DOCSLIB.ORG

ICCAT's Unmanaged Shark Fisheries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ICCAT's Unmanaged Shark Fisheries ICCAT’s Unmanaged Shark Fisheries Sharks are among the key species caught in ICCAT fisheries, representing more than 15% of all reported catches by weight in 20101. They are also among the most vulnerable species to overfishing. Their biological characteristics and slow population growth rates make them inherently less able to cope with heavy fishing pressure than many of the other fish species with which they are caught. As a result, they are easily overexploited, and once depleted, their populations are slow to recover. Oceanic pelagic sharks, which are the main shark species caught in ICCAT fisheries, are particularly at risk, with 63% of assessed species considered threatened2. Although ICCAT has traditionally viewed and classified sharks as by‐catch, the reality of high‐seas shark fisheries has changed. As noted by the Joint Tuna RFMO Technical Working Group on By‐ catch, the issue of shark catches in tuna RFMO fisheries is broader than simply by‐catch3. Many shark species continue to be captured incidentally, but others are targeted directly or are valuable secondary catch, sought after in response to growing © 2010 Terry Gross demand for shark fins and meat. Declared blue shark catches in the Atlantic Ocean are almost double Despite the importance of shark catches in the Atlantic Ocean, those of swordfish and five times the fact that certain species are directly targeted, and the high higher than those of bluefin tuna. level of threat facing many shark species, most shark species Due to the relatively lower value of caught in ICCAT fisheries are completely unmanaged: blue sharks, this species remains completely unmanaged and little is Important fished species, such as shortfin makos and known about the status of stocks. blue sharks, are caught without any limits, despite high uncertainty about stock status. Highly threatened species such as porbeagles continue to be landed, and sold. Of the 350 species of pelagic and coastal sharks captured in the ICCAT area4, only 8 of the rarest species have specific ICCAT management measures in place. Four of the top five most vulnerable pelagic shark species have no management measures in place under ICCAT (Box 1). Reliable, accurate data on shark fisheries throughout the Atlantic are a prerequisite for proper, science‐ based management. Lack of data reporting and poor data quality remain critical problems that hinder shark species assessment and management, despite repeated Recommendations and Resolutions that have called for better shark data. ICCAT needs to ensure full compliance with ICCAT rules for shark fisheries, including proper data reporting by CPCs, but should not delay the adoption of management measures until these data are provided. A precautionary approach should necessarily apply to the management and conservation of shark species in the ICCAT Convention area. Oceana urges ICCAT Contracting Parties to act on four key measures to improve shark management at the 18th Special Meeting of the Commission: 1. Set science‐based, precautionary limits on catches of shortfin mako and blue sharks, which are key targeted species in ICCAT fisheries. 2. Prohibit the retention, landing, and trade of highly threatened species, such as porbeagles. 3. Close the loopholes in the ICCAT ban on shark finning, by requiring sharks to be landed with their fins attached. 4. Assess and ensure compliance with Recommendations requiring CPCs to report shark data. Box 1. Ecological Risk Assessment: Priority shark species for ICCAT In 2012, the ICCAT Shark Species Group undertook an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) of pelagic sharks caught in Atlantic pelagic longline fisheriesi. The ERA assessed the relative vulnerability of sharks to being overfished, based on information about their biological productivity and their susceptibility to capture. Highly vulnerable shark species, such as the top five listed below, should be prioritised for precautionary management and research. Currently, ICCAT manages only one of these most vulnerable species. Vulnerability Species Common name ICCAT Assessment ICCAT Management Rank Status 1 Alopias superciliosus Bigeye thresher Never assessed Protected (Rec. 09‐07) 2* Isurus oxyrinchus Shortfin mako Uncertain (2012) None 2* Isurus paucus Longfin mako Never assessed None 4 Lamna nasus Porbeagle Overfished (2009) None 5 Carcharhinus signatus Night shark Never assessed None * Tied for second most vulnerable. I Cortés, E., et al. 2012. Expanded ecological risk assessment of pelagic sharks caught in Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries. SCRS/2012/167. 