purchasing ivory

they are indirectly killing an elephant. If environmentally conscious ivory consumers were

aware of this, they may be more hesitant to purchase ivory. If this occurs, it would

significantly bring down demand, and would mean that poachers would not kill as many

African Elephants as they currently are. Overall, African Elephants are in imminent danger of

becoming endangered, and if they continue to be unsustainably exploited at their current rate,

they may become extinct within decades. The efforts to stop the exploitation of African

elephants by Kenya has been abysmal so far. Africa is in the midst of a crisis in poaching,

and it is the responsibility of not just Kenya or South Africa, but as Africa as a whole to

address and implement strategies focused on properly eliminating the issue that is the

unsustainable exploitation of their iconic animals.

Solutions:

Unsustainable exploitation of wildlife is a difficult issue to fix, and unfortunately,

many organizations and governments intentionally turn a blind eye, or simply do not care

enough to put in the effort to control the trade markets that create a demand for wildlife parts.

Adding to the complexity of the situation are the facts that many people rely on this trade for

their income, and that the illegal markets are controlled by fierce criminals. Due to the

diversity in the overexploitation of wildlife, solutions vary greatly for different animals. The

legal industries are challenging to regulate due to their mass and fragility, while the illegal

industries are challenging to enforce and shut down due to their covert and dangerous nature.

The elimination of an entire black market is a daunting task, but what if activists were able to

satisfy consumers without any ethical issues, environmental or economic consequences? It

may seem impossible, but Pembient, a small group of bioengineers, have managed to create a

rhino horn that is genetically identical to a horn harvested from a live rhino (Luntz, 2015).

Pembient intends to manufacture these artificial rhino horns on a grand scale and sell them in

rhino horn markets. Doing this would eliminate the need to kill rhinos, while also lowering

the price of rhino horn significantly, making poaching no longer as profitable as it once was.

This method has many benefits as well as many flaws. It can satisfy the consumer base,

which potentially eliminates the market for authentic rhino horn, not by suppressing the trade,

but by flooding it with alternative sources. In a way, the use of synthetic rhino horn to end

poaching in Africa would be much more effective than prosecuting all consumers and

suppliers of rhino horn. The drawback of this solution is that the company is quite small and

they are currently only in the concept stage of development. Another concern with the

artificial horn as a solution is that rhino horn is a traditional medicine, and many consumers


may want authentic rhino horn rather than a synthetic horn. Experts have also brought raised

other concerns. It has been argued that if the rhino horn market is legitimized, the demand

for authentic rhino horn may become even greater and further fuel the unsustainable

exploitation of rhino (Knight, 2011).

If making rhino horns proves to be successful and feasible, it may end the poaching of

this endangered species and save the rhino population. Until then, park rangers actively patrol

poaching grounds, primarily hunting for rhino and elephant poachers. Park rangers work full

time, and are often underpaid. Not only are the working conditions harsh, but thousands of

park rangers have been murdered on the job. Sean Willmore, president of the International

Ranger Federation, states that “about two rangers are killed every week, but that is only

partial data, it could be double that amount” (2014). Along with the high mortality rate, park

rangers in Africa must endure senseless brutality and emotional trauma. One particularly

disturbing account is that of a group of twelve park rangers in the Democratic Republic of

Congo. The group was ambushed, and helplessly watched as one of their squad members was

tortured and beaten to death. (Neme, 2014) Even though multiple park rangers are killed

every week, and are constantly under threat, they are restrained by legal policies that limit

their own powers. Rangers must stalk poachers for hours or days on end, and are only

allowed to fire if there is proof that a poacher was about to fire upon them. Also, when

poachers are killed by park rangers, the rangers’ actions are heavily scrutinized, putting

further pressure on rangers not to shoot. Because poachers know of the restrictions placed on

the rangers, when caught, most poachers run into the forest and quickly escape, making

multiple days’ work worthless. The only way to make park rangers more effective in

capturing and prosecuting poachers would be to lift the current restrictions on use of firearms,

this is argued by multiple experts in the field (Messer, 2010). Although park rangers face

possible death, the men and women protecting African wildlife still toil in extreme weather,

and vigorously hunt and prosecute poachers to the best of their abilities. Unfortunately, this

may not be enough, and quicker fixes are needed.

As some say, “desperate times call for desperate measures”, and desperate measures

are just what Ed Hern proposes in the fight against rhino poaching. Hern developed a

chemical that is not toxic to rhinos, but is very toxic to humans, and inserted this poison into

the horn of sedated rhinos. The poison killed several people, and made countless others ill.

