Shark-Finning: an International Affair

Shark-Finning: An International Affair ©

Michelle Cho

December 14, 2002 Coastal Policy Class Professor Steffen Schmidt 2

© Michelle Cho, 2002. Any quotations from theis paper must be attributed to the author. INTRODUCTION: Because sharks have a terrible reputation for being bloodthirsty, terrifying animals, akin to the frightening creature on the cover of the video “Jaws”, there has been little done to offer them protection in the past. Indeed, the U.S. Navy has long been futilely searching for ways of effectively eliminating sharks as a potential threat to their own, and the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) even encouraged fishermen to hunt them instead of scallops, and swordfish, calling them an “underutilized resource” (1). They reportedly even gave fishermen names and fax numbers of Chinese fin dealers (1). Sharks are mostly caught as bycatch, on longlines, or in gillnets meant for some other food fish. They were seen as a relatively worthless fish compared to food fish such as tuna, or swordfish, until the 1980’s when the price of shark fins started to increase, mainly because of the demand in East Asia for shark fin soup. The value of shark fins comprises about half of the shark’s value in total (2). Because the cost of keeping the shark meat fresh on fishing boats is very high, the practice of shark-finning, which entails cutting off the fins while the sharks are still alive, and dumping the remaining carcass overboard (3), increased in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Many of the sharks that are finned are still alive, and because they cannot swim without their fins, they sink to the bottom to die a prolonged death. An estimated 100-200 million sharks die per year from this practice, which is the equivalent of $240 million (2). Even with the limited information we have about many shark species, it is clear that this rate of fishing goes beyond most (if not all) targeted species’ ability to sustain their populations. This is alarming news for several reasons. Sharks have been around for about 4.5 million years. They are the apex predators of the marine environment, and by removing them, we risk unforeseeable changes. An example of such a change lies in Tasmania, where the sharks were dangerously overfished. As a result, the octopi population exploded and all but wiped out the lobster population (1). It would definitely pose a threat to the balance of the marine environment if shark populations are diminished. Shark-finning is a large cause for diminished populations. Because it is such a wasteful practice, and is considered cruel by many, finning has become a very controversial issue. The largest difficulty in controlling finning lies within the extremely lucrative market for shark fins.

Current prices have already risen to $100/ kg of fins. There exists a huge international trade in shark fins, involving 87 shark fishing nations. A problem within this market is that a lot of the trade goes on in the black market. For these reasons, it is difficult to obtain exact figures and values. Keeping this in mind, we can look at recorded statistics as conservative numbers. The U.S has the most reliable monitoring methods and records. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the number of sharks that were finned jumped from 1992 to 1993. In 1992, out of 94,897 total sharks that were caught, 2,363 were finned. The next year, out of 154,608 sharks that were caught, 15,473 were finned (4). This is a jump from 2.49% finned, to 10.01% finned in one year. Every year after that, the finning percentage increased: 1994 = 13.41%; 1995 = 32.42%; 1996 = 42.69%; 1997 = 56.56%; and in 1998 = 60.13% (see Table1). Table 1 (4):

This is a steady increase in the percentage of sharks that are killed each year just for their fins, which is considered a wasteful and inhumane practice by many. It is clear that sharks must be managed internationally, with cohesive and cooperative conservation and management plans.

SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND: Sharks vary from species to species, but generally share a few characteristics that make them especially vulnerable to overfishing. They are all slow to mature, most species falling somewhere between 12 and 15 years at maturity, and produce few young. Parents leave their young as eggs, or when they are born, which further reduces the rate of survival after birth. Some species only produce 2-3 pups per litter every other year. This is considerably less than bony fishes, some of which produce millions of eggs per year. This slow rate of maturity and production of few young makes it difficult for shark populations to rebuild after they have been depleted, and could possibly take decades, in many cases. This is why they are so susceptible to overfishing. It is thought that many species are already close to extinction. Because information on sharks is extremely difficult to gather, and taxonomy of sharks is relatively difficult to determine, the data that we rely on is limited. Ways to monitor shark populations and shark species have been developing in the U.S. with modern technology. Recent developments include genetic testing, and satellite tagging. Genetic testing allows for an accurate record of which species are being caught, and so are in the most danger. Satellite tagging allows us to track the extremely wide distribution of some species by following their migratory routes. Also, observer programs are key in collecting information. NMFS has been developing a trained observer program to collect information on species being targeted by specific gear from different fishing fleets. Random telephone and dockside surveys are also given to fishermen to give NMFS an idea of state and regional recreational catches. For commercial catches, NMFS must rely on fishermen logbooks.

HISTORY ON SHARK FINNING AND CULTURE: In addition to being extremely vulnerable to overfishing, the medical benefits, mythical beliefs, and research potential of shark parts create an extremely popular worldwide market. In the last 15 years, the demand for sharks has grown dramatically. Shark fin soup has always been a popular dish in Asia, especially in China, as it is mythically believed to have aphrodisiacal powers, and powers of healing. In Europe and the Middle East, as well as in other western countries, shark cartilage has become trendy in society

4 5 for health reasons—believed to cure or prevent cancer, and to promote longevity. Some other benefits include shark cornea, which can be transplanted into human eyes; shark cartilage, which is used to create artificial skin for burn victims; and shark-liver oil, which is used in hemorrhoid medications (1). All of these beliefs and benefits have depleted shark populations immensely, some believe to a point beyond recovery. A further stress was added to the shark industry in 1987, when the liberalization of the People’s Republic of China lifted restrictions on eating shark fin soup. Suddenly, everyone in China could eat shark fin soup, and any restaurant could serve it. At the same time, the Pacific Rim area experienced an increase in wealth. Because shark fin soup has culturally been a status symbol, and a symbol of affluence, the demand skyrocketed. Now, shark fin soup is served at most weddings, Chinese new year celebrations, birthdays, many business dinners, and is a status symbol of wealth and affluence (5).

INTERNATIONAL TRADE INFORMATION: Because of this increased wealth and demand in Asia, the international shark market quickly became an extremely lucrative one. However, difficulties in obtaining data on the international trade market abound. There are many ways for foreign fleets to keep unreported data a secret, and therefore keep their reported catch within quotas, so that they may regain permits each year. For example, South Africa gives 85 licenses annually to Japanese longliners, and 24 licenses to Taiwanese longliners, allowing them to fish in South Africa’s EEZ. Each fishing vessel is required to give annual catch statistics, however, it is inferred that they do not give accurate stats, and just provide numbers to renew their annual licenses, but South African officials do not have the ability to enforce their regulations and quotas. India, which lands 16% of global shark catches, the largest percentage by one country alone, issues annual shark fishing permits to Taiwan and Japan. There is unofficial evidence that catch numbers are deliberately manipulated to avoid customs taxes and duties. Taiwan ranks fifth in international trading of shark fins. The Taiwanese international fleet transships and lands fins from other fleets. Taiwanese vessels can land the fins while other countries have to pay a 42% import duty, encouraging other countries to unload their catch onto Taiwanese vessels while on the

5 6 high seas. Spain and the Canary Islands are the main suppliers of shark fins to Taiwan using this method. Taiwan also has many vessels that operate under a flag of convenience (FOC) of a different country, causing further difficulties in collecting accurate numbers. These ships are registered in the country under whose flag they operate, and they can then fish without a permit in that country’s EEZ, waters regularly off-limits to Taiwanese fishermen (5). Because the international market is a multi- million dollar one, the black market is a large reason that insufficient trade information is available. Many attempts to obtain information from China, Singapore, and Hong Kong were futile. Keeping this in mind, we can consider the following reported information very conservative.

