Saving Seafood

ENGOs Renew Push for Shark Trade Elimination Act Passage; Industry, Scientists Push Back

May 16, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Like sharks in a feeding frenzy, a group of scientists, students and Oceana are circling, renewing their push to pass the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act, threatening sustainable U.S shark fisheries. The scientists and ENGOs also say sharks are in decline.

On the other side, the Sustainable Shark Alliance, a U.S. seafood industry trade group, opposes the legislation. It’s unnecessary, they say, won’t make a dent in the global shark trade and ultimately penalize responsible fishermen.

“Oceana presents a false choice between a sustainable domestic shark fishery and other uses, such as tourism,” Shaun Gehan, a lawyer for the Sustainable Shark Alliance, said in a statement. “University and federal studies alike show growing domestic populations.”

The practice of shark finning, using only the fins and releasing the shark, has been banned in the U.S. since 1993. Some states have passed legislation banning trade of some shark parts or some species.

“The Shark Finning Prohibition Act ended the brutal practice of finning, the removal of the sharks’ fins while discarding their bodies at sea, and the Shark Conservation Act eventually closed some of its loopholes ensuring that sharks are landed with their fins naturally attached to their bodies,” the scientists wrote in their May 9 letter to Congress. “However, the United States continues to allow the buying and selling of fins. Five of the 11 countries that export shark fins to the U.S. do not prohibit shark finning. Therefore, while the U.S. bans shark finning in its own waters, it indirectly promotes this practice elsewhere and perpetuates the global trade in shark fins.”

Alliance members and other scientists counter that the Shark Trade Elimination Act will, by removing sustainably sourced shark parts, result in the increase of illegal trade of shark fins.

“Oceana and their partners are grossly misinformed and are misinforming the public,” said Bob Jones, Executive Director of the Southeastern Fisheries Association. “The U.S. shark fishery is the most sustainably run shark fishery in the world. Oceana should be promoting the responsible practices of the fishery instead of working to dismantle it.”

Dr. David Shiffman, a renowned shark conservation biologist, also is against the proposed legislation and wrote about it on the marine science and conservation blog Southern Fried Science.

“Shark fin trade bans do not allow for a sustainable supply of shark fins to enter the marketplace, punishing American fishermen who are doing it right,” Shiffman wrote. “Sustainable trade is incompatible with a total ban on trade, at least in the same place and time. The United States has some of the most sustainable managed shark fisheries on Earth. When these fisheries provide fins to the marketplace, it shows that fins can absolutely come from a well-managed shark fishery.”

Moreover, using the sustainably managed U.S. shark fisheries as examples would be better in the long run when the U.S. is negotiating with other countries, Shiffman said.

“This can be an important example for international fisheries negotiations and associated advocacy (e.g., ‘the United States manages their shark fisheries well, and so can you, here’s how.’),” Shiffman wrote. “According to Dr. Robert Hueter of Mote Marine Laboratory, a nationwide ban on the shark fin trade ‘will cause the demise of a legal domestic industry that is showing the rest of the world how to utilize sharks in a responsible, sustainable way.’ (And yes, sustainable shark fisheries absolutely can exist and do exist, although there are certainly many more examples of unsustainable shark fisheries.)”

While not affecting illegal international shark populations, the bill will hurt U.S. shark fishermen who play by the rules. It will force fishermen to dispose of shark fins on every shark they catch, which currently account for 50 percent of a shark’s value. Proper management can only occur when U.S. shark fisheries are allowed to collect the full value of their catch – without this revenue, shark fisheries will not be able to afford fuel costs and will cease to exist, the Alliance said in the statement.

“Our members are struck by the intolerance of the proponents of this campaign. It is clear that they are indifferent to the potential loss of income. I guess the livelihoods of fishing families are insignificant to the folks who support Oceana’s agenda,” said Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director of the Garden State Seafood Association.

Other respected shark scientists have come out in opposition to the legislation as well, including Dr. Robert E. Hueter. Hueter is the Director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota Florida, and has more than 40 years of experience in shark research.

“This bill will do nothing to effectively combat the practice of finning on the high seas and in other countries, where the real problem lies, and it will not significantly reduce mortality of the sharks killed in global fisheries every year,” Hueter wrote in a letter to Congress.

This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission. 

DAVID SHIFFMAN: The Case Against Shark Fin Trade Bans

May 15, 2017 — The following is an excerpt from a story published in Southern Fried Science on May 13:

The United States Congress is considering a nationwide ban on buying, selling, or trading shark fins. While several of my posts and tweets have briefly discussed my stance on such policies, I’ve never laid out my full argument in one post. Here is why I, as a shark conservation biologist, oppose banning the shark fin trade within the United States.  The short answer is that the US represents a tiny percentage of overall consumers of shark fin, but provide some of the most sustainably caught sharks on Earth, as well as important examples of successful management, to the world. This means that banning the US shark fin trade won’t reduce total shark mortality by very much, but will remove an important example of fins coming from a well-managed fishery while also hurting American fishermen who follow the rules. Also, a focus on these policies promotes the incorrect belief that shark fin soup is the only significant threat to sharks, and that addressing the tiny part of that problem locally represents the end of all threats. For the longer answer, read on. And for the case for shark fin bans, please see this guest post from Oceana scientist Mariah Pfleger.

