Conservation Solutions to Shark Finning: Insights from Past Efforts
A Thesis
Submitted to the University at Albany, State University of New York
In Partial Fulfillment of
In Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
College of Arts & Sciences
Department of Biology
2014
UMI Number: 1561995
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 1561995
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
Abstract:
Globally, shark species are in decline, largely due to shark finning. This practice has an
adverse effect on shark populations and could result in fishery and ecosystem collapses.
Past conservation efforts, including the dolphin-safe tuna campaign, large mammal
poaching, sea turtle conservation and the anti-whaling campaign, have used various
approaches to mitigate impacts on wildlife, including political, consumer and public
awareness, and science or evidence-based approaches. By examining and drawing from
these processes we can determine the most effective strategy to reduce the effects of
finning on shark populations around the world. A feasible conservation strategy for
shark conservation in the face of shark finning would involve identifying stakeholders
and creating an international forum to facilitate cooperation between nations and
enforce a multi-pronged approach to mitigate the negative effects of shark finning. The
first part of the approach would focus on increasing and expanding research on all shark
species, their stocks and ecology as well as using that information to create appropriate
management plans that are based on shark life histories instead of boney fish
management. That second part would include political reforms and templates for global
regulations, as well as the creation of internationally protected areas. The last part
would use education and tourism to promote a boycott of shark fin products, a
reduction in finning efforts, and an increase in community-led shark ecotourism efforts.
Using this three-pronged approach and international cooperation, we can save sharks
from the dangers of overharvest.
ii
Acknowledgements:
I would like to thank the University at Albany, SUNY for accepting me into their
Biodiversity, Conservation and Policy program and the Animal Welfare Institute whose
internship led me down the path of shark conservation. I also want to thank my
committee members Dr. Gary Kleppel, Dr. Katy Gonder, Jeff Zappieri and Dr. Joshua
Drew for their constant advice throughout the thesis-writing process. I also want to
thank my family and friends for their support of me and my goals, and of course the rest
of the BCP students, especially Jill Bonitatibus, for taking the journey with me and
Caroline B. Girard Cartier and Liz Coffey for being my unofficial mentors throughout my
time in Albany. And lastly I want to thank Joanne Baronner for all her advice and help in
my thesis process.
iii
Table of Contents:
I. Background on sharks and shark finning
A. Shark species are in decline globally
B. Effects of shark decline
1. Loss of species and fisheries collapse
2. Loss of apex predator and ecological effects
C History of Finning Legislation
1. National
2. International
D. Shark Management
1. National
2. International
II. Analysis of conservation strategies in other commercially-relatable taxa
A. Dolphin-Safe tuna
B. Sea turtle egg consumption
C. Large mammal poaching
D. Whaling and the IWC
E. Apex Predators and Human-Wildlife Conflict
III. A Conservation Plan for Shark Finning
A. Identifying Stakeholders
1. Governing bodies
2. Fisherfolk
3. General public
B. Three-Pronged Approach
1. Scientific approach
a. Increase research
b. Create appropriate management plans
2. Political approach
a. Create regulations to be followed by all members
b. Encourage national legislation reform
c. Create protected areas
3. Consumer/Public awareness approach
a. Create a database of products and companies to avoid
b. Create education programs
c. Promote sustainable and safe ecotourism
IV. Goals
V. Conclusion
iv
List of Tables:
TABLE
PAGE
1. 14 Most Finned Shark Species………………………………………………………………………….
3
2. Shark species declines over the last few decades………………………………………….….
4
3. Countries and regions with a National Plan of Action for Sharks developed under
the FAO IPOA for the Conservation and Management of Sharks.............................
16
4. Appendices for Listing Species under CITES and Shark Species Included…….……
17
5. Appendices for Listing Species under CMS and Shark Species Included……………
18
v
I. Background on Sharks and Shark Finning
Fishes in the Class Chondrichthyes include sharks, skates, rays, and chimaeras
and total about 1,000 species. They are one of the oldest extant vertebrate groups on
the planet and have existed for at least 400 million years (Worm et al. 2013). Sharks
comprise about half of all extant chondrichthyans and show considerable diversity in
ecology, feeding habits and body size. They occupy coastal, demersal, and pelagic
habitats in every ocean (Feretti et al. 2010). Sharks range from scavengers to apex
predators and play important roles in most marine ecosystems. Despite their
significance, there is not enough data on most shark species (Techera and Klein 2011).
Historically, sharks had low commercial value and were not regularly recorded in
fisheries statistics. Industrial fisheries that began before the 1950’s had the highest
initial catches in the Northwest Pacific, Northeast Atlantic, and Mediterranean Seas.
Over time commercial shark fishing expanded and increased into other areas. Although
sharks are also threatened by habitat destruction and pollution, the International Union
for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Shark Specialist Group
determined that the main threat (96.1%) to elasmobranches (sharks, rays, and skates) is
fishing (including directed commercial, by-catch, recreational, and artisanal/subsistence)
(Feretti et al. 2010). Finning in particular is an incredible threat to sharks today.
Shark finning is the process of capturing a shark (usually by bottom longlines,
mid-water longlines, and large-mesh drift-nets) and removing one of more of its fins. In
many cases, the rest of the shark’s body is dumped into the ocean. The shark dies from
suffocation, blood loss, or predation. Shark meat is usually considered low value, while a
1
shark’s fins are some of the most expensive fish products globally and are used for shark
fin soup, a delicacy mainly served in East Asia (NMFS 2012). Shark fins first became
popular at formal Chinese events during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 AD) and are
sometimes (incorrectly) advertised as aphrodisiacs or tonics for general ailments.
Despite the fact that artificial shark fins exist, they are not commonly used because of
the status symbol equated with real shark fins. From 1985 to 2004 the production of
fresh, frozen, and salted chondrichthyan products more than doubled (Clarke et al.
2007). The global shark fishery is driven primarily by Indonesia, India, Spain, Taiwan, and
Argentina (Liu et al. 2013). Despite increasing legislation to protect sharks, there does
not appear to be a significant decline in global fin trade (Worm et al. 2013).
This thesis examines the threat that finning poses to shark species worldwide
and how we are managing sharks currently. It will then examine conservation efforts in
other taxa and determine which strategies worked and failed for them and which can be
applied to the issue of shark conservation. Conserving shark populations in the face of
shark finning will take a multi-pronged approach that combines scientific, political, and
consumer-based action.
A. Shark Species are in Decline Globally
Many shark populations are in various statues of decline throughout all of the
world’s oceans. For example, in 2011, four of 34 (12%) shark stocks or stock complexes
were being overfished while five of 34 (15%) were already overfished. 20 (59%) did not
have enough data to determine a status with regard to current overfishing rates and 19
2
(56%) did not have enough data to determine their status as to whether or not they
were already overfished (NMFS 2012). It’s estimated that anywhere from 63 to 273
million sharks are killed each year with an estimate of about 97 million in 2010 alone
(Worm et al. 2013).
According to Worm et al. (2013), “48% of exploited shark populations were
fished above their rebound rate, and 68% of species had rebound rates that were below
the median global exploitation rate (6.7%).” Various studies have shown that shark
species may be severely constrained when it comes to their potential to increase
population growth rates (McAuley et al. 2007). These data are reason for concern
because even if finning is stopped altogether, it may be too late for some species of
shark. All of the 14 most commonly finned shark species (Table 1) are now at risk of
extinction (Shark Savers 2014).
Table 1: All 14 species of shark most prevalent in the fin trade are at risk of extinction (Shark Savers 2014).
14 Most Finned Shark Species
Bull shark (Carcharhinus leuca)
Dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus)
Tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier)
Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis)
Smooth Hammerhead (Sphyrna zygaena)
Shortfin Mako (Isurus oxyrinchus)
Sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus)
Blue shark (Prionace glauca)
Great Hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran)
Scalloped Hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini)
Bigeye Thresher (Alopias superciliosus)
Oceanic Whitetip (Carcharhinus
longimanus)
Common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus)
Pelagic Thresher (Alopias pelagicus)
3
Many different species of sharks are currently facing threats. Both Carcharhinus
longimanus (oceanic whitetip sharks) and Prionace glauca (blue sharks) in the North
Pacific are experiencing declines in abundance (Clarke et al. 2013). Galeocerdo cuvier
(tiger sharks) are being fished at rates considered unsustainable, as shown by catch rate
data from the Queensland Shark Control Program (Holmes 2012). A study by Baum et al.