Hern theorized that poachers would not harvest rhinos that were marked by the application

of this poison after it was demonstrated that its ingestion could cause death. Not only is this

approach unethical, causing the death and illness of consumers, it is also ineffective because


the poachers do not care whether they are selling poisonous rhino horn or not. Ed Hern was

incorrect in his assumptions; the poisoning of rhino horn does not stop the trade of rhino

horn, but rather harms consumers, who appear to be renewable. Ultimately, the poisoning of

rhino horns does not make any significant impact on the killing of rhinos, and makes a very

small impact on the consumption of rhino horn, proving it to be a rather ineffective quick fix

to the rhino crisis in Africa (Save the Rhino, 2010).

Preventing and solving overfishing is very challenging to because many people

around the earth rely on the fishing industry as a career or to provide a food source. In some

regions, overfishing is not even illegal, so nobody can be prosecuted, and public outrage is

often the result of attempts to restrict unsustainable fishing. Due to the nature of overfishing,

solutions that please everybody are rare. The most common solution to overfishing is a

“catch share”, also called a quota or a “bag limit”. Catch shares are determined by a team of

marine biologists who study the fish population, and set limits of how many kilograms of

fish can be harvested per season. The aim of a catch share is to preserve the ocean, while

also providing a stable economy. Catch shares are most effective when implemented on a

global scale, but it is very challenging to regulate a worldwide industry, in part because of

lack of coordination and differences in policy across jurisdictions, and partly because the

fishing industry is such a large and fragile market. Biologists deciding a catch share must not

set limits too low because if the trade is repressed the market will crash and economic

tragedy will occur. If the biologists do not limit catch shares enough, the following season

will not yield a profitable harvest because the fish will be unable to breed and replenish. In

this case, there are also serious economic implications. Thus, biologists must find a

“goldilocks zone”, in which fishermen are still able to make a living, but do not devastate

the local fish population.

Although carefully set catch limits may seem like the perfect solution to overfishing,

it has some serious flaws. The major flaw is that most people are unwilling to give up wealth

for the good of the environment or even a larger catch next year. Fishermen rely on their

catches to provide for their families, and if they are only able to catch a limited amount of

fish, they may not be able to make what they believe is a sufficient living. Because of this

thirst for wealth, protests commonly occur when catch shares are set in a particular area.

More covert reactions to displeasure with the catch shares include continuation of fishing

without reporting the catch size, which essentially means that overfishing continues. Even if

fishermen are satisfied with the established catch shares, the restrictions can have a negative

economic impact and reduce food supply. There is an economic rule that the production


amount of a commodity is inversely related to the price of the commodity. This rule applies

to catch shares. This economic phenomenon is negative for consumers but positive for

fishermen. Although fishermen gain from this rule because the higher price of fish helps to

make up for the reduced catch size, people who rely on fish as their main source of protein

may be unable to afford fish once the supply decreases. In addition to the negative impact on

consumers, the overall effect may also actually encourage overfishing as the increase value

of fish provides an incentive for fishermen to catch above their quota, making their business

more profitable. In conclusion, although catch shares have some negative effects, they are

the least damaging solution currently proposed, and they provide a sufficient short-term

solution to overfishing.

However, the earth’s population is still growing, and people need to eat, so catch

limits are a temporary solution. A new, more sustainable and long term solution is

aquaculture. Aquaculture, also known as fish farming, is the breeding and rearing of fish as if

they were farm animals. The cultivation of fish is far more complicated than that of

mammals, but it is an industry that is growing rapidly. Currently, approximately 50% of the

fish consumed comes from aquaculture. Fish farming can occur only shorelines, where

chemicals and pesticides runoff into the ocean and natural predators can kill the fish being

farmed, or it can occur in massive warehouses where none of those negative factors exist.

Unfortunately, keeping fish in a large warehouse is far more expensive in the long run and

requires a hefty initial investment compared to keeping fish on the shoreline. Because of this,

aquaculture is much more commonly practiced on the shoreline, where it is much less

environmentally friendly. Overall, aquaculture is slowly replacing wild fishing, and it could

eventually lead to the eradication of wild fishing as an industry. Although aquaculture solves

the problem of overfishing while providing employment opportunities, and maintaining a

steady supply of affordable fish, care must be taken to implement and monitor regulations to

prevent this new type of fishing industry from harming the environment and the health of the

seas.