Hong Kong alone has an estimated consumption rate of 3 million kg of shark per year (2). An estimated 100-200 million sharks die per year from fishing/finning, the equivalent of about $240 million, the value of the world trade of shark products. Shark fins are traded frozen, dried, and fresh, usually whole, and the larger the fin, the higher the price. Leading exporters include Hong Kong, Japan, China, Mexico, and the U.S. In 1989, East Asia imported $133 million worth of dried shark, Hong Kong imported $5.8 million, the EEC imported $75-127 million, and the U.S. imported $5.8 million in 1990. Hong Kong customs authorities report that 6,954 tons of shark fins were cleared for re- export in 1999, mostly destined for Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Korea, and China, the latter alone importing 3,000 tons of fins from Hong Kong (2). 27% of fins imported into Hong Kong come from Europe. Europe exported a total of 2 million tons of fins in 1999. An English paper also stated the going price for a single dorsal fin from a whale shark or basking shark at $14,500 (6). Again, these are only the reported figures. The black market only adds to these figures. It is clear that a large obstacle to effective shark conservation and management is the extremely lucrative international trade market.

INTERNATIONAL PLANS: From the above information, mainly the high value of the international trade market, coupled with the wide range of distribution of species, the importance of international cooperation in the conservation and management of sharks is apparent. Currently, there

6 7 are no international management plans in effect. However, the United Nations appointed its Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to draft a suggested management plan as a guideline for member countries to follow. In 1994, CITES met and adopted the Resolution on the Biological and Trade Status of Sharks in which they requested that the FAO and other international fisheries management organizations collect biological and trade data on shark species. In 1997, the FAO organized, with extra-budgetary funds from Japan and the U.S., a plan to develop guidelines for a management plan to be submitted at their next meeting. The result was an International Plan of Action for Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks), which was drafted in 1998 and adopted in 1999. This plan of action is to be strictly used as a guideline and does not have any formal legal status. Member nations are urged to draft their own management and conservation plans using the guidelines IPOA-Sharks provides. The objective is to ensure conservation and management of sharks and their long-term sustainable use. To meet this objective, three guiding principles are as follows: Participation: States that contribute to fishing mortality on a species or stock should participate in its management. Sustaining stocks: Management and conservation strategies should aim to keep total fishing mortality for each stock within sustainable levels by applying the precautionary approach. Nutritional and socio-economic considerations: Management and conservation objectives and strategies should recognize that in some low-income food-deficit regions and/or countries, shark catches are a traditional and important source of food, employment and/or income. Such catches should be managed on a sustainable basis to provide a continued source of food, employment and income to local communities. The IPOA-Sharks is voluntary….Each State and RFMO should regularly carry out a regular assessment of the status of its shark stocks subjected to fishing so as to determine whether or not there is a need to develop a Shark Plan. Once at least every four years, States and RFMOs that implement a Shark Plan should assess its implementation for the purpose of identifying cost- effective strategies for increasing its effectiveness. Each State and each RFMO should strive to have its first Shark Plan prepared for the COFI Session scheduled for February 2001. (7)

Sustainable management of shark fisheries is one of the 4 points this plan aims to address. The objectives that apply to the issue of shark finning are to:  Minimize unutilized incidental catches of sharks.

 Minimize waste and discards from shark catches in accordance with… the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (for example, requiring the retention of sharks from which the fins are removed).  Encourage full use of dead sharks. (7)