1. Set science‐based, precautionary limits on catches of shortfin mako and blue sharks, which are key targeted species in ICCAT fisheries (a) Shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) is listed by the IUCN as Vulnerable in the Atlantic Ocean and Critically Endangered in the Mediterranean Sea5. According to the most recent ecological risk assessment (ERA; Box 1), it is the second most vulnerable species of shark to overfishing by longliners in the Atlantic6. In 2012, conservation concerns about shortfin mako prompted Mediterranean nations to grant the species strict protection in that region, prohibiting its capture, retention, transport, and trade under Annex II of the Barcelona Convention. This protection is further strengthened by Recommendation 36/2012/3 of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, which grants strict protection to all species listed under Annex II. In contrast, fishing for shortfin mako continues in the Atlantic Ocean without any form of management. Since 2001, ICCAT Recommendations and Resolutions have repeatedly stressed the need to reduce shortfin mako fishing mortality until sustainable catch levels could be determined on the basis of stock assessments7. Yet the status of shortfin mako stocks remains unknown. The 2012 SCRS assessment of shortfin makos in the North and South Atlantic found that the current status of the stocks was highly uncertain. Inconsistencies in the available catch and effort data could not be resolved, and no management projections were made. As a result, the SCRS has recommended a precautionary management measure: fishing mortality of shortfin makos should not be permitted to increase until more reliable stock assessment results are available. Oceana urges CPCs to follow SCRS advice, by adopting a precautionary catch limit on shortfin mako sharks, based on average catch levels from recent years. (b) Blue shark (Prionace glauca) is the fourth most important fish species in ICCAT fisheries, ranked only behind skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye tunas in terms of reported catch: 65 183 T in 20108. This quantity was roughly five times the reported catch of bluefin tuna, and represented 10% of all catches reported to ICCAT for that year. Yet blue sharks are fished under ICCAT without any specific management measures such as catch or size limits, temporal or spatial closures, or other technical measures. Blue shark catches in ICCAT have risen by more than 60% during the last five years9, and concerns have been raised about the potential ecosystem impacts of such high catch volumes. The species is listed by the IUCN as Near Threatened globally, and significant declines in abundance have already occurred in the northwest Atlantic 10 and in the Mediterranean Sea, where the species is listed as Vulnerable11. The last ICCAT assessment of this species, in 2008, indicated that the status of the stocks was highly uncertain, and results of population modelling depended strongly on the assumptions made12. No additional ICCAT assessments are currently scheduled for blue sharks. ©OCEANA/LX. Unloading shark carcasses in Azores. Oceana calls upon CPCs to fulfil their management responsibilities for blue shark, beginning with the establishment of precautionary catch limits for this species. 2. Prohibit the retention, transhipment, landing, and trade of highly threatened species, such as porbeagles. Porbeagle sharks (Lamna nasus) are among the most threatened species of highly migratory sharks caught in ICCAT fisheries. They are listed as Critically Endangered in the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea, and Endangered in the Northwest Atlantic13. Concerns about the status of porbeagle are echoed in ICCAT assessments. The 2012 ERA identified porbeagles as being highly vulnerable to overfishing, while the 2009 joint ICCAT/ICES porbeagle assessment found that even if all porbeagle fishing were to stop, recovery to levels that could be sustainably fished would take decades14. Canada (the main CPC that has opposed Atlantic‐ wide porbeagle protection) fishes this species at levels that are estimated to delay the recovery time even longer, to more than 100 years in the Northwest Atlantic15. In response to concerns about porbeagle, the following international measures have recently been put in place for the protection of the species: European Union: prohibition on fishing for, retaining, transhipping, or landing porbeagles in EU waters, and by EU vessels worldwide North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC): prohibition on directed fishing and retention of porbeagles The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Appendix III: control of porbeagle exports from the EU, which require export permits certifying legality of the catch Barcelona Convention Annex II: prohibition on taking, possessing, killing, trading, and transporting Mediterranean porbeagles. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM): prohibition on retaining, transhipping, landing,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Seafood Watch Seafood Report
    Seafood Watch Seafood Report Sharks and Dogfish With a focus on: Blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) Common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) Dusky smoothhound/smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) Sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) Shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) © Monterey Bay Aquarium Final Report December 21, 2005 Stock Status Update June 9, 2011 Santi Roberts Fisheries Research Analyst Monterey Bay Aquarium SeafoodWatch® Sharks & DogfishReport June 9, 2010 About Seafood Watch® and the Seafood Reports Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from the Internet (seafoodwatch.org) or obtained from the Seafood Watch® program by emailing [email protected]. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives,” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Productivity and Susceptibility Indices to Determine the Vulnerability of a Stock: with Example Applications to Six U.S