(2003) found that large oceanic and coastal shark populations (all species recorded with
the exception of mako sharks, genus Isurus) in the Northwest Atlantic are experiencing a
rapid decline. Their findings are presented in the table below:
Shark Species
% Decline
Since
Sphyrna lewini
89
1986
Carcharodon
79
1986
Galeocerdo cuvier
65
1986
Alopias genus
80
1986
Prionace glauca
60
1986
Carcharhinus
70
1986
61 (average)
1992
carcharias
longimanus
Coastal Species*
Table 2. Shark species declines over the last few decades (Baum et al. 2003). *Carcharhinus altimus, C. brevipinna, C.
falciformis, C. limbatus, C. obscurus, C. signatus
In 2013, the IUCN Shark Specialist Group (SSG) identified 73 species (15%) of
sharks that are threatened in some way while almost half (214 or 44%) are “data
4
deficient,” meaning there is not enough data to determine their conservation status
(IUCN 2013).
B. The Effects of Shark Decline
1. Loss of Shark Species and Fisheries Collapse
Overfishing and finning of sharks have wide-ranging negative effects for shark
species, ecosystems, and even our own welfare. Perhaps the most obvious effect of
overfishing is species decline. Unfortunately, the Indo-West Pacific region not only has
the highest chondricthyan biodiversity but also the highest catch rates. This will lead to
a higher than average extinction rate and is indicative of the necessity of shark
protection. Fishing that targets large sharks can lead to changes in those species’
population dynamics. There will most likely be a decrease in abundance, especially for
larger size classes. Size-selection exploitation can also lead to changes in length
compositions with the population shifting to smaller sizes for many species having been
observed. This can have a significant impact on the species’ reproductive output. This
has already been observed in Mustelus antarcticus (gummy shark) where lengthselective fishing mortality has resulted in a decrease in mature individuals. Community
structure can also be altered by overexploitation since productivity correlates with age
at maturity. This means that some species of sharks, such as those that are smaller with
earlier maturity, have higher rebound rates (Stevens et al. 2000).
5
The loss of certain shark and ray populations can be detrimental to developing
communities which rely on them for food and other products. Most shark fisheries are
harvested above recommended levels (Simpfendorfer et al 2011). Shark fisheries are not
the only ones that will suffer a collapse with degraded shark population numbers. When
large sharks are removed from the ecosystem and mesopredators (such as smaller
sharks and large fish) become more abundant, those mesopredators will in turn
overharvest certain prey species that we harvest for our own food such as clams,
scallops and oysters (Myers et al. 2007).
2. Loss of Apex Predators and Ecosystem Collapse
Food webs are intricate parts of ecosystems and if they fall apart then the entire
ecosystem can as well, resulting in unnatural species declines. Apex predators are an
important part of any food web and ecosystem and their removal can cause a top-down
cascade. Being that large sharks (including many of the species overharvested for their
fins) are apex predators, their ecosystems are at risk of collapse if their numbers are
depleted.
The loss of sharks has already proven to be disruptive to marine ecosystems.
Myers et al. (2007) documented the cascading effects of losing 11 large sharks species
on the US Eastern Seaboard between 1970 and 2005, including an increase in 12
mesopredator species including smaller sharks, rays, and skates. This increase in
mesopredators led to an increase in predation on the lower trophic levels. Using the
University of North Carolina Shark Survey (the longest continuous shark-targeted survey
6
on the Eastern seaboard) the authors were able to identify not only a loss in these large
shark species, but also a specific loss of the largest individuals (indicating that few
mature individuals are left in the overexploited populations). As a result of the apex
predators being removed from the ecosystem the increase in mesopredators, especially
Rhinoptera bonasus (cownose ray), led to an increase in consumption of lower trophic
levels. The cownose ray’s overconsumption of bivalves led to not only a decrease in
those taxa, but that of seagrass as well, which was detrimental to nursery habitat. Thus,
the removal of apex shark predators caused major shifts and degradation in the entire
ecosystem.
Many other studies have shown specific trophic cascades related to shark
decline. A study by Bascompte et al. (2005) revealed that shark overfishing may have led
to a depletion of herbivorous fishes in Caribbean reefs. Ferretti et al. (2012) also
supports this hypothesis. In this study, they examined the elasmobranch community of
the Adriatic Sea and discovered a highly depleted elasmobranch community with an
increase in mesopredators and an overall exploited community.
A study by Ferretti et al. (2012) shows that elasmobranchs can decline both in
abundance and diversity after only a short time of being harvested. Since large sharks
are the main predators of smaller sharks and rays, their decline has led to an increase in
these mesopredators. Ferretti et al. studied long-term changes in elasmobranches in the
Adriatic Sea and noted a depleted elasmobranch community with 25 species recorded in
1948 now missing. Of the species they detected, most had declined over time. They
noted a difference in elasmobranch abundance and diversity between the eastern and
7
western parts of the Adriatic which correlated with different amounts of fishing. They
also observed that this gradient may be useful if there is spillover from the less-fished
side to the more-fished side.
There are other ways that shark population depletion can hurt an ecosystem.
According to a study by Frid et al. (2008) “fishery removal of sharks can indirectly alter
predation pressure on different fish species via the behavioral responses of
mesoconsumers released from predator intimidation.” Since mesopredators alter their
behaviors to avoid their own predators (namely larger sharks) the removal of those
predators would change the mesopredators’ feeding behavior. These results indicate
stronger and perhaps previously unconsidered ecological effects of shark declines. This
has also been observed in mesopredators populations in Shark Bay, Australia. To avoid
seasonal Galeocerdo cuvier; dolphins, dugongs, and cormorants switch from their
preferred shallow seagrass habitats to deeper habitats. This way, Galeocerdo cuvier
indirectly reduce grazing on seagrass and their loss will shift the behavior of prey species
and change seagrass spatial patterns (Heithaus et al. 2012).
Ecosystem collapse through food web disruption is especially dangerous in reef
habitats where overfishing of larger predators was found to coincide with an increase in
creatures that eat coral such as, starfish, and subsequently with reductions in the most
important part of the reef itself; reef-building corals and coralline algae (Heithaus et al.
2007).
Fish community structure is often changed due to overexploitation, with the
largest fish being removed and the smaller faster-growing ones becoming dominant in
8
the community (Stevens et al. 2000). The Carcharhinus tilstoni (Australian blacktip) and
C. sorrah (spottail) shark populations in northern Australia have experienced changes in
size distribution over the past 25 years after being heavily exploited (Field et al. 2012).
This not only decreases diversity of the ecosystem but can upset the balance of its food
web as well.
Stevens at al. (2000) analyzed three published ECOPATH ecosystem models to
infer general trends that occur with the loss of shark species from an ecosystem. In
some trials, models showed a strong and permanent change while others showed
steadier, temporary changes in the ecosystems. These results may not be conclusive but
they help to show that we cannot truly predict what will happen to an ecosystem if its
shark population is severely decreased or removed.
C. A History of Shark Finning Legislation
1. National
There are several different avenues for wildlife conservation nationally. The
Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed in 1973 to protect and recover imperiled
species in the United States. A species listed as Endangered or Threatened is offered
protection from exploitation by law, as well as a specific recovery plan. Although there
have been petitions submitted for some species, including Carcharodon carcharias
(great white shark) and Sphyrna lewini (scalloped hammerhead), no shark species is
currently listed under the ESA.
9
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA),
also known as the Magnuson–Stevens Act was first created in 1976 and amended many
times through the years. The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 was created to amend
the MFCMA in order to add the promotion of catch and release programs to
conservation and management principles as well as essential fish habitat protection. The
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006
amended the MFCMA to “authorize activities to promote improved monitoring and
compliance for high seas fisheries, or fisheries governed by international fishery
management agreements, and for other purposes,” (H.R. 5946--109th Congress:
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of
2006).
The Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 (SFPA) was signed by President Clinton
on December 21, 2000. It served to amend the MFCMA to eliminate shark finning in
United States’ waters. The SFPA not only made it illegal to remove a shark’s fins and
dump its body into the water but also made it illegal to possess or land fins without their
respective carcasses. The act also included initiatives to establish research programs and
promote international shark conservation (H.R. 5461--106th Congress: Shark Finning
Prohibition Act 2010). Another stipulation of the SFPA was to require the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) to implement the act, initiate discussion with other nations, and collect data
through research programs (NMFS 2012).