In conclusion, the various solutions that have been implemented to eliminate poaching

have been ineffective, primarily because poaching is a black market industry, making it

harder to regulate because it is not controlled by the government, but by criminals. The

unsustainable exploitation of wild fish can be addressed with a multi-phase approach. In the

short term, wild fish populations can be maintained by regulating fishing through the use of

catch shares; in the long-term, aquaculture provides a viable solution to overfishing.

However, in order to be successful, catch shares must be implemented worldwide, and


environmentally friendly aquaculture must be encouraged in order for it to be a sustainable

replacement of wild fishing

International Organizations:

The unsustainable exploitation of wildlife is a worldwide issue that affects and

resonates with many people. The result of the global interest in the issue is that hundreds of

small organizations play small roles in controlling specific industries. However, there are a

few organizations that stand out among them, and participate in multiple issues on a global

scale, including the World Wide Fund for Nature and Greenpeace.

Greenpeace was founded in 1971 in Vancouver, and is said to be founded by any

environmentally conscious person in Vancouver at that time. Greenpeace is a very open

organization, and practically anybody actively working to end environmental issues can be

affiliated with Greenpeace. Greenpeace works internationally and covers practically every

environmental issue. Although it is an open organization, it is still organized, and does have

an agenda. Greenpeace works less in the field, and is primarily geared towards spreading

information and uniting like-minded people. Greenpeace openly opposes overfishing in any

form and a significant part of the organization’s initiative is to spread awareness and

campaign to save the ocean. Greenpeace plays a large role in the preservation of aquatic life,

and is vocal in small fishing communities where people may not be aware of the problems

caused by overfishing. (Greenpeace, n.d.) Greenpeace is vital because it actively spreads

awareness where environmental consciousness may not exist. Although the organization

primarily works on spreading information, this isn’t to say that Greenpeace does not

explicitly work to peacefully address environmental problems. Greenpeace is known to stage

protests and to express themselves in artistic ways. They have also harassed illegal fishing

boats on the west coast of Africa, painting “stolen fish” on the side for all to see (greenpeace,

2014). Overall, Greenpeace is an organization that spreads awareness more than it actively

changes the environmental issues it campaigns for. This does not mean that Greenpeace does

not contribute greatly on an international scale, but that it does so in a pacifistic way.

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is a much more diverse organization, and

takes a very straightforward approach to solving environmental issues. WWF was founded in

1961 in Switzerland as an effort to unite environmentally conscious individuals. WWF could

be considered a quasi-NGO, because although it is not affiliated with any government, it

regularly consults with governments worldwide. The organization deals with all things

related to the environment on a global scale, which means it also deals with the unsustainable

exploitation of wildlife (WWF, n.d.). WWF is renowned for its effectiveness in spreading


information and also in taking physical actions in the field. WWF takes a firm stance against

overfishing, and actively partners with Canadian fisheries to promote, encourage, and

monitor sustainable fishing practices. Along with this, WWF also advocates for at-risk fish

species, and consults with various government workers to determine whether an area should

be protected or not, and helps to analyze areas that are in the process of being protected.

WWF also hires teams of marine biologists to analyze the reproduction rate of fish, in an

effort to determine appropriate catch shares. Overall, WWF makes huge contributions to the

sustainability of fishing in Canada and across the world. Overfishing is just one of the many

issues that the WWF is active in addressing. The organization also operates in African

countries to prevent the extinction of commonly poached animals. WWF combats the illegal

and unsustainable exploitation of African wildlife by supporting government initiatives to

prevent poaching, and by educating the public and raising awareness. WWF provides direct

“technical and scientific advice to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species.” WWF analyzes animal species, and determines whether they are threatened in any

way, and either works alongside or reports to the government on the matter of conservation

and preservation. In a sense, WWF decides what animals are at risk, and partially participates

in government initiative to support those animals (WWF, n.d.). In conclusion, WWF makes

huge contributions to all fields that fall under the unsustainable exploitation of wildlife, and

actively supports peaceful initiatives to end the unsustainable exploitation of wildlife.