    Use of productivity and susceptibility indices to determine the vulnerability of a stock: with example applications to six U.S. fisheries. Wesley S. Patrick1, Paul Spencer2, Olav Ormseth2, Jason Cope3, John Field4, Donald Kobayashi5, Todd Gedamke6, Enric Cortés7, Keith Bigelow5, William Overholtz8, Jason Link8, and Peter Lawson9. 1NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East- West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; 2 NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, Seattle, WA 98115; 3NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, WA 98112; 4NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060; 5NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, 2570 Dole Street, Honolulu, HI 96822; 6NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149; 7NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama City, FL 32408; 8NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543; 9NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2030 South Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Wesley S. Patrick, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West
    [Show full text]
  • Field Guide to Requiem Sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic
    Field guide to requiem sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic Item Type monograph Authors Grace, Mark Publisher NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service Download date 24/09/2021 04:22:14 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/20307 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 153 U.S. Department A Scientific Paper of the FISHERY BULLETIN of Commerce August 2001 (revised November 2001) Field Guide to Requiem Sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic Mark Grace NOAA Technical Report NMFS 153 A Scientific Paper of the Fishery Bulletin Field Guide to Requiem Sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic Mark Grace August 2001 (revised November 2001) U.S. Department of Commerce Seattle, Washington Suggested reference Grace, Mark A. 2001. Field guide to requiem sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 153, 32 p. Online dissemination This report is posted online in PDF format at http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov (click on Technical Reports link). Note on revision This report was revised and reprinted in November 2001 to correct several errors. Previous copies of the report, dated August 2001, should be destroyed as this revision replaces the earlier version. Purchasing additional copies Additional copies of this report are available for purchase in paper copy or microfiche from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; 1-800-553-NTIS; http://www.ntis.gov. Copyright law Although the contents of the Technical Reports have not been copyrighted and may be reprinted entirely, reference to source is appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Louisiana Recreational Fishing Regulations
    2021 LOUISIANA RECREATIONAL FISHING REGULATIONS www.wlf.louisiana.gov 1 Get a GEICO quote for your boat and, in just 15 minutes, you’ll know how much you could be saving. If you like what you hear, you can buy your policy right on the spot. Then let us do the rest while you enjoy your free time with peace of mind. geico.com/boat | 1-800-865-4846 Some discounts, coverages, payment plans, and features are not available in all states, in all GEICO companies, or in all situations. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. In the state of CA, program provided through Boat Association Insurance Services, license #0H87086. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, DC 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. © 2020 GEICO CONTENTS 6. LICENSING 9. DEFINITIONS DON’T 11. GENERAL FISHING INFORMATION General Regulations.............................................11 Saltwater/Freshwater Line...................................12 LITTER 13. FRESHWATER FISHING SPORTSMEN ARE REMINDED TO: General Information.............................................13 • Clean out truck beds and refrain from throwing Freshwater State Creel & Size Limits....................16 cigarette butts or other trash out of the car or watercraft. 18. SALTWATER FISHING • Carry a trash bag in your car or boat. General Information.............................................18 • Securely cover trash containers to prevent Saltwater State Creel & Size Limits.......................21 animals from spreading litter. 26. OTHER RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES Call the state’s “Litterbug Hotline” to report any Recreational Shrimping........................................26 potential littering violations including dumpsites Recreational Oystering.........................................27 and littering in public. Those convicted of littering Recreational Crabbing..........................................28 Recreational Crawfishing......................................29 face hefty fines and litter abatement work.