10
The 2010 Shark Conservation Act or International Fisheries Agreement
Clarification Act was signed on January 4, 2011 by President Obama to close the
loopholes of the 2000 SFPA. Specifically, this was created in order to increase shark
conservation efforts by amending the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection
Act (a bill that prohibits the US from entering into any international agreement which
would prevent full implementation of the United Nations moratorium on large-scale
driftnet fishing on the high seas) and the MFCMA. The law directs the Secretary of
Commerce to urge international fishery management to adopt shark conservation and
anti-finning practices. The law also amends the MFCMA to make it illegal to:
“(1) remove any shark fin (including the tail) at sea;
(2) have a fin aboard a fishing vessel unless the fin is naturally attached to the carcass;
(3) transfer a fin from one vessel to another or receive a fin unless it is naturally
attached; or
(4) land a fin that is not naturally attached to a carcass or land a carcass without fins
naturally attached,” (H.R. 81--111th Congress: International Fisheries Agreement
Clarification Act 2009).
In May of 2010, Senator Clayton Hee sponsored legislation making Hawaii the
first state (and place in the world) to ban the possession of shark fins. In 2011,
Washington, California, and Oregon followed suit as did Illinois and American Samoa in
2012 (Losing the taste for shark fins 2013). In 2013 New York joined the ban as well.
Unfortunately, NOAA’s 2013 Proposed Rule to Implement the Shark
Conservation Act of 2010 does not offer complete protection. The act includes language
that not only overturns state laws on shark fins but overrules any future ones as well in
an effort to not only create streamlined protection across the nation, but to not restrict
fisherman as well. This language is highly controversial and states with extra protection
11
are fighting it. So far, NOAA has agreed that California, Washington, and Maryland’s
individual state laws are already “consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act” and is still discussing the issue with other states
(FIS 2014). While that is good news for states with existing bans, the ruining makes it
difficult for states to create bans in the future. This is going to be an issue that United
States conservationists will need to deal with in the coming years while fighting the
battle against shark finning.
2. International
There are varying types of international protection afforded to sharks as well.
Several countries, such as India, have adopted a “fins attached policy” requires fisheries
to land sharks with their fins attached. This helps in identification of species but can also
limit the amount of sharks killed in zones with a catch weight limit. This policy has been
adopted in countries such as India (the world’s second-largest shark catching nation),
the United States, and much of Europe; and is recommended by the IUCN World
Conservation Congress (Godin and Worm 2010).
In 2010 the Philippines became the first place outside of the United States to ban
the sale of shark by-products. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
Guam, and the Canadian city of Toronto adopted similar legislation in 2011. In 2012
multiple municipalities in British Columbia, The Cook Islands, and French Polynesia
banned the shark fin product trade. French Polynesia even banned fishing for all shark
species in their economic zone, thereby creating the world’s largest shark sanctuary.
12
That same year the Chinese government declared that they would no longer serve shark
fin dishes at official functions (Losing the taste for shark fins 2013). Ecuador has the
strongest anti-finning legislation and has prohibited the sale and export of fins
completely since 2004 (Godin and Worm 2010).
The European Union banned shark finning in 2003 and closed dangerous
loopholes to tighten legislation in 2013 (Heimbuch 2013). Banning shark finning does
not mean that all fishing for sharks itself is banned, however. Fin to weight ratios were
created to regulate finning and allow for a more sustainable rate of shark finning,
ensuring that landed fins correspond to landed carcasses rather than ones discarded at
sea. The five percent fin to dressed carcass ratio was introduced in the U.S. Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) for Sharks of the Atlantic Ocean (NMFS) in 1993 in hopes of
reducing the pressure of finning on shark species (Cortés and Neer 2006).
There is much speculation about the validity of the five percent fin to carcass
weight ratio for shark finning management. A study by Cortés and Neer (2006) found
that a shark’s fin to carcass ratio is in fact highly variable and suggest that the best way
to set fin to carcass weight ratios should be on a species specific (or group specific) basis
and that if this is not feasible, then landing sharks with all fins attached is the best way
to protect against finning.
13
D. Shark Management
1. National
Sharks are managed by both state and federal governments in the United States.
State waters extend from the shoreline to three miles off the coast (nine nautical miles
off Texas, the west coast of Florida, and Puerto Rico). Federal waters begin where state
waters end, extending 200 miles offshore. States generally manage sharks in their own
waters with their own set of regulations. The NMFS manages sharks in the Atlantic, Gulf
of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Three councils manage sharks in the Pacific: Pacific, North
Pacific, and Western Pacific. If a fishery occurs in two or more jurisdictions,
management may be coordinated by a commission. There are three interstate
commissions: Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
(GSMFC). Eight out of 12 of the United States’ Regional Fishery Management
Organization and Programs have adopted finning prohibitions (NMFS 2012).
The 2011 NMFS report included annual U.S. import and export of shark fin data
collected from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Census Bureau. In
2011 shark fins were imported through ports in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami,
Seattle, and New York from Hong Kong, New Zealand, China and in small numbers from
Australia and India. Fins from United States were mostly exported to Hong Kong, China,
Poland, and Canada and small amounts to Germany and Japan. Hong Kong remains the
biggest importer and exporter of shark fins by far (NMFS 2012).
14
The American Fisheries Society (AFS) recommends that shark and ray
management be given high priority by regulatory agencies because of their vulnerability
to overfishing. Their policy statement also advises against mixed-species fisheries
because sharks’ life histories are so different from those of teleost fishes and, therefore,
should be managed differently. The most effective management should also include
integration between federal and state agencies and for some species, between multiple
nations (Musick et al. 2000).
2. International
Each country is responsible for the management of marine resources within its
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (Moore et al. 2009). Countries report catch to the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) voluntarily; for the most part,
catches are thought to be underestimates (NMFS 2012). The FAO has an International
Plan of Action (IPOA) for the Conservation and Management of Sharks that developed in
1999. The United States follows and works to encourage other countries to follow the
IPOA. The IPOA’s aims include improving data collection and research, implementing
action plans to mitigate threats to sharks, identifying priority species, developing
education, and increasing collaboration. The IPOA is a guideline for countries to create
their own national plans and suggests that they review the plan every four years and
report their findings to the FAO. Only 13 countries have National POAs (Table 3; Techera
and Klein 2011).
15
Table 3: Countries and regions with a National Plan of Action for Sharks developed under the FAO IPOA for the
Conservation and Management of Sharks (Techera and Klein 2011).
Countries/Regions with a National Plan of Action for Sharks (2011)
Argentina
Ecuador
Uruguay
Taiwan
Mediterranean Sea
Australia
Japan
Mexico
United Kingdom
Canada
Malaysia
Seychelles
United States
Unfortunately, most countries’ NPOAs do not completely adopt FAO’s
recommendations (Davis and Worm 2012). While the IPOA is a useful framework for
regulatory action, it does not create strict rules that states are bound to (Techera and
Klein 2011). Furthermore, having an NPOA also does not assure that finning is being
reduced. Taiwan has an NPOA, yet their fleet has the 4th largest shark catch in the world
(Liu et al. 2013). The FAO is an extremely helpful tool for guiding states in creating their
own shark conservation plan. It is essential that more countries not only participate, but
do so more thoroughly. It is also extremely important that countries include issues
specific to finning in their reports, plans, and legislation.
A case study by Davis and Worm (2012) examined and reviewed Canada’s
National Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) and compared it to the original FAO
guidelines. Canada developed and implemented their plan in 2007 and included nine
action categories. Each category was reviewed by the authors to determine both its
implementation and how it matched up to FAO’s guidelines. They determined that
Canada had achieved 61% of its proposed goals. They found that while Canada’s NPOA
attempts to address eight out of the ten IPOA objectives, it does not provide any
16
timelines for completion or address Canada’s role in the shark fin trade. Improving
Canada’s shark fishery policy is important because Canada is ranked 27 out of the 87
countries that export fins to Hong Kong. Canada’s plan also does not include actions to
mitigate threats to non-commercial or threated shark species. Despite its shortcomings,
Canada is one of one of only 13 of the 130 states who report shark landings to the FAO
that actually participates in the IPOA-Sharks (Godin and Worm 2010).
There are other international organizations that address shark conservation as
well. The International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North
Pacific Ocean (ISC) created a shark working group in 2011 (NMFS 2012). The Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an
international treaty that allows states to control international trade of threatened and
endangered species. Participants of CITES can list species under one of three
appendices (Table 4).
Table 4: Appendices for Listing Species Under CITES and Shark Species Included (Techera and Klein 2011).
Appendix
Reasoning
Specifications
Shark
Species
Listed
Appendix I
Species threatened
with extinction
None
Appendix II
Species traded with
regulations
International trade in
these species and their
parts is prohibited
Permit system used to
prevent species from
becoming threatened
Appendix III
Alert parties to
concern over a species
and its trade
17
Trade in these species
permitted with permit
and certificate of
origin only
Great
white,
whale,
and
basking
shark
None
The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals is
another mechanism for listing species (Techera and Klein 2011). Shark species listed
under the CMS are listed below in Table 5;
Table 5: Appendices for Listing Species Under CMS and Shark Species Included (Techera and Klein 2011).