To date, Argentina, Brazil, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, the Maldives, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, Portugal, Spain, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and the U.S. all catch more than 9,000 tons of sharks, annually. However, only Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the U.S. have specific fishery management plans for certain shark fisheries, and only a limited number of countries have confronted the issue of shark-finning in their fisheries. Canada imposed a shark-finning ban in 1994. The real problem afterwards, as usual was enforcement. It was not until a few years later (1997) that Canada could put together a comprehensive management plan that held people accountable to the law. Brazil imposed a shark-finning ban but, like Canada, had and still has many problems enforcing the ban. It is thought that Brazil will need international financial funding to enforce their shark-finning ban. Costa Rica and Oman also have imposed complete bans on finning. As of February 2002, the U.S has a complete finning ban, and Spain followed suit a few months later, in June of this year, becoming the first European country to do so (8). On August 6, 2002, the European Commission proposed to prohibit shark finning in all European Union waters, and for all European vessels when they fish beyond European waters. The finning ban would apply to all elasmobranchs (sharks, rays, and skates) (6). Australia has banned finning by their federal tuna fleets, and New Zealand has a similar ban for their tuna fleets (9). This is only the tip of the iceberg, however. Global production of dried shark fins was 10 times in 1994 than what it was in 1988. It was over 6,000 tons in 1997 according to the FAO (10). Because so many participating shark fishing countries do not have existing regulations and restrictions on shark-finning or fishing, the countries that do have them are afraid they will suffer in the international trade market for shark fins. This has been a big concern in the Western and Central Pacific region of the U.S.

THE U.S.

In the U.S., fisheries are managed by the Department of Commerce, who in turn delegates responsibility to NMFS. Sharks are managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or the Sustainable Fisheries Act, as amended in 2001. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides guidelines for any fisheries management plans and establishes national standards and regulations under which all fisheries management should fall. Among other things, this act aims to prevent overfishing of any fish stocks, and to establish plans based on the best scientific data available. The amended version of the act also establishes a plan to minimize bycatch, and when this is not possible, to minimize mortality of such bycatch (11). Shark management is directly affected by this act. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, overfished shark stocks are required to be rebuilt and healthy shark stocks need to be maintained.

In the mid 1980’s, the Atlantic was discovered as an untapped shark resource, as slowly, Asian nations began to realize the worth of this ocean, simply for the reason that culturally, North Americans have never had shark incorporated into their diet. As this happened, the increased demand for shark fin soup, and the increased wealth in China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan, in particular raised the value of shark fins. Between 1985 and 1994, dogfish landings increased in the Atlantic by 250%, and other shark landings increased by 300%. This rapid increase in shark landings led to the implementation of a controversial shark management plan in the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea in 1993. This plan includes a finning ban for 39 of the known 74 species occurring in the Atlantic. Of these 39, 22 are large coastal sharks: sandbar, blacktip, dusky, spinner, silky, bull, big nose, narrow tooth, Galapagos, Caribbean reef, tiger, sand tiger, big eye sand tiger, lemon, night, nurse, great hammerhead, smooth hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead, whale, basking, and white sharks. 7 are small coastal sharks: Atlantic sharp nose, Caribbean sharp nose, bonnet head, black nose, small tail, fine tooth, and Atlantic angel sharks. The remaining 10 fall into the pelagic category: short fin mako, long fin mako, thresher, big eye thresher, oceanic white tip, porbeagle, blue, seven gill, six gill, and big eye six gill sharks (12). An additional 34 species for data collection, including mostly small, deep water sharks that have a tendency to get caught in swordfish and tuna nets were marked for data collection.

In 1999, the Atlantic shark FMP was replaced and the finning ban was expanded to include 33 of the 34 monitored species, with the 34th species, the spiny dogfish, being included in the finning ban in January 2000 (13).

Sharks have a history of getting caught in tuna and swordfish nets, and also on longlines. These sharks were considered bycatch in the late ‘80’s, and were presumably released, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which states, “Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.” (11) Currently, research is being done on a type of fishing gear that will not be as detrimental to sharks.