    [Show full text]
  • 01 Carlson MFR70(1)
    The Status of the United States Population of Night Shark, Carcharhinus signatus JOHN K. CARLSON, ENRIC CORTES, JULIE A. NEER, CAMILLA T. MCCANDLESS, and LAWRENCE R. BEERKIRCHER Introduction coastal, small coastal, and pelagic) based Generally, species are considered for on known life history, habitat, market, listing under the ESA if they meet the The first fishery management plan and fishery characteristics (NMFS, definition of an endangered or threat- for shark populations in waters of the 1993). The Fishery Management Plan ened species and that status is the result United States (U.S.) Atlantic Ocean and of the Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and of one or any combination of the fol- Gulf of Mexico was developed in 1993 sharks (NMFS, 1999) added a fourth lowing factors: 1) present or threatened (NMFS, 1993). Because species-spe- category and prohibited the retention destruction, modification, or curtailment cific catch and life history information of 19 species of sharks (Prohibited Spe- of its habitat or range; 2) overutilization was limited, sharks were grouped and cies management category) based on a for commercial, recreational, scientific, managed under three categories (large precautionary approach for species with or educational purposes; 3) disease or little or no biological information that predation; 4) inadequacy of existing reg- were thought to be highly susceptible ulatory mechanisms; or 5) other natural to overexploitation. or manmade factors affecting its contin- The U.S. Endangered Species Act ued existence. In establishing its species John K. Carlson and Enric Cortés are with the (ESA) is designed to provide for the con- of concern list, NMFS determined that National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 3500 Del- servation of endangered and threatened factors related to the demography and wood Beach Road, Panama City, FL 32408.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficacy of 2 Common Bait Types in Reducing Bycatch of Coastal Sharks 191
    189 National Marine Fisheries Service Fishery Bulletin First U.S. Commissioner established in 1881 of Fisheries and founder NOAA of Fishery Bulletin Abstract—A recent study determined Efficacy of 2 common bait types in reducing that when simultaneously exposed to 2 different commonly used baits, certain bycatch of coastal sharks on bottom longline shark species demonstrate preferences for a specific bait on bottom longlines. gear in the absence of choice To further investigate the value of bait type to reduce shark bycatch, we con- William B. Driggers III (contact author)1 ducted single- bait- type bottom longline Kristin M. Hannan2 sets with standardized gear baited with either mackerel or squid. For 4 of Email address for contact author: [email protected] the 5 shark species captured, there was no significant difference in catch rates 1 with bait type. However, catch rates of Mississippi Laboratories Atlantic sharpnose sharks (Rhizopri- Southeast Fisheries Science Center onodon terraenovae) were significantly National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA higher on mackerel- baited hooks. Our 3209 Frederic Street results indicate that the use of squid Pascagoula, Mississippi 39567-4112 as bait can reduce the catch of at least 2 Riverside Technology Inc. one shark species in the northern Gulf Mississippi Laboratories of Mexico while not reducing the catch Southeast Fisheries Science Center of a targeted species, in this case, the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus). 3209 Frederic Street However, because some protected spe- Pascagoula, Mississippi 39567-4112 cies, most notably sea turtles, have been shown to have higher catch rates on squid- baited hooks, it is necessary to assess the effect of a specific bait across all taxa directly or indirectly affected by a particular gear type before adopt- Globally, shark populations are widely et al.
    [Show full text]
  • States' Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Laws Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife
    University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture An Agricultural Law Research Project States’ Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Laws Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Florida www.NationalAgLawCenter.org States’ Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Laws Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife STATE OF FLORIDA 68B-44.002 FAC Current through March 28, 2020 68B-44.002 FAC Definitions As used in this rule chapter: (1) “Finned” means one or more fins, including the caudal fin (tail), are no longer naturally attached to the body of the shark. A shark with fins naturally attached, either wholly or partially, is not considered finned. (2) “Shark” means any species of the orders Carcharhiniformes, Lamniformes, Hexanchiformes, Orectolobiformes, Pristiophoriformes, Squaliformes, Squatiniformes, including but not limited to any of the following species or any part thereof: (a) Large coastal species: 1. Blacktip shark -- (Carcharhinus limbatus). 2. Bull shark -- (Carcharhinus leucas). 3. Nurse shark -- (Ginglymostoma cirratum). 4. Spinner shark -- (Carcharhinus brevipinna). (b) Small coastal species: 1. Atlantic sharpnose shark -- (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae). 2. Blacknose shark -- (Carcharhinus acronotus). 3. Bonnethead -- (Sphyrna tiburo). 4. Finetooth shark -- (Carcharhinus isodon). (c) Pelagic species: 1. Blue shark -- (Prionace glauca). 2. Oceanic whitetip shark -- (Carcharhinus longimanus). 3. Porbeagle shark -- (Lamna nasus). 4. Shortfin mako -- (Isurus oxyrinchus). 5. Thresher shark -- (Alopias vulpinus). (d) Smoothhound sharks: 1. Smooth dogfish -- (Mustelus canis). 2. Florida smoothhound (Mustelus norrisi). 3. Gulf smoothhound (Mustelus sinusmexicanus). (e) Atlantic angel shark (Squatina dumeril). (f) Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus). (g) Bigeye sand tiger (Odontaspis noronhai). (h) Bigeye sixgill shark (Hexanchus nakamurai). (i) Bigeye thresher (Alopias superciliosus). (j) Bignose shark (Carcharhinus altimus). (k) Bluntnose sixgill shark (Hexanchus griseus). (l) Caribbean reef shark (Carcharhinus perezii).