Appendix
Reasoning
Specifications
Appendix I
Any migratory species
endangered
throughout all or a
significant portion of
their range
Appendix II
Migratory species
that need or would
benefit from
international
cooperation
States with
jurisdiction over
any part of said
species’ range are
prohibited from
taking the species
Requires range
states to create
agreements with
each other to
benefit the
species
Shark Species
Listed
Great white,
whale, and
basking shark
Spiny dogfish,
porbeagle,
shortfin mako,
and longfin
mako
The Conservation on Biological Diversity uses an ecosystem approach to
establish protected areas. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can be useful in protecting
fish stocks and their entire habitat, especially because it is easier to restrict access to an
area than it is to control fishing activity. However, it can be difficult to create effective
MPAs if you are restricted by jurisdictions. International fisheries regulation is done
through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). According to UNCLOS,
state sovereignty over fisheries extends out 12 nautical miles and their right to
“conserve, manage, and exploit the living resources” of the EEZ which extends up to 200
nautical miles. Within the EEZ, states must set maximum sustainable yields. UNCLOS
also imposes on states to cooperate with international organizations regarding highly
18
migratory species. On the high seas states are required to cooperate in conservation
efforts by exercising authority over vessels flagged to them. Unfortunately, the US is not
a signatory to UNCLOS (Techera and Klein 2011).
II. Analysis of conservation strategies in other relatable taxa
There is ample evidence that shark finning is devastating species worldwide. Although
there are various sorts of national and international policies in place to protect sharks,
nothing is fully effective and we are still losing sharks at a worrying rate. In order to find
new ways to protect sharks, I analyzed past conservation efforts of different taxa to
determine what worked for them and which strategies can be successfully applied to
shark conservation.
A. Dolphin-Safe Tuna
The dolphin-safe tuna movement can serve as a template for an anti-shark fin
soup movement. Yellowfin tuna are often preyed upon by dolphins. Fisherman have
exploited this knowledge and used dolphins as their targets to lead them to their prey.
During the process of capturing tuna, many dolphins were accidently killed as well. From
1960 to 1972 it was estimated by the National Research Council that an average of over
100,000 dolphins were killed every year by US tuna fishermen. After the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and its subsequent amendments the tuna fleet was
forced to begin preventive measures to reduce dolphin fatalities and tuna fishing
19
related dolphin deaths dropped to a quarter of its previous estimates by 1991 (Teisl et
al. 2002).
During the 1980’s the media began to focus on these tuna-related dolphin
deaths. Calls for boycotts of canned tuna (led by the Earth Island Institute and their
infamous Sam La Budde video which exposed the killing of dolphins during tuna fishing
operations) led the three biggest tuna canners in the US market to agree to a dolphinsafe labeling policy in 1990. Soon other canners followed suit and the US government
passed the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act of 1990 which mandated that
dolphin-safe labels be verified and sanctioned by an official observer (Teisl et al. 2002).
The aim of eco-labels is to educate consumers about the environmental impacts
of the product as well as to encourage better practices by changing supply and demand.
Eco-labels will only work, however, if consumers care about the issues at hand. Despite
canned tuna being the most important seafood product in the US, consumers cared
enough about the welfare of dolphins to support eco-labels, thereby supporting more
sustainable fishing practices. Teisl et al. (2002) asked whether or not dolphin-safe tuna
labels dictated consumer purchasing. Their results support the idea that consumers can
and will respond to eco-labels by showing the increase in market share of canned tuna
that is labelled dolphin-safe.
Society is willing to pay for environmentally-friendly products if they can get
behind the cause. As we have seen with dolphin-safe tuna, people will use their
purchasing power to support businesses that support their causes and boycott those
that have practices they disagree with. This can be useful to shark conservation if a
20
mandated labeling system is created for businesses that sell shark fin products. Most
businesses in the United States already do not sell fins; however, this labeling system
would put pressure on those establishments that do still sell fins, as well as those
conglomerates that sell shark products internationally. A labeling system would not only
help to educate the public about the issues but it would give them an easy way to
contribute to the anti-finning cause and be a creative way to put pressure on
establishments with national and international investments in shark finning to put an
end to the behavior, since it could lead to a decrease in customer support.
B. Sea Turtle Egg Consumption
Many parallels can be drawn between shark consumption and harvest and that
of sea turtles. Both are large marine vertebrates vulnerable to overexploitation because
of their life history traits such as their highly migratory lifestyle and their slow
maturation. As marine species, they are both difficult to manage because of
international jurisdiction issues. Sea turtles, like sharks, play an important role in their
ecosystems as both consumers and prey species and also like sharks; their consumption
is symbolic of wealth and power (Senko et al. 2011). All seven species of sea turtle are in
decline and six are classified somewhere between critically endangered and vulnerable
on the IUCN Red List (Hart et al. 2013).
In Pacific Mexico sea turtles are becoming extinct commercially and ecologically.
Egg harvesting and increased commercial fishing caused sea turtle populations to
decline in the 1950’s and then to crash in the 1970’s. In 1978 the Mexican government
21
implemented a recovery program that included closing nesting beaches and in 1980
they issued a quota for commercial sea turtle collection. Populations continued to drop
and in 1990 a complete moratorium on sea turtle use in Mexico was issued. Despite
these protections, various problems still exist that are still contributing to sea turtle
decline including inadequate funding and staffing of federal environmental agencies,
lack of protection in important coastal foraging areas and the black market (Senko et al.
2011).
The Baja Magdalena and Baja California Sur regions of Mexico have created the
conservation organization Grupo Tortuguero to provide coastal communities access to
training, funding, and support for sea turtle conservation. Being a member of the
organization has benefits, including ease of access to biological monitoring permits. The
communities that are part of the organization not only monitor sea turtles in the water
but also implement education programs, social marketing, and even festivals celebrating
sea turtles in order to raise awareness and appreciation for these creatures (Senko et al.
2011).
A study by Senko et al. (2011) sought to gain an understanding of regional
attitudes toward these community conservation measures. They surveyed community
members and found that almost all of them were willing to participate in a sea turtle
conservation programs or attend educational meetings or workshops. However, only
three percent of them had ever been invited to participate in these meetings held by
the Center for Coastal Studies in Puerto San Carlos. This is clear evidence that while
these programs are useful, there has to be an increase in outreach to go along with
22
them. The survey also showed that fisherfolk who responded were all willing to share
locations of sea turtle by-catch. They genuinely seemed interested in stopping
accidental by-catch and helping to conserve these species.
Despite these positive responses, the authors did identify key issues in
community attitudes towards sea turtle conservation. Some respondents said they felt
peer pressure to consume sea turtles from community members. Another issue they
noticed was that many did not really believe or understand that sea turtle populations
were in danger. Respondents also noted challenges associated with community
conservation issues including conflict within the community, discrepancies with
transient fisherfolk and the unavailability of meeting places for educational seminars
(Senko et al. 2011).
What this shows us is that communities do care about wildlife and are willing to
protect local habitats and species if they have the means to do so. Communities with
local shark populations (specifically those with reef ecosystems where sharks reside)
have the power to protect those populations by designating protected habitat either for
conservation and/or ecotourism reasons. This way, members of the community will
appreciate and value that habitat and its species, including sharks, and will be less likely
to harvest them.
Ecotourism is another thing that sea turtles have in common with sharks.
Ecotourism is defined as “environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively
undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any
accompanying cultural features-both past and present) that promotes conservation, has
23
lower visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of
local populations” (Hart et al. 2013). Sea turtles are also attractive for voluntourism.
Both ecotourism and voluntourism can bring jobs and revenue to communities as well
as promote the importance of sea turtle conservation. The majority of responders in
Senko’s et al. (2011) survey believe that voluntourism would benefit their community.
There have already been positive outcomes from sea turtle voluntourism. SEEturtles and
RED Sustainable Tourism have provided local communities and sea turtle conservation
efforts with money, training, and jobs.
Sea turtle poachers have a variety of motives, and understanding the major
motives of each area is essential when it comes to designing conservation plans. A
marine protected area in the Seychelles experiences poaching primarily because of
economic factors, while areas of limited resources and employment opportunities lead
to poaching for sustenance (Hart et al. 2013). Tortuguero, Costa Rica has recorded a
decrease in illegal poaching as a result of ecotourism on sea turtle nesting beaches
(Senko et al. 2011). As tourism increases, sea turtles become valued more as nonconsumptive resources rather than a consumptive one (Hart et al. 2013).