For the present, according to the NMFS in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea, large coastal sharks are overfished. This group of sharks includes the sandbar, blacktip, bull, tiger, and hammerhead sharks. Small coastal sharks are fully fished, and these include the Atlantic sharpnose, finetooth, and bonnethead sharks, and the population of pelagic sharks is unknown. Pelagic sharks include blue, shortfin mako, longfin mako, porbeagle, and thresher sharks. 19 species of sharks, including the whale shark, basking shark, and white shark may not be retained by fishermen at all. Commercial fishermen must obtain permits to retain sharks and once the semi-annual quotas are met, there are not more permits available to fish sharks. Recreational fishermen are regulated by a minimum size that they are allowed to keep, and a bag limit. NMFS has also designated certain areas as essential fish habitats, where shark fishing is prohibited (12).

In 1997, NMFS put three Atlantic species of shark on the list of candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This list of candidates calls for voluntary protection of the species listed. It is a way for NMFS to let the public know that these species will soon need the protection given to species listed as endangered or threatened. It also helps managers draw up conservation plans that will not have to be radically changed in the future, if or when these species appear on the Endangered Species list, to

10 11 be federally protected under the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act provides protection to endangered and threatened species. To be listed as one of these species, one of the following five factors must be true:  Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;  Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;  Disease or predation;  Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and  Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. (14)

The three species are: the dusky shark, night shark, and sand tiger shark. Dusky shark population in the northwestern Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico is probably currently at 15- 20% of its abundance in the mid-1970’s. The dusky shark falls under the management plans for Atlantic highly migratory species (Atlantic HMS FMP). The sand tiger shark is currently managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Act and the Atlantic HMS FMP. The night shark is a deepwater species, and so very little information is known about it. The main threat to night sharks is longline mortality. It is managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (15).

In the Pacific, there is even less information known about shark populations. Recent assessments show the common thresher and Pacific angel shark populations are in recovery, and the blue shark population is healthy. Currently, a Pacific Highly Migratory FMP is under development, which will cover migratory sharks. Sharks in the North Pacific (salmon, sleeper, and dogfish sharks) are covered under the Groundfish FMP, and the Western Pacific, which includes Hawaii, American Samoa, and Guam, covers blue, mako, and thresher sharks under the Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries FMP (12).

In the U.S., the issue of shark-finning has been a controversial and sensitive issue. Since 1989, the passing of a shark-finning ban has been under discussion, and on December 21, 2000, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act (SFPA) was signed into law. The act amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to prohibit any person under U.S. jurisdiction from engaging in shark-finning, possessing shark fins on a fishing vessel without the corresponding carcass, and landing fins without corresponding

11 12 carcasses. H.S. 3535, the amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act that prohibits shark- finning, defines finning as “the taking of a shark, removing the fin or fins (whether or not including the tail) of a shark, and returning the remainder of the shark to the sea.” (7). The bill then states, “Shark fins comprise approximately 5 percent of the weight of a shark, and disposing of the carcass of a finned shark does not utilize, or wastes, about 95 percent (by weight) of each shark.” The final rule, which finally came out in February, 2002 also prohibits any foreign fishing vessel from shark-finning in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), from landing fins without carcasses in any U.S. port, and from transshipping shark fins in the U.S. EEZ. If the total wet weight of the shark fins is more than 5% of the total carcass weight found aboard the vessel, the final rule also establishes a rebuttable presumption that the fins were taken in violation of this act (16).

The passing of the SFPA was the result of many years of work. In 1989, NMFS first drafted a FMP for sharks in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. This was met with an outcry from the fishermen, many of whom claimed to have been convinced to turn to shark fishing by NMFS just a few years before (1). It was not until 1993 that the shark FMP was implemented with a finning ban in federal waters. In 1999, a resolution was passed in Congress for a shark finning law. In 2000, a bill passed through Congress, and finally in 2002, the law was extended to all U.S. waters. This follows the general trend of the creation of law. Management plans are drafted first, and not passed until years later, when Congress finally steps in and passes a law. With an estimated 100-200 million sharks dying annually from this wasteful practice, and with the increase of finning each year, 13 years of debate seems completely unaffordable. Many people are of the opinion that there is no such thing as a sustainable shark fishery, mainly because of their slow rate of maturity and reproduction, as well as the reasons stated above.