    [Show full text]
  • Sphyrna Lewini ), from Longline and Surface Gillneters Near Seamounts Off Northeastern Brazil, Were Analysed Between 1992 and 1999
    BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF OCEANOGRAPHY, 57(2):97-104, 2009 FEEDING STRATEGY OF THE NIGHT SHARK (C ARCHARHINUS SIGNATUS ) AND SCALLOPED HAMMERHEAD SHARK (S PHYRNA LEWINI ) NEAR SEAMOUNTS OFF NORTHEASTERN BRAZIL Teodoro Vaske Júnior 1* ; Carolus Maria Vooren 2 and Rosangela Paula Lessa 1 1Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - Departamento de Pesca e Aquicultura/DIMAR (Av. Dom Manuel de Medeiros s/n, 52171-900 Recife, PE, Brasil) 2Universidade Federal do Rio Grande – Departamento de Oceanografia Laboratório de Elasmobrânquios e Aves Marinhas (Caixa Postal 474, 96201-900 Rio Grande, RS, Brasil) *Corresponding author: [email protected] A B S T R A C T A total of 425 stomachs of night shark ( Carcharhinus signatus ), and 98 stomachs of scalloped hammerhead shark ( Sphyrna lewini ), from longline and surface gillneters near seamounts off northeastern Brazil, were analysed between 1992 and 1999. Both predators prey upon reef and benthopelagic fishes, migrant cephalopods and deep water crustaceans, showing similar feeding niches (Schoener Index T=0.75). The great prey richness of the diets may reflect the fact that the marine food web for these species is very extensive in this region. Due to the concentration for feeding of both predators in the seamounts, intense fisheries should be monitored to avoid localised depletions. R E S U M O Um total de 425 estômagos de tubarão-toninha ( Carcharhinus signatus ) e 98 estômagos de tubarão- martelo-entalhado ( Sphyrna lewini ), oriundos da pesca de espinhel e pesca com rede de emalhe nas adjacências dos bancos oceânicos do nordeste do Brasil, foi analisado entre 1992 e 1999. Ambas as espécies predam sobre peixes bento-pelágicos e recifais, cefalópodes migradores, e crustáceos de águas profundas, apresentando nichos alimentares similares (Índice de Schoener T=0.75).
    [Show full text]
  • Closing the Loopholes on Shark Finning
    Threatened European sharks Like many animals before them, sharks have become prey to human indulgence. Today, sharks are among the ocean’s most threatened species. PORBEAGLE SHARK (Lamna nasus) BASKING SHARK (Cetorhinus maximus) COMMON THRESHER SHARK Similar to killing elephants for their valuable tusks, Critically Endangered off Europe Vulnerable globally (Alopias vulpinus) sharks are now often hunted for a very specific part of Closing Vulnerable globally their bodies – their fins. Fetching up to 500 Euros a kilo when dried, shark fins the SMOOTH HAMMERHEAD (Sphyrna zygaena) SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus acanthias) TOPE SHARK (Galeorhinus galeus) are rich pickings for fishermen. Most shark fins end up Endangered globally Critically Endangered off Europe Vulnerable globally in Asia where shark fin soup is a traditional delicacy and status symbol. loopholes With shark fins fetching such a high price, and with the rest of the shark being so much less valuable, many fishermen have taken to ‘finning’ the sharks they catch SHORTFIN MAKO (Isurus oxyrinchus) COMMON GUITARFISH (Rhinobatos rhinobatos) BLUE SHARK (Prionace glauca) Vulnerable globally Proposed endangered in Mediterranean Near Threatened globally to save room on their boats for the bodies of more on commercially important fish. shark GREAT WHITE SHARK (Carcharadon carcharias) COMMON SAWFISH (Pristis pristis) ANGEL SHARK (Squatina squatina) Vulnerable globally Assumed Extinct off Europe Critically Endangered off Europe finning Globally Threatened sharks on the IUCN (International Union
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Report
    HIGHLY MIGRATORY SHARKS NEGLECTED IN ICCAT NOVEMBER 2010 oceana.org/iccat Scalloped hammerhead Many shark species migrate vast distances through our oceans, swimming across various national and international jurisdictional boundaries along their way. These species of sharks, like tunas and swordfish, call large swaths of the ocean their home and their populations cannot be claimed by any specific country. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the most important treaty for international maritime law, establishes that fishing nations must cooperate to ensure the conservation of “highly migratory species” (HMS) both within and beyond their exclusive economic zones through appropriate international organizations. 1 UNCLOS includes 72 shark species among its list of “highly migratory species” and thus these species should be under international management. 2 Unfortunately, the management of shark fisheries has been virtually ignored on an international level. RFMO MANAGEMENT OF HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES Management of highly migratory fish species requires international cooperation, and the various Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) have been tasked with managing fisheries for highly migratory species. 3 RFMOs should manage stocks of highly migratory fishes so that long term sustainability is guaranteed, emphasizing the application of ecosystem based management and the precautionary approach. 4 The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is the most relevant and appropriate international organization to manage the highly migratory species, including sharks, that swim through the Atlantic Ocean. Of the 48 countries who are contracting parties to ICCAT, 46 are signatories to UNCLOS and 43 have ratified it. As UNCLOS is a binding agreement, management of highly migratory shark species in the Atlantic should be a priority for these countries.