A study by Hart et al. (2013) evaluated stakeholder perceptions about sea turtle
sustainability in three different communities near Cahuita National Park, Costa Rica.
They found that Cahuita Town was the most dependent on tourism with the greatest
awareness of the local sea turtle conservation project and the highest degree of social
cohesion. The second community, Home Creek, had limited social cohesion and little
awareness of the sea turtle conservation project. The third community, Playa Negra, had
24
the lowest amount of social cohesion and the lowest level of awareness. These results
support the idea that a community must first be stable in resources before they will be
willing to care about conservation. Despite these differences, a majority of respondents
in each community said they would be willing to participate in sea turtle conservation.
Sea turtle egg consumption and conservation is an issue similar to that of shark
fin consumption and conservation. Both taxa include migratory marine species both
include many endangered or threatened species, and both are threatened by human
consumption of individuals that result in complete mortality. By examining the ways
communities and organizations seek to prevent the consumption of see turtle eggs, we
can apply these successful strategies to sharks.
Communities are clearly willing to participate in the conservation of local
species. While older generations continue to eat turtle eggs, younger generations tend
to be more educated about conservation issues and less conformed to culture. This is a
similar situation to shark fin soup in many societies. When communities are provided
with more education on a topic, as well as given more opportunities to participate in
workshops, they are more willing to invest in conservation, not only for the species
itself, but to allow for sustainable levels of future harvest. From studying sea turtle
conservation efforts we also notice that by creating a sustainable ecotourism market in
a community, we can eliminate some of the need for harvest of animals. Like sea turtles,
sharks are attractive subjects for ecotourism and if managed correctly, could bring in
more revenue to a community as a renewable and sustainable resource than harvesting
would.
25
C. Large Mammal Poaching
Elephant ivory and rhinoceros horns are similar products to shark fins in that
they are illegal or fairly unused in many countries, highly coveted in others, and their
harvest results in the death of the animals they are taken from. Despite the CITES ivory
trade ban since 1990, elephant poaching remains a problem throughout much of Africa.
There has been debate about whether an ivory ban alone can reduce elephant poaching
and studies have yielded varying results. A study by Heltberg (2001) determined that a
trade ban can result in reduced poaching if paired with actions that intercept smuggled
goods, reduce official production and do not negatively affect law enforcement efforts.
Despite the ivory trade ban, African elephants (Loxodonta africana and L.
cyclotis) are still in decline. A recent study on forest elephants in central Asia determines
that population size decreased by 62% from 2002 to 2011 due to the combination of
habitat loss and illegal poaching despite previous thoughts that they are well-protected.
An increasing demand for ivory (especially from China) combined with a lack of effective
governance has given poachers the means and motivations to illegally hunt these forest
elephants (Maisels et al. 2013).
A study by Burn et al. (2011) used a hierarchical Bayesian analysis of elephant
carcass data to determine global trends and factors associated with poaching. Similar to
other studies they found that poor governance was an important driver of illegal killing.
This study showed that a trade ban on products alone is not enough to stop illegal
poaching of animals and that other actions including enforcing anti-poaching laws
26
through monitoring and policing, as well as decreasing demand for products must also
be implemented for it to truly be effective.
One of the biggest issues with ivory trade is that inability to properly determine
the geographic origin of ivory being traded. A study by Wasser at al. (2007) attempted
to infer the geographic origin of African elephant DNA from the largest seizure of
contraband elephant ivory since the ban in 1989. Using this method the researchers
could identity with near certainty whether an individual elephant was from the savanna
or forest. By identifying where these elephants were killed, law-enforcement efforts can
be focused on these areas as well as smuggling routes.
Just as conservationists are using elephant DNA from ivory to trace poaching
routes, scientists are also using DNA barcoding from shark meat to identify species
composition. Liu et al. (2013) did this for markets in Taiwan and found that Alopias
pelagicus (pelagic thresher sharks), Carcharhinus falciformis (silky sharks), Isurus
oxyrinchus (shortfin mako sharks), and Prionace glauca make up 80% of samples. They
also found that 5% of the tissue samples belonged to Sphyrna species, Carcharhinus
longimanus, and Carcharodon carcharias sharks; all species listed in CITES Appendix II.
Rhincodon typus, or whale shark, was not identified in any samples, possibly because
they are the only shark species with a restricted ban on fishing and trading in Taiwan.
This is a good sign that bans may actually be useful in reducing harvest. The authors
suggest similar bans for Appendix II species and reduced quota for the other highly
consumed shark species.
27
Another example of poaching-induced population decline in large mammals is
Diceros bicornis (black rhinoceros). By the mid-1990’s the population dropped by 95%
from its 1960 levels. Rhinos are poached for their horns which are used in traditional
remedies and in crafts, such as dagger-making. Diceros bicornis were listed under
CITES’s Appendix A in 1977 which banned trade in rhinoceros horn but did not actually
reduce the number of rhinos being killed. Some studies suggested that illegal Diceros
bicornis killing actually increased after the ban (Bulte 2003).
Rhinos have also been the center of some ecotourism efforts. The Khama Rhino
Sanctuary Trust in Botswana was created as a type of community-based natural
resource management. Ideally, this would protect habitats and species while
simultaneously benefiting local communities. A study by Sebele (2010) sought to
investigate the benefits and setbacks of the program and found some of both. The
program was successful initially in providing employment for local citizens. However,
the number of employees did not increase concurrent with the number of tourists. The
program was also successful in assisting the needy within the community with funds,
although long-term benefits are not established. The program also assists the
community by providing them with sourcing of goods and services. As for conservation,
the program was successful in facilitating the introduction of rhinos in an area where
they did not previously occur. Setbacks in the program include poor management, lack
of community involvement due to lack of interaction with community members,
reliance on donor funding and an imbalance in board representation. This study tells us
28
that community-based ecotourism and conservation efforts can be successful for
communities, but only if done correctly.
Studying the issues of elephant ivory and rhino horn in parts of Africa illustrates
that conservation efforts must be strengthened with improved governance and
enforcement of trade restrictions on illegal items; simple bans are not enough. Shark
finning is already highly regulated in many places but enforcement is necessary in order
for those regulations to be effective. By identifying hotspots for finning the way
conservationists did for elephant poaching enforcement can be focused on the areas
that most need it. Previous conservation efforts show that bans alone can be useful but
are usually not efficient and that they need stricter enforcement, improved governance,
and identification of hotspots for better effectiveness.
D. Whaling and the IWC
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has been suggested as a model for
shark management. Whales, like sharks, are migratory marine creatures with complex
life histories. Whales, like sharks are killed for economic use. Also like sharks, whales
have been hunted since ancient times and their continued exploitation is an
international “hot button” issue. According to Mazzanti (2001), whales can be depicted
economically as a mixed good, representing different values to different people.
Viewing whales this way can help to create an effective management plan that deals in
compromise and caters to multiple stakeholders. Despite these similarities, the IWC is a
largely ineffective institution that does not work for whales and would presumably not
29
work for sharks. We can, however, learn from these experiences and apply certain
lessons from the IWC to shark conservation.
The IWC was created in 1946 with the intention of making decisions based on
scientific findings such as stock assessments. Stock assessments, however, are usually
based only on the “best” set of assumptions and include a high level of scientific
uncertainty. In 1974 the IWC adopted the “New Management Procedure,” which uses
harvest control rules (HCR). The HCR were then reformulated into the “management
procedure approach” with management based on a specified set of rules created from
simulations (Punt and Donovan 2007). As the IWC continues to mature, scientists and
policy-makers tweak the decision-making process yet no real progress has been made in
the last three decades.
The IWC has been stuck in a deadlock since their 1982 whaling moratorium. The
majority of IWC members are against whaling, yet some countries have completely
disregarded the moratorium. Pro-whaling countries do not want to compromise and
anti-whaling countries do not want to review the moratorium for fear of losing it
altogether. Therefore, no further action has been taken. The deadlock prevents the IWC
from being effective or stable (Mazzanti 2001). In order to create an effective body, the
IWC needs full membership and cooperation, which can be achieved through a
bargaining effort and compromise between all parties.
While creating a similar commission for shark conservation would likely be as
ineffective as the IWC, an international forum could be useful in bringing stakeholders
together. Countries with high demand for shark fins could meet with countries with
30
strong shark conservation measures in place. Unlike the IWC, a forum would simply be a
place for representatives to speak their minds and keep each other updated on their
conservation efforts. An international forum could increase communication between
parties without the decision-making pressure of a commission.