In 1991, the number of sharks recorded as being killed by U.S. vessels was 2,289. By 1998, that figure had shot up to 60,857, and more than 200 tons of fins were taken by Asian fishing vessels in waters near Hawaii, and then transshipped through Hawaii (17). Hawaiian fishermen called for a ban on finning, as Hawaii as a state was not gaining

12 13 economically from this practice, since individual fishermen were pocketing the cash bonus they received for the fins. A spokesperson for the Hawaiian Fishermen’s Foundation states, “Hawaii….has been dubbed ‘Fin Central’….since tons of shark fins are landed and transshipped through Hawaii annually and has created a black market with no economic value to the state.” (18)

Hawaii has traditionally been known as a leader in conservation and fishery management plans, with the fishermen of Hawaii priding themselves on being known as the Ocean State, the Eco-tourism State, and the Seafood State by the Department of Business and Economic Development, as well as the Hawaii Visitor’s Bureau (18). However, the shark-finning issue has been a source of discontent for many Hawaiian fishermen, because Hawaii was the last state to adopt the shark-finning ban. For this reason, many native Hawaiians believed they were receiving negative attention, and that their tourism industry would potentially suffer. An interesting point is that the fishermen were in disagreement with their regional fisheries council, the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Council (WesPac), and put pressure on their council to adopt a stricter plan for the management of sharks in their waters.

Hawaiian waters fall under the control of the WesPac, one of the 8 regional fish councils as appointed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. WesPac also controls the waters surrounding American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. These waters comprise 48% of the U.S. EEZ (19). WesPac did not see the need for a ban on shark- finning, stating that “finning is neither cruel nor wasteful, nor a threat to shark conservation.” (17) In the Pacific, the majority of sharks that are caught are blue sharks. Because the blue shark has high urea content, the meat spoils easily, and does not sell well, either. This is the main reason that the chair of WesPac, James Cook, does not see finning in the Pacific as a “waste” (19).

On April 13, 2000, there was a hearing to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act to eliminate shark-finning before the subcommittee on fisheries conservation, wildlife and oceans of Committee on Resources at the House of Representatives 106th congress, second session.

Member speakers were: Randy Cunningham, congressional representative from California; Eni Faleomavaega, congressional representative from American Samoa; Frank Pallone; and Jim Saxton, congressional representatives from New Jersey. Testifying witnesses were: William Aila, harbor master of Wai’anae Small Boat Harbor; James Cook, chair of Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council; Fred O’Regan, President of the International Fund for Animal Welfare; and Andrew Rosenberg, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The Western and Central Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council (WesPac) was the only party in opposition of the act. An interesting point is that the fishermen were in support of the finning ban, and stricter regulations, while their regional fisheries council actually opposed the ban. This poses a sharp contrast to the Atlantic in 1989, when NMFS first drafted a finning ban. The fishermen in that case, strongly opposed the ban. In this hearing, the discourse between the harbor master from Hawaii, Mr. Aila, and Mr. Cook, the chair of WesPac was apparent. Mr. Aila had served on WesPac’s Fisheries Pelagic Advisory panel for over 11 years. Mr. Cook and Mr. Aila disagreed on many issues, including whether or not many Hawaiians ate shark fin soup. Mr. Cook claimed that yes, since Hawaii had a large Asian-American population, that Hawaii was a large consumer of shark fins. When Mr. Aila was confronted with the same question, he answered that there is a small ethnic population that consumes shark fin soup, but that the majority of the population does not.