Canadian Connections:

When Canada was first explored and settled, an abundance of fish was an important

deciding factor for possible immigrants. Upon their arrival, many Canadian settlers began a

career in fishing or hunting. It could be said that Canada was built on the exploitation of

wildlife. Currently, Canada not only plays a role in the overexploitation of wildlife, but it

heavily contributes to the worldwide issue of overfishing. Today, Canada has one of the

largest fishing industries in the world, generating approximately nine-billion dollars in 2015

(Marine Stewardship Council, n.d.) . Because of Canada’s historical reliance on fishing, its

oceans are becoming less and less abundant. The breaking point of Canada’s fishing industry

can be pinpointed as the recent collapse of the Atlantic Northwest Cod Fishery. The Atlantic

Northwest cod collapse occurred all over Atlantic Canada, but the collapse was set into

motion in Newfoundland. The collapse occurred because advanced techniques and

equipment came to fishermen in the 1950s. Before the new methods were put in place,

fishermen were only able to catch limited amounts of fish, and were able to catch specific


species and fish of specified sizes. Once new equipment was introduced to the industry,

fishermen were able to catch massive amounts of fish, and were less able to control what

species, age, and size of fish were caught. The introduction of the new equipment caused an

economic boom that lasted approximately fifty years, until the collapse of Atlantic cod in

Canada. Overfishing occurred because there was very little knowledge on the sustainability

of fish; fishermen and the Canadian government alike believed that no matter how many fish

were pulled from the ocean, more would always be there. The ignorance and irresponsibility

of the Canadian government resulted in rampant overfishing and a rude awakening in the

1970s when there was a partial cod collapse (MacDowell, 2012). The solution to less fish

being caught was to bring even more advanced equipment into the fishing industry. From

the 1970s and onward, catch sizes slowly decreased. Finally, in 1992, the cod market

collapsed, with marine biologists predicting that the cod population was 1% of what it once

was in Canada (Tao, 1998). This collapse shook Atlantic Canada to its core, and caused a

severe economic backlash because of Canada’s heavy reliance on the fish industry.

Approximately thirty-five thousand people lost their jobs and many had to leave the region

to find new work (Gien, 121). While all of Atlantic Canada experienced economic hardships

due to a moratorium on cod fishing, Newfoundland faced unique socioeconomic effects.

Newfoundland is grounded in cod fishing, and it is heavily ingrained in its history and

culture. The ban of cod fishing meant that many families lost their livelihood, and the many

companies based entirely on cod fishing were in an economic standstill. The collapse of

North Atlantic cod is a textbook example of a tragedy of the commons, an economic theory

that an individual will behave for their own self-interests, and not for the good of society.

Ignorance, denial, and a tragedy of the commons on a grand scale are responsible for the

total collapse of one of Canada’s largest industries. Almost twenty years after the Atlantic

cod collapse, the cod populations are beginning to show signs of revitalization (CBC news,

2011) . Since the collapse, approximately 10% of the cod population has returned, the

Canadian fishing industry has learned an important lesson, and the fishing industry in

Canada is now much more heavily regulated than it once was.


References

Adamoli, S., Di Nicola, A., Savona, E. U., & Zoffi, P. (1998). Organized crime around the

world. European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, affiliated with the United

Nations (HEUNI), 095-126. Retrieved from https:

//docs.google.com/document/d/1CwppTx-

emz3GRo3TweZd1GS_s3m1chAIqcPf2ywrUo8/edit

Argall, R. (n.d.). Africa’s poaching crisis: how do we stop it? Retrieved from

https://www.thedodo.com/community/FrontierGap/africas-poaching-crisis-how-do-

699797004.html

Barton, Cat. (2012). Vietnam 'cancer-cure' horn habit threat to world rhinos. Retrieved from

http://phys.org/news/2012-05-vietnam-cancer-cure-horn-habit-threat.html

Bird, Maryann (26 February 2001). "Man Bites Shark". TIME. Retrieved from

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,100660,00.html

Boddiger, David. (2003). Sharks pay price as fin trade prospers. EcoAméricas Centerpiece

0-6. Retrieved from: pretoma.org/downloads/pdf/ecoamericasnov03.pdf

Buscher, B. (2016). ‘Rhino poaching is out of control?’ Violence, race, and the politics of

hysteria in online conversations. Environment and Planning, 48, 979-998.

Cakaj, Ledio. (2015). Tusk Wars: Inside the LRA and the Bloody Business of Ivory. Retrieved

from http://www.enoughproject.org/reports/tusk-wars-inside-lra-and-bloody-business-

ivory

Chapman, Demian. (2013). Shark kills number 100 million annually, research says.