E. Apex Predators and Human-Wildlife Conflict
Canis lupus (gray wolves), like sharks, are apex predators that are often feared by
and sometimes compete with humans. Public fears towards predators can interrupt
conservation efforts. A longitudinal study by Treves et al. (2013) looked at the causes
and changes in public opinions of Canis lupus in Wisconsin following an increase in
population numbers between 2001 and 2009. Researchers found that the strongest
inclination to poach wolves was correlated with competition over deer hunting (a large
part of Wisconsin’s culture). Researchers also determined that allowing regulated public
hunting of wolves would raise public tolerance towards them. This study is an example
of how much of the intolerance towards apex predators comes from fear of competition
for prey resources and personal safety. Education is important when it comes to
creating more positive attitudes towards apex predators. Attitudes towards wolves in
Scandinavia were all more positive with an increase in knowledge on the species
(Ericsson and Heberlein 2003) and hopefully the same correlation can be made for
sharks.
When managing for any species it is important to understand the attitudes and
feelings of all stakeholders. This is especially true when managing apex predators such
31
as sharks or wolves because opinions can be starkly polarized. Rather than trying to
sway stakeholders Mazur and Asah (2013) believe it is important to first understand
everyone’s point of view. Decisions on conservation can then be made that will work as
a compromise for all parties involved. Because some fisherman object to stricter shark
protection, their opinions and needs must be included in the decision-making process,
but ultimately scientific data should be used to determine whether or not such
conservation measures would interfere with these businesses.
Drawing inferences from terrestrial animals such as Canis lupus can be useful for
similar apex predators like sharks. Wirsing and Ripple (2010) found that the relationship
between Galeocerdo cuvier and dugongs is comparable to that of Canis lupus and elk.
While terrestrial conservation and marine conservation may not always seem
comparable, conservationists should not forget to consider that many ecological
processes in fact are.
Other apex predators suffer from human-wildlife conflict as well. Lions (Panthera
leo) are at odds with humans more often than not. Despite these conflicts, there have
been studies showing that there are ways for humans and lions to co-exist, including
government-protected areas and specific grazing techniques (Schuette et al. 2013).
Attitudes of these people who interact with predators range across the board. In South
Africa, poll respondents expressed diverging attitudes towards predators with more
positive views correlated with higher education and negative views linked with fear of
human and livestock loss. Despite these fears, a majority of respondents of the poll
showed favorable opinions concerning apex predator conservation, mostly due to their
32
natural heritage (Gusset and Lagendijk 2008). What we can learn from how other
communities interact with apex predators is that although conflicts do rise do to
competition and fear; education and cultural heritage can work in conservationists favor
when it comes to protecting large carnivores.
While managing human-wildlife conflicts (HWC) with sharks is different from
managing HWC with terrestrial predators, those experiences can still provide
knowledge. HWC occur when the goals of humans negatively impact wildlife and/or the
needs of wildlife negatively impact humans. One of the problems of dealing with HWC is
that stakeholders may not have the knowledge or resources necessary for effective
solutions for the problem. Many HWC are rooted in communities where human-human
conflict is prevalent. By solving human-human conflict, some HWC may be alleviated.
One thing often observed with HWC is the disproportionate fear over certain
issues with public outcry being driven much more by perceptions of risk rather than
actual risk. This is a factor that is obvious when it comes to fear of sharks. Many people
are afraid of shark attacks while in reality, only an average of four or five people a year
actually die from shark attacks (Madden 2004). In this case, the perception of fear is
much greater than the actual risk.
When it comes to dealing with apex predators, facilitation between human
needs and animal needs must be incorporated into management plans. For some
terrestrial species, a change in farming, ranching, etc. can reduce predator interactions
but for marine predators like sharks, the issue is more about perceived fear. In order to
reduce human fear of sharks, education should empathize how fear people actually are
33
attacked by sharks each year. When people view sharks more as interesting creatures
and less of dangerous predators, they will be more likely to back conservation measures
supporting them.
III. Conservation Solutions against the Threat of Finning
Using what we know from past conservation efforts, both for sharks and other taxa, we
can determine the best practices for conserving sharks against the threat of finning. I
suggest taking a three-pronged approach to the issue and that addressing shark finning
in these three directions simultaneously would be more effective that just one avenue
of conservation.
A. Identifying Stakeholders
Before considering any conservation plan, it is essential to identify stakeholders
and understand how to make the best decisions while incorporating the needs of all of
them. In the case of shark finning and conservation there are a few main stakeholder
groups.
1. Governing Bodies
Each country and region has a different opinion on the issue of shark finning.
Many countries, especially those in the Western hemisphere, have enacted anti-finning
legislation. Because shark fin soup is a delicacy in some countries, mostly located in East
and South Asia, there will be varying degrees of concern and willingness to implement
34
anti-finning legislation. Similar to the issue of whaling, anti-finning and pro-finning
countries must work together to govern open waters and come up with comprehensive
cross-boundary plans for shark conservation. While the focus should stay on
conservation, the needs and wants of pro-finning countries must be considered and
discussed in order to facilitate discussion and cooperation between countries and
regions.
2. Fisherfolk
Fisherfolk rely on fishing as their livelihood. Whether they fish teleost fishes or
sharks their needs and wants will likely be different than conservationists and scientists.
If strict conservation measures are put in place, there must be consolation efforts for
fisherfolk accompanying them. This would include educational programs on
sustainability as well as avenues for other sources of income. Another way to minimize
the negative effects on fisherfolk is to get them involved in ecotourism projects that
would replace shark finning in certain communities. This would not only be better for
the sharks, but it would allow the people involved to continue providing for their
families, but in a more sustainable way. Studies have shown that sharks are worth more
dead than alive and that ecotourism can help reverse that relationship. In the Maldives
$2.3 million was generated from shark-observing dives in 1993 alone and a single
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos (gray reef shark) was found to be worth over $3,000 a year
and $35,000 in a lifetime to the industry, which makes it 100 times more valuable alive
than dead. Shark interactions have generated about $78 million a year in the Bahamas
35
(Gallaher and Hammerschlag 2011). Communities can be shown the relative benefits of
shark tourism over shark harvesting.
3. The General Public
The general public has the ability to pressure their governments and
communities to make conservation changes and hence, the public needs to be
considered as an important stakeholder. Citizens of different countries will have
different opinions on the issue depending upon their background, culture, and exposure
to the issue. Many might be unaware of the issues facing sharks and the first step for
involving the general public would be to educate them on shark conservation issues, the
aspects of finning itself, and shark fin products. Some people may not find their views
changed by this education but others may. The general public, once educated on the
topic, should be allowed a say in shark conservation issues facing their local
communities, states, and countries through boycotting products and communicating
with representatives.
a. Shark fin culture
Within this group there is a subgroup of those citizens who have cultural
backgrounds that include eating shark fin soup. For these people shark fin soup is
something they have grown up knowing and learning about and it might not be possible
to convince them to stop buying these products. They need to be educated about shark
conservation issues in order to convince them that although the behavior of consuming
shark fin soup does have a strong foothold in their cultural history, it is extremely
36
damaging to shark populations worldwide. This may not work on all shark fin soup
eaters but we can also educate the younger generations in these cultures and prevent
the practice from becoming ingrained in them.
B. Three-Pronged Approach
I have organized possible conservation solutions to shark finning into three different
categories, as a combination of all three is necessary, in my opinion, to be effective.
1. Scientific Approach
a. Increase research on shark stocks and broaden topics
Shark research has increased drastically over the past few decades. In the past
30 years there has been a seven-fold increase in citations for the topic “shark” in Web of
Science. There has also been an increase in people who study sharks, especially
students, as well as societies and organizations dedicated to shark research and
conservation (Simpfendorfer et al 2011).
Rather than disproportionately studying high-profile studies like Rhincodon
typus, research should be focused on the most at-risk and finned species. Simpfendorfer
et al (2011) suggests that research should fall under a broad range of topics including
life history, spatial ecology, environmental effects, ecosystem role, fishery status,
population status, and human dimensions. Only with extensive research covering
multiple topics can we really understand how and why sharks are at risk and what can
be done to help them. There is definitely an inequality in species research. For example,
Carcharhinus falciformis has been greatly reduced in population due to the shark fin
37
trade. In fact, its Gulf of Mexico population has declined by more than 90%. Despite
their obvious peril, there is spotty research on Carcharhinus falciformis (Clarke et al.
2011). Research needs to be more distributed throughout species and especially
focused on species that are in the greatest danger.
Another problem with data is that although shark catches are supposed to be
reported to the FAO by countries, reports are often incomplete or not done at all.