Mr. Aila, in his testimony, directly accuses WesPac of ignoring one of the criteria the council is supposed to follow, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. He states, “The Magnuson-Stevens Act sets out three primary criteria for Regional Management Fisheries Councils to base its fisheries-management plans or FMPs on. The WesPac…has chosen, in my opinion to ignore at least one criteria and belittle the other two. In its proposed shark FMP, WesPac would authorize the finning of 50,000 blue sharks per year wasting over 95 percent of that resource.” He then points out that WesPac relied on Japanese logbook data to create their FMP and that the Japanese fleet only consists of 30% of the

14 15 fishing effort in the Pacific. In his opinion, 30% is not the “best scientific data available” (11).

Another part of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that WesPac is in discordance with is the bycatch amendment. Cook claims, “current observer coverage indicates that 98% of the sharks finned by the Hawaii longline fleet are done so after they are dead.” (19) This would no longer define the sharks as bycatch, but as incidental catch, and actually not be considered a wasteful practice to many. But NMFS records also show that 86% of sharks caught by the Hawaii longline fleet are caught unintentionally and landed alive. Cook then explains that the sharks are treated like the rest of the catch. They are landed alive, killed by a spike to the brain or a severance of the spinal cord, then finned, and then their carcass is tossed overboard. Once they are landed as bycatch, they are killed, and then finned, becoming incidental catch. It seems like Cook is trying to get away with wasteful practice on a technicality. As incidental catch, sharks would not be covered by the Magnuson-Stevens Act bycatch amendment. The Western Pacific region has made an effort to abide by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but has tried to bend the law to their own benefit, disregarding the call for management decisions based on the best scientific data available, without taking into account economic strains. The Magnuson-Stevens Act states that “Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.” (11) By harvesting the fins of sharks, WesPac has turned sharks into “incidental catch” instead of “bycatch”. Because the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not call for the minimization of incidental catch, WesPac is not technically in violation of this act. Also, WesPac asks for a definition of waste, and calls the shark- finning prohibition act wasteful, in that it would “waste” the lucrative resource of shark fins that are in the U.S. Western and Central Pacific waters. This takes into account economic factors, when the Magnuson-Stevens Act states clearly that “Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose.” (11) Shark-finning may be considered an efficient practice, especially when applied to blue sharks, since their meat is high in urea content and spoils easily. Also,

15 16 there is not a very high market for blue shark meat. For these reasons, it would be impractical to keep the space-consuming meat of the shark fresh. On the other hand, this shark meat is incidental catch. The fishermen that are catching these sharks are not targeting sharks in the first place. For this reason, they do not have the space to keep the shark meat fresh, and are finning the sharks only for economic purposes.

What stands out the most, is WesPac’s seemingly blatant disregard for what the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Management Act tries to enforce. It calls for the 8 regional councils to base management decisions based on the best scientific data available, and not on economic information. The WesPac shark management proposal states, Conservationists likely believe that the proposed annual quotas for sharks are insufficient. In addition, they do not believe that this measure addresses the waste and cruelty issues. In contrast, the Council argues that the best scientific evidence does not suggest that the particular stock being fished, north Pacific blue sharks, is being over-exploited and does not see finning as wasteful (at least in economic terms) since no market currently exists for blue shark meat. The proposed 50,000 annual quota for blue sharks is in some degree a compromise. It essentially caps the practice at a level 15% below the 1999 total. (4)

Further investigation of Cook shows that this is not the first time he has challenged fisheries management plans. He has even challenged his own. He is the largest distributor of longline gear, bait and ice in Hawaii, and in 1994, he pleaded guilty of taking lobsters in violation of WesPac’s own lobster regulations on minimum size and egg-bearing lobsters. He was fined $30,000, and soon after, he led WesPac to remove all lobster taking regulations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The question remains, as it does with any law, will the SFPA be enforced? In other countries, like Canada and Brazil, enforcement has been an issue since their bans were passed. As mentioned before, it is believed that Brazil will not be able to enforce their finning ban without international finances. For a country like the U.S., where finances

16 17 are less of an issue, the enforcement question is still a valid one. The shark fin market is extremely lucrative and until the market loses demand and value, enforcement will remain an issue. As believed by the chair of WesPac, the U.S. is losing money by not being able to participate with as few regulations as many other international fishing fleets are able. For this reason, international trade regulations need to be equally as strict, if not more so than fishing regulations. Only a decrease in demand, or an increase in trade regulations will lower the incentive for the practice of shark-finning.