Retrieved March 14, 2016 from website: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-

environment-21629173

Clarke, S., Milner-Gulland, E. J., & Cemare, R. B. (2007). Social, economic, and regulatory

drivers of the shark fin trade. Marine Resource Economics, 22, 305-327.

Cromsigt, J. P. G. M., & te Beest, M. (2014). Restoration of a megaherbivore: Lanscape-level

impacts of white rhinoceros in Kruger National Park. Journal of Ecology, 102, 566-

575.

Crosta, Andrea. (2013). Poaching funds Somalia's al Shabaab, activists say. Retrieved from

http://www.france24.com/en/20130927-poaching-funds-somalia-al-shabaab-activists-

kenya-elephants-westgate-nairobi/


Fendt, L. (2015). Failing to protect hammerhead sharks from finning. Retrieved from

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/06/failing-protect-hammerhead-

sharks-finning-150605185856796.html

"East Coast cod found to be recovering". CBC News. June 27, 2011.

Ellis, K. (2013). Tackling the Demand for Rhino Horn Retrieved April 26, 2016 from

https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino_info/thorny_issues/tackling_the_demand_for_rhi

no_horn

Emslie R., Milliken, T., Talukdar, B., (2012) African and Asian Rhinoceroses – Status,

Conservation and Trade, A report from the IUCN Species Survival Commission

(IUCN/SSC) African and Asian Rhino Specialist Groups and TRAFFIC to the CITES

Secretariat, pursuant to Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP15). CoP16 Doc. 54.2-rev 1.

Exploitation, (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved March 10, 2016 from

Dictionary.com website http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exploitation

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, (2009). Global Consequences of Overfishing. Fact Sheet.

Government of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/isu-

global-eng.htm

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, (n.d.). Commercial Fishing. Fact Sheet. Government of

Canada. Retrieved from: http://dfo-mpo.gc.ca/index-eng.htm

Gien, 121.

Gobush, K.S., Mutayoba, B.M., & Wasser, S.K. (2008). Long-term impacts of poaching on

relatedness, stress physiology and reproductive output of adult female African

elephants. Conservation Biology, 22, 1590-1599.

Green, C. (2014). An international SOS (Save our Sharks): How the international legal

framework should be used to save our sharks. Pace International Law Review, 27,

701-732.

Greenpeace, (n.d.) About Us. Retrieved from http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/About-

us/

Greenpeace, (2014) Stolen Fish! Retrieved from

http://www.greenpeace.org/africa/en/News/news/Greenpeace-Stops-Scandal-Ridden-Tuna-

Carrier-Ship/

International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), (2013). Criminal Nature: The Global

Security Implications of Illegal Wildlife Trade 2013. Retrieved March 17, 2016 from website:


http://www.ifaw.org/canada/resource-centre/criminal-nature-global-security-implications-

illegal-wildlife-tra-0

Kabukuru, W. (2013). Poaching: The hidden menace to African economies. African Business.

71-72.

Knight, M., 2011. African Rhino Specialist group report. Pachyderm, 6, 6-15.

Kruger National Park, (n.d.). Rhino Poaching Update. Retrieved March 28, 2016 from

website: http://www.krugerpark.co.za/krugerpark-times-e-6-rhino-poaching-update-

25237.html

Lever, C. (2014). The impact of traditional Chinese medicine on threatened species. Oryx, 38,

13-14.

Lindsey, P.A., Romanach, S.S., Matema, S., Matema, C., Mupamhadzi, I. Muvengwi, J.

(n.d.). Bushmeat hunting: Dynamics and underlying causes of illegal bushmeat trade

in Zimbabwe. Retrieved from website

http://povertyandconservation.info/taxonomy/term/202/feed

Luntz, Stephen. (2015). Biotech Firm 3D Prints Fake Rhino Horn That's Genetically

Identical To The Real Thing. Retrieved from

http://www.iflscience.com/technology/fake-rhino-horn-fight-poaching

Marine Stewardship Council, (2016). Fish as Food. Retrieved from website:

https://www.msc.org/healthy-oceans/the-oceans-today/fish-as-food

Messer, K. D. (2010). Protecting endangered species: When are shoot-on-sight policies the

only viable options to stop poaching? Ecological Economics, 69(12), 2334-2340.

Mulero-Pazmany, M., Stolper, R., van Essen, L.D., Negro, J.J., & Sassen T. (2014).

Remotely piloted aircraft as a rhinoceros anti-poaching tool in Africa. PLOS One, 9,

1-10.