Sharks that are caught and discarded are often not reported, severely skewing shark
catch data and making it unlikely that reported catch represents anything more than a
fraction of total shark mortality (Worm et al. 2013). Countries need to be encouraged to
provide complete catch data to the FAO.
Shark research may also benefit from incorporating social science. Jacques
(2010) proposed the creation of a discipline called “social oceanography” which would
incorporate human dimensions along with physical and biological oceanography. Since
the biological oceanography of sharks is so intrinsically linked to its human dimensions,
incorporating these dimensions into research and theory is necessary for a more
complete understanding of shark conservation. An example of how this is already being
done is Rhincodon typus conservation efforts in Eastern Indonesia that combines
traditional knowledge and new technology to develop management strategies (Stacey
et al. 2012).
Most RFMOs use stock assessments when creating management plans and few
shark species actually have complete stock assessments (Godin and Worm 2010).
Assessing shark stocks can be difficult because there is a lack of historic catch data.
38
Scientists have been experimenting with ways to better estimate historic shark data,
such as Clarke (2008), who used Hong Kong trade-derived estimates to create estimates
for the Atlantic. Their study resolved that neither trade-based estimates nor alternative
catch-based estimates are best, yet they may be preferable to existing catch reports.
Another method for inferring past shark presence is by looking at cultural
artifacts. Drew et al. (2013) examined 19th century shark tooth weapons from the
Gilbert Islands in the Central Pacific and were able to identify two different shark
species that once inhabited local ecosystems but no longer do. This is a useful way of
identifying changes in shark species composition. Identifying shark species composition
in the finning market is equally important. We have a general idea about which species
are targeted for their fins but we do not know many specifics (Clarke et al. 2007). There
is a need for better data, and finding acceptable estimates may be just as important.
Creating complete stock assessments and drastically increasing data collection
on sharks is imperative to this plan. Complete data are necessary in order to make
inferences about which stocks are at risk, where they are at risk, and what will happen
to their ecosystem if they are removed. Research needs to shift focus from just a few
charismatic species to include more species, with an emphasis on those that are
considered to be highly at risk from finning or with already depleted numbers. Research
should also be conducted on shark ecology, nursery habitat use, migration, and roles in
the ecosystem.
Monitoring is just as important as initial stock assessments and can be essential
in managing fisheries, but is often overlooked. Monitoring is most commonly done by
39
collecting fisher logbooks, but this strategy often does not get reliable by-catch data.
Scientific observer programs can be useful for monitoring; however, their
implementation is difficult to accomplish (Godin and Worm 2010).
While initial research is necessary for setting yield limits and fishing restrictions
monitoring of populations and ecosystems is also necessary to be sure that the laws are
effective. Monitoring is also important in determining that nations are complying with
laws or regulations. In Canada, finning policies are enforced with almost 100% dockside
monitoring and enforcement is believed to be effective (Godin and Worm 2010). In
order for best management practices to be developed, there needs to be an ample
amount of data available, not only at the beginning, but throughout the process as well.
b. Encourage management plans based on life histories
One of the biggest problems with the management and exploitation of sharks is
that they are often treated like fish species when in reality; they should be managed in a
manner similar to marine mammals. Sharks’ life histories are more similar to marine
mammals than teleosts. Unlike many teleost fishes, which can recover easily from
overfishing due to their high fecundity-high mortality, sharks have a K-selected lifehistory strategy that includes long life spans and low fecundity (Stevens et al. 2000).
They take much longer than other fishes to mature and because of this, shark
populations cannot recover as rapidly as fish populations. This sort of management
would include lower quotas and protection of areas important to shark development.
40
Variation in the life-history traits of sharks (including growth, age at maturity,
fecundity, and offspring size) is usually correlated with adult body size. This means that
rebound potential (and other demographic parameters) may also be correlated with
body size. This has been observed in the North Sea where the four largest
chondrichthyan species have declined while the two smallest species have seen an
increase in abundance. There is also evidence of large species shark extinction in the
Irish Sea. Knowing that this correlation between demographic parameters and body size
exists, it is something to take into consideration when ranking species for conservation
priority (Stevens et al. 2000).
Sharks have very different life histories from teleost fishes, yet they are managed
the same way. There should be a completely unique set of standards for managing shark
fisheries that should be based off of management for other longer-lived species such as
marine mammals and sea turtles. By managing sharks as fish, they become
overexploited quickly; however, by managing them appropriately, shark fisheries may
still be able to function sustainably and economically.
2. Political Approach
a. Creating standardized legislation recommendations
Despite existing legislation on shark management from international and
national groups, current international rules have limited authority, a lack of
enforcement, minimal active management, and are usually not reinforced by National
Plans of Actions (Jacques 2010). If a group of scientists (either through an international
41
forum or through the FAO) were to come up with a set of recommended minimum
regulations for all nations, some countries may choose to use them as a tool for
implementing policies. While the five percent fin to carcass weight ratio may not be
appropriate for all shark species, it is an important step in setting regulations for finning
and can at least be an improvement in nations without any anti-finning legislation.
Countries can then be encouraged to investigate species- or group-specific standards or
other stricter legislation by communicating with scientists and with workers in other
nations. Mandatory unharmed release of all live individuals would also be
recommended. Monitoring of these regulations should be done by a non-biased third
party so that no payoffs or loopholes can be arranged.
b. Encourage national legislation
In 2000 Hawaii prohibited shark finning. This act coincided with a 54% drop in
USA to Hong Kong fin imports in 2001. Drops in imports to Hong Kong have been
observed to coincide with the implementation of shark fin regulations by other
countries (Clarke et al. 2007). Despite the uncertainty with NOAA and the Shark
Conservation Act, we should continue to encourage federal and state governments to
enact stricter shark protections. Banning shark products outright nationally would not
necessarily be an easy task, but it would be extremely useful. If we cannot convince the
federal government to enact a wide-reaching anti-shark product ban then the next best
way to accomplish this would be on a state-by-state basis (assuming NOAA will accept
future state bans).
42
In the United States sharks (along with other fish species) are managed under
NOAA’s NMFS in the US Department of Commerce. However, as previously discussed,
sharks’ life histories differ so much from other fishes that they should be managed
differently. I suggest changing the management and conservation of sharks in the
United States to mimic that of marine mammal conservation because of the similarities
between sharks and marine mammals, both in life history traits and conservation issues.
Marine mammal management was originally divided between the Department of the
Interior (FWS) and the Department of Commerce (NOAA). In 1972 the Marine Mammal
Commission (MMC) was created under the MMPA “to review and make
recommendations on the policies and actions of the Service and NOAA related to their
implementation of the MMPA” (Marine Mammals 2014). I suggest a similar federal
commission be created for sharks that would serve to coordinate their management and
encourage to other agencies (such as the FWS) to get involved in shark conservation.
c. Create regulated MPAs
Frid et al. (2008) stress the importance of international cooperation and
management. One way conservation groups and scientists advocate for shark protection
is through the creation of MPAs. Since these areas are protected from exploitation, they
are often used as management tools for sheltering both species and habitat. This is a
common tool for habitats such as coral reef and kelp forests which can protect shark
species with smaller home ranges. Whether or not mobile species benefit from MPAs is
debated (Frid et al. 2008).
43
The IWC established two ocean sanctuaries: the Southern Ocean Sanctuary (SOS)
and the Indian Ocean Sanctuary (IOS) with the object of providing a safe area for
cetaceans. Zacharias et al. (2006) discusses how one of those in particular, the SOS,
needs significant improvement. According to the authors, all IWC sanctuaries are
somewhat arbitrary and based on vague goals that are difficult to measure and lack
effective monitoring. They consider it a “shotgun” approach because it is a large area
chosen to be protected without any real reasoning or management guidelines. The
authors suggest steps to implement to improve the SOS including formal goals,
measurable objectives, a management plan that includes a monitoring framework, and
appropriate review criteria. By evaluating existing marine reserves and sanctuaries, we
can better determine which steps are necessary to fix them as well as in the creation of
new ones.
Poaching still happens, often in areas that are protected from by law fishing.
Illegal shark fishing occurs globally; especially since many of the places where it occurs
in have poor law enforcement. Carr et al. (2013) demonstrated the concern for illegal
shark fishing in the Galápagos Marine Reserve, an area of high biodiversity. Due to a
loophole in the 1993 law in which Ecuadorian fisherfolk are allowed to sell and export
fins from “incidental catch”, the area has experienced a large amount of shark finning
over the years. In 1998 the area was proclaimed nationally protected and fishing and
finning were prohibited. Further regulations came when the Ecuadorian Ministry of the
Environment expressly prohibited shark fishing, landing, and trading in 2003. Despite all
of this protection, in 2011 a fishing vessel was seized and found to be carrying 379 shark
44
carcasses, the majority being females and juveniles. This raid was proof that no matter
how strict regulation may be, unless it is enforced shark finning will continue.