This past August, only 6 months after the SFPA was extended to WesPac waters, the U.S. Coast Guard confiscated a U.S. Flag vessel with 12 tons of shark fins without corresponding carcasses on board (20). 12 tons of shark fins in the Pacific corresponds to roughly 20,300 sharks, assuming fins to be 1-5% of body weight, using an average weight of 30-52 kg/blue shark (21). This is one boatload of shark fins. This is a clear indication that enforcement of the SFPA needs as much dedication and attention as the passing of the law itself needed.

Internationally, it is clear that controlling the trade of shark fins is the key in fighting the practice of shark-finning. The lack of data and cooperation shows that this will not be an easy or quick task. It is also clear that sharks may not have the time it will take for any action to be taken. If the reported figures show 100-200 million sharks killed per year, and many stocks depleted, it is unclear as to how shark populations can be sustained. It is the opinion of many people that there is no such thing as a sustainable shark fishery because of their unique life characteristics. However, increased awareness, and the dedication of international organizations such as TRAFFIC, and the FAO to pass further restrictions can eventually put a halt to this wasteful and unnecessary practice, and we can give sharks time to rebuild their populations. Sharks are in dire need of management and conservation plans that will hopefully soon be created in all shark fishing nations. One can only hope that it is not already too late.

TABLES:

Table 1 (6): The amount of sharks caught, finned, and retained in the U.S., years 1991- 1998 Table 2 (6): Breakdown of species finned in 1999

Table 3 (6): Amount of blue sharks caught, finned and retained in the U.S., years 1991- 1998

Table 4 (6): Commercial landings in the U.S., 1998 and 1999

REFERENCES: (1) Coniff, Richard. From Jaws to laws. 1993. Smithsonian, v. 24, no. 2. (2) Fleming, Elizabeth; Philippe Papageorgiou. Shark Fisheries and Trade in Europe (1997). TRAFFIC Europe. (2) Rose, Debra. Shark Fisheries and Trade in the Americas, vol. 1, North America (March 1998). TRAFFIC North America. (4) C.R. Dahl. The Management of Shark Catches in the U.S.-Flag Islands of the Pacific, Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council. (5) www.sharkinfo.ch/SI2_01e/regulation.html (6) Kirby, Alex. Global Shark-Finning Ban urged, 2002. BBC News Online. News.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1950207.stm (7) International Plan of Action-Sharks, Food and Agricultural Organization, United Nations. (8) www.sharktrust.org/cgi/main.asp?newsfirst=39 (9) www.acapworldwide.com/shark1.htm (10) Darby, Andrew, Environmental News Service. “Australia bans shark finning”. Oct. 9, 2000. www.ens.lycos.com/ens/oct2000/2000L-10-09-01.html (11) The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, or the Sustainable Fisheries Act, as amended, June 28, 2002. (12) www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sharks/FS_management.htm (13) www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/sfweb/sharkfin_pr.pdf (14) www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/laws/ESA/ESA_Home.htm (15) www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/species/fish/ (16) www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ (17)www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sharks/FS_science.htm (18) Endreson, Bob. Hawaii Fishermen’s Foundation. (19) Congressional Hearing April 15, 2000. Thomas.loc.gov (20) USCG.mil/pacarea/pcp/newsreleases/2002/aug/0204sd.htm (21) animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/prionace/p_glauca$narrative.html (22) Tighe, Michael, Associated Press Writer. “Federal Officials Look to Curb Catch of Asian Delicacy”. Standard Times.

(23) Endreson, Bob. The Fish Watch. Hawaii Fishing News. December 1999.