Shark fin trade bans do not allow for a sustainable supply of shark fins to enter the marketplace, punishing American fishermen who are doing it right. Sustainable trade is incompatible with a total ban on trade, at least in the same place and time. The United States has some of the most sustainable managed shark fisheries on Earth. When these fisheries provide fins to the marketplace, it shows that fins can absolutely come from a well-managed shark fishery. This can be an important example for international fisheries negotiations and associated advocacy (e.g., “the United States manages their shark fisheries well, and so can you, here’s how.”) According to Dr. Robert Hueter of Mote Marine Laboratory, a nationwide ban on the shark fin trade “will cause the demise of a legal domestic industry that is showing the rest of the world how to utilize sharks in a responsible, sustainable way.” (And yes, sustainable shark fisheries absolutely can exist and do exist, although there are certainly many more examples of unsustainable shark fisheries.) Several experts in international fisheries negotiations have privately told me that the US has more negotiating power when we can say “manage your fishery sustainably like we do” instead of “you should manage your fishery sustainably, but we decided to stop participating in this market entirely”/ “we won’t buy your product regardless of how sustainable you make it.”

Most shark scientists, including me, prefer sustainable trade to banning all trade in general. As part of my Ph.D. research, I surveyed the members of the world’s largest professional societies focusing on sharks. 90% of respondents believe that when possible, sustainable fisheries exploitation is preferable to banning all exploitation or trade. (Shark fin bans themselves received the second-lowest support, and second-highest opposition, of any policy tool I asked about.)

Read the full story at Southern Fried Science

Caribbean islands count on coral to build up coastal resilience

March 20, 2017 — Twice a week, fisherman Romould Compton puts on scuba gear to dive to the seabed and clean tiny elkhorns growing in the coral nursery off the Caribbean island of Carriacou, tending them until they can be transplanted to a damaged reef nearby.

He hopes his conservation work will help to bring back more of the fish, such as red snapper, king butterfish and hind, that many islanders depend on.

“In my area we depend on the reef for our survival and livelihoods, and a lot of reef is dead,” said Compton by phone from Windward, Carriacou, one of the lush, mountainous islands that make up Grenada in the southeast of the Caribbean.

“A lot of unemployment has been happening so we’ve got to turn to the sea to keep our livelihood going.”

Across the Caribbean, scores of projects are underway to restore battered coral reefs and replant damaged mangroves, crucial to livelihoods from fishing and income from the millions of tourists who flock to the tropical beaches each year.

The intricate reefs and salt-tolerant mangrove swamps also offer protection against storms and hurricanes on climate-vulnerable islands which often lack resources to build extensive engineered coastal defenses.

Read the full story at the Bangor Daily News

Don’t Feed The Dolphins: Scientists Warn

February 13, 2017 — Well-meaning humans who just can’t resist throwing fish overboard to attract wild bottlenose dolphins may be doing the creatures more harm than good. A recent study that draws on data collected in Sarasota Bay in cooperation with Mote Marine Laboratory cast light on the dangers, even when inadvertent and accidental feedings are involved.

“This is the first study that directly links human-related feeding of wild dolphins – intentional or not – with increase risks of injury from human interactions such as boat strikes, entanglement in fishing gear or ingestion of hooks and line,” said Dr. Katie McHugh, staff scientist of the Chicago Zoological Society’s Sarasota Dolphin Research Program. That program is a collaboration with Mote Marine.

Read the full story at the Clearwater Patch

ALEX RILEY: The Shark Fin Ban That Should Be Banned

September 23, 2016 — Every year, fishers haul up to 73 million sharks onto boats across the world’s oceans and trim their fins. In many cases, the rest of the body is thrown overboard to swim without propulsion. And without propulsion, no life-giving water flows over the sharks’ gills. They drown.

This is shark finning, a cruel practice that feeds the demand for the Chinese delicacy of shark fin or fish wing soup. From boat to bowl, it is tasteless.

To curb the death toll [of sharks], the US Congress plans to introduce the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act of 2016. The bill was originally outlined to Congress by the advocacy organization Oceana* as part of a growing movement to outlaw all shark fins across the US. If passed, to sell or possess shark fins would be a punishable offense. It’s the ultimate protection from being made into soup.

Strange, then, that people who dedicate their lives to protecting sharks are vehemently opposed to the bill.

In a letter to Senator Bill Nelson, Bob Hueter, director of the Center for Shark Research at the Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida, outlines his objections. At best, it’s unnecessary, he says. At worst, it harms rather than helps shark populations.

For one, shark finning is already illegal in the United States (as well as in Canada, Australia, and Europe). Returning to shore with fins that have no corresponding body is like docking straight into a court hearing. According to Lindsay Davidson, a PhD candidate from Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, this fins-attached policy “is the gold standard for ensuring finning is not occurring.”

But fishing for sharks within a set quota is completely legal, at least for now. This allows commercial fishers to sell the meat just like any other fish, as well as the skin, liver oil, and, yes, the fins. It’s not finning, it’s heavily managed fishing; a practice that is sustainable and makes use of the entire shark rather than just its most coveted cuts.

The proposed ban would change that. The meat could still be eaten or sold, but any fins would have to be tossed overboard, thrown into the trash, or used for display or research purposes by a museum, college, or university, to avoid breaking the law. “It’s going in the opposite direction from the goal of any fishery,” says Hueter. That is, to “utilize as much as you can, and throw away as little as you have to.”

Read the full opinion piece at Hakai Magazine

Shark scientist opposes fin trade ban

August 8, 2016 — On Friday, Dr. Robert E. Hueter, Director of Mote Marine Laboratory’s Center for Shark Research, wrote to Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) in “strong opposition” to S. 3095, The Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act.

“S. 3095 will be ineffective in making a dent in the global problem of shark overfishing,” Dr. Hueter wrote. “Instead, it will punish the wrong people by putting American commercial fishermen, who are fishing for sharks legally and sustainably, out of business.”

Dr. Hueter added that the U.S. has “one of the best systems in the world for shark fisheries management and conservation,” and that S. 3095 would promote wastefulness in the U.S. shark fishery.

Read the full letter here