No Author, (2013) Sen. Leland Yee’s Arrest Sets Off ‘Earthquake’ in Chinese Community.

Retrieved from http://newamericamedia.org/2014/03/sen-leland-yees-arrest-sets-off-

earthquake-in-chinese-community.php

NOAA Fisheries (n.d.). Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Retrieved March 16, 2016 from website:

http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/msa/index.html

Olivares-Mendez, M., Fu, C., Ludivig, P., Bissyande, T.F., Kannan, S., Zurad, M., Annaiyan,

A., Voos, H., & Campoy, C. (2015). Towards and autonomous vision-based unmanned

aerial system against wildlife poachers. Sensors, 15, 31362-31391.


Onyeiwu, S. (2015). Emerging issues in contemporary African countries: structure, policy,

and sustainability. New York: Saint Martin’s Press, LLC.

Passantino, A. (2014). The EU shark finning ban at the beginning of the new millennium:

The legal framework. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71(3), 429-434. doi:

10.1093/icesjms/fst190

Ramsay, Gorgan. (2011). Feast Your Eyes: The Shocking Shark Fin Trade. Retrieved

February 16, 2016 from website: https://www.good.is/articles/feast-your-eyes-the-shocking-

shark-fin-trade

Rosen, Rebecca. (2012). What Is It About an Elephant's Tusks That Make Them So Valuable?

Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/what-is-it-about-an-

elephants-tusks-that-make-them-so-valuable/262021/

SA Breaking News, (2013). Tourism – Poaching’s Silent Witness. Retrieved from

http://www.sabreakingnews.co.za/2013/12/23/tourism-poachings-silent-witness/

Saier, Bettina Ph.D. (n.d.) Bettina Saier. Retrieved from https://ca.linkedin.com/in/bettina-

saier-b4b14640

Save the Rhino, (2010). Poisoning rhino horns. Retrieved from

https://www.savetherhino.org/latest_news/news/326_poisoning_rhino_horns

Shark Savers. (n.d.). Laws Protecting Sharks. Retrieved April 25, 2016 from website:

http://www.sharksavers.org/en/our-programs/shark-sanctuaries/learn-more/laws-

protecting-sharks

Sheldrick, Daphne. (n.d.) The Antipoaching Project. Retrieved from

https://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/desnaring/index_new.asp

Sky News, (2015). Rhino Wars: Hunting Poachers In Kruger National Park | Special Report.

Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV9dBOtSiOw

Steinmetx, R. Srirattanaporn, S., Mor-Tip, J., & Seuaturien, N. (2014). Can community

outreach alleviate paoching pressure and recover wildlife in South-East Asian

protected areas? Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 1469-1478.

Tao, Kenny, (1998). Fishing in the North Atlantic, What’s Left?Retrieved from

http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/sustain/global/sensem/S98/Tao/bio191cw.html

The World Bank, (2013). Africa Tourism Report 2013: More Tourists Visit Africa Each Year,

Boosting Economic Growth and Making the Continent Competitive with Other

Regions. Retrieved from website:

http://www.worldbank.org/en/region/afr/publication/africa-tourism-report-2013


Unsustainable, (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved March 10, 2016 from

Dictionary.com website http://www.dictionary.com/browse/unsustainable

Woo, Joyce (5 September 2010). Shark tale: Hong Kong's use of fins as a delicacy under fire.

The Washington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/04/AR201009040045

2.html

Wasser, S. K., Brown, L., Mailand, C., Mondol, S., Clark, W., Laurie, C., & Weir, B.S.

(2015). Genetic assignment of large seizures of elephant ivory reveals Africa’s

poaching hotspots. Science, 349, 84-87.

Weiten, W., & McCann, D. (2015). Psychology: themes and variations, Fourth Canadian

Edition (pp.588-590). Toronto: Nelson Education.

WorldWide Fund for nature, (n.d.). Overfishing Threats. Retrieved from

http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/overfishing

Worldwide Fund for nature, (n.d.) About Us Retrieved from

https://www.worldwildlife.org/about

WorldWide Fund for nature. (n.d.) Bettina Saier. Retrieved from

http://www.wwf.ca/about_us/experts/bettina_saier_24042013_2001.cfm

Worm, Boris Ph.D. (2006). Salt-Water Fish Extinction Seen By 2048. Retrieved March 20,

2016 from website: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salt-water-fish-extinction-seen-by-2048/

the unsustainable exploitation of wildlife

Documents