    [Show full text]
  • 12 Santana FISH BULL 102(1)
    15 6 Abstract—Age and growth of the night Age determination and growth of the shark (Carcharhinus signatus) from areas off northeastern Brazil were night shark (Carcharhinus signatus) determined from 317 unstained ver• tebral sections of 182 males (113–215 off the northeastern Brazilian coast cm total length [TL]), 132 females (111.5–234.9 cm) and three individuals Francisco M. Santana of unknown sex (169–242 cm). Although marginal increment (MI) analysis sug• Rosangela Lessa gests that band formation occurs in the Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE) third and fourth trimesters in juve• Departamento de Pesca, Laboratório de Dinâmica de Populações Marinhas - DIMAR niles, it was inconclusive for adults. Dois Irmãos, Recife-PE, Brazil, CEP 52171-900 Thus, it was assumed that one band E-mail address (for R. Lessa, contact author): [email protected] is formed annually. Births that occur over a protracted period may be the most important source of bias in MI analysis. An estimated average percent error of 2.4% was found in readings for individuals between two and seventeen years. The von Bertalanffy growth The night shark (Carcharhinus sig- cm TL, males at 185–190 cm. Litter sizes function (VBGF) showed no significant natus) is a deepwater coastal or semi- range from 10 to 15 pups and the gesta• differences between sexes, and the oceanic carcharhinid that is found in tion period may last one year (Hazin et model derived from back-calculated the western Atlantic Ocean along the al., 2000). The assumed size-at-birth off mean length at age best represented outer continental or insular tropical the United States is 60–65 cm TL (Com- growth for the species (L∞=270 cm, K= and warm temperate shelves, at depths pagno, 1984; Branstetter, 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Shark Fins: Silky and Threshers Fin Landmarks Used in This Guide
    Identifying Shark Fins: Silky and Threshers Fin landmarks used in this guide Apex Trailing edge Leading edge Origin Free rear tip Fin base Shark fins Caudal fin First dorsal fin This image shows the positions of the fin types that are highly prized in trade: the first dorsal, paired Second dorsal fin pectoral fins and the lower lobe of the caudal fin. The lower lobe is the only part of the caudal fin that is valuable in trade (the upper lobe is usually discarded). Second dorsal fins, paired pelvic fins and Lower caudal lobe anal fins, though less valuable, also occur in trade. Pectoral fins The purpose of this guide In 2012, researchers in collaboration with Stony Brook University and The Pew Charitable Trusts developed a comprehensive guide to help wildlife inspectors, customs agents, and fisheries personnel provisionally identify the highly distinctive first dorsal fins of five shark species recently listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES): the oceanic whitetip, three species of hammerhead, and the porbeagle. Since then, over 500 officials from dozens of countries have been trained on how to use key morphological characteristics outlined in the guide to quickly distinguish fins from these CITES listed species amongst fins of non-CITES listed species during routine inspections. The ability to quickly and reliably identify fins in their most commonly traded form (frozen and/or dried and unprocessed) to the species level provides governments with a means to successfully implement the CITES listing of these shark species and allow for legal, sustainable trade.
    [Show full text]