Even if protective measures for shark conservation are instilled, they will not be
effective unless they can be enforced. Countries should be held accountable for
breaking the laws, even if countries or fisherfolk find a loophole to go through. As
shown in other conservation situations (such as that of elephant ivory poaching)
enforcement of laws and regulations is necessary (but probably not sufficient) for
conservation efforts to truly be effective.
Both national and international legislation must be enforced if it is to be
successful. Not only must each country work to enforce its laws and regulations
regarding shark finning, but also be able to enforce no-take laws in any protected areas.
Specific areas in need of enforcement should be identified similar to the case for
elephant ivory in the study by Wasser at al. (2007). Using complete data assessments on
which species are being targeted and from where, we can determine the most at-risk
locations for sharks and pinpoint enforcement efforts in those locations.
One way of monitoring illegal animal harvesting is through the use of ecodrones. Eco-drones are unmanned aerial vehicles used to monitor locations for
destructive activities such as poaching or habitat destruction. Eco-drones can be useful
because they are low-cost and low-impact and can provide high-resolution data to
supplement other monitoring efforts in areas that are difficult to get to or monitor.
These drones are already being used in Africa, Asia, and South America. Despite these
45
benefits, the use of eco-drones over the ocean will have to rely on international
cooperation with regard to airspace jurisdiction (Harriman and Muhlhausen 2013).
When considering the use of an MPA to protect shark species, certain variables
must be measured including, probability of capture outside the MPA and life stages
spent in particular areas. It is as important to protect nursery grounds as it is to protect
shark breeding stocks to keep levels of recruitment high (Knip et al. 2012). Basic
knowledge of geographic distribution and diversity of a species is necessary to design a
proper protected area. However, there are few shark species with enough information
available on them to do so. Some studies, such as the one by Lucifora et al. (2011) have
attempted to map global shark diversity to identify hotspots and potential areas for
conservation priority. Studies like these can be extremely useful in prioritizing
conservation areas for sharks; however, they should be corroborated by multiple
sources and would realistically require much more species-specific data to be complete.
Deciding where to establish an MPA is a difficult process. One strategy is to
create protected areas for spawning and nursery grounds, or other areas commonly
used by mobile species. Another idea is to plan around habitats that are used most
extensively and set boundaries along non-contiguous habitat with natural boundaries.
Another design scheme to consider is the “onion ring” approach which buffers core
areas with outer zones that allow some take but excludes high impact fisheries (Knip et
al. 2012).
A study by Knip et al. (2012) evaluated the degree to which MPAs may shelter
shark populations. They tracked two tropical coastal species (Carcharhinus amboinensis,
46
the pigeye shark, and C. sorrah) in two MPA regions in the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park, Australia. They found that the two species spent a high proportion of time within
the MPAs. Plenty of other species exhibit site fidelity at various life stages including
juvenile Sphyrna lewini in Hawaii (Holland et al. 1993) and juvenile Mustelus californicus
(gray smooth-hound sharks) in California (Espinoza et al. 2011). This suggests that
spatial closures could indeed have significant benefits for management and
conservation of sharks, even if they are only receiving partial protection due to their
mobility.
Juvenile marine fishes, including sharks, often inhabit nurseries: “a region where
juvenile fishes occur at higher densities, avoid predation more successfully and grow at
a faster rate, thereby providing a greater relative contribution to adult recruitment than
other areas” (Beck et al. 2001). By protecting nursery areas, we can increase
recruitment to shark populations, especially since most elasmobranches are born at a
large size which leads to a close relationship between stock size and recruitment. These
juveniles often display site fidelity so identifying nursery areas is not altogether difficult
(Francis 2013).
Francis (2013) studied the temporal and spatial patterns of habitat use in
juvenile Mustelus lenticulatus (spotted estuary smooth-hound) in New Zealand. Using
three criteria; small juveniles occurring in high numbers at specific locations, repeatedly
being found in these locations, and remaining in these locations for up to seven months,
they determined that for this small coastal shark species, the entire harbor they lived in
would need to become an MPA for effective protection. This is a daunting and
47
seemingly impossible task. Determining the size necessary for an effective MPA is
challenging for a single species, and those difficulties only become amplified when
attempting a multi-species approach toward management.
The Australian Great Barrier Reef supports high levels of biodiversity, including
many shark species. Despite being one of the least-degraded reefs in the world, shark
populations are still collapsing. The two most abundant reef shark species, the
Triaenodon obesus (whitetip reef shark) and Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos were
evaluated in four levels of coral reef management zones on the Great Barrier Reef (noentry zones, no-take zones, limited fishing zones, and open-fishing zones). Highest levels
of reef sharks were found in no-entry zones. There was also a dramatic difference
between abundances in no-entry and no-take zones, which can be attributed to illegal
fishing in no-take zones and their proximity to fishing zones that sharks can swim in and
out of. These species also showed site fidelity. These results demonstrate the
importance of no-entry zones and the failure of no-take zones and regulation within
them. The study also showed that both species have a high probability of population
decline. This is especially important since reef sharks serve an important role as apex
predators in coral reef ecosystems (Robbins et al. 2006). Francis (2013) notes an
important fact when considering MPAs for shark protection; they do not control for
terrestrial impacts including metal pollution and sedimentation. MPAs would be most
effective when combined with land-based legislation to mitigate these affects. While
creating protected areas can be extremely useful in reducing finning and fishing
pressure on shark stocks, the best protection would include a multi-pronged approach.
48
3. Consumer/Public Awareness Approach
a. Create a database of shark-fin free companies
As we have seen with the Dolphin-Safe Tuna movement, consumerism and
public awareness can be an incredibly effective tool in reducing the demand for
unsustainable products. Identifying shark products (especially fins and fin soup) is
relatively easy to do but by labeling these products with a warning and/or labeling
sustainable substitutions for these products with an accommodation may sway some
consumers. By creating a database of businesses that sell shark products or support
shark finning in any way, we can encourage consumers to boycott those establishments.
We can also create an official “stamp of approval” for establishments that have gone
shark-fin free, especially in communities where they may be expected to serve these
products (such as pre-dominantly Asian neighborhoods) or have done so in the past. By
having a stamp of approval in their window, an establishment can appeal to a
consumer’s sense of environmentalism and attract more business. Many institutions
have their own lists of establishments that do or do not sell shark fins but organizations
should come together to create a single, streamlined database that could be showed off
to the general public.
Targeting should extend past just those establishments that participate in the
shark fin trade here in the United States, but the ones who do so overseas as well. Many
companies and corporations have both national and international investments and if
they are threatened by a boycott here in the United States, they may be willing to
change their actions overseas. For example, Hilton Hotels do not serve shark fin soup at
49
their hotels here in the United States but they do serve it in their Asian Pacific
establishments. Because Hilton is an international business, concerned citizens from
around the world can join together to boycott their hotels until they agree to stop
serving shark fin soup completely. Some large corporations have already given up their
involvement in the shark fin trade, including many airlines. Philippine, Korean, Asiana,
and Qantas Airlines all have a blanket ban on fins while Air Pacific only allows fins from
sustainable sources (Robles 2014).
One thing to keep in mind is the backlash from certain parts of the Asian
community. In 2012 shark fin dealers in California filed a lawsuit against the state’s ban
on shark fin sale and possession citing discrimination against Asians. The lawsuit was
thrown out but the fact that protection measures will face opposition by some members
of the community is something that needs to be considered. Despite the disagreement,
a 2011 poll showed that 70% of Chinese-Americans in California do in fact support the
ban (Sankin 2012). This gives us hope that while there will be objections to finning bans,
there is hopefully enough support to push them through.
b. Create educational programs
The U.S. National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks
requires US management entities to cooperate with education and outreach activities.
So far, multiple programs have been used to do this including brochures on safe catch
and release techniques, efforts to encourage live release of specific at-risk species like
50
Isurus oxyrinchus, mailers, online live-release maps, and identification guides as well as
websites, hotlines, and meetings (NMFS 2012).
It can be difficult to determine the public’s opinion on sharks but one study
compared survey results from before and after a shark bite incident. Neff and Yang
(2013) surveyed residents in Cape Town, South Africa in June 2011 and then again in
October 2011 following a shark attack in September. They determined that attitudes
towards sharks might be more independent of shark bite incidents than previously
thought and that policy makers should consider those attitudes more “sophisticated”
than they have so far. Their study was evidence that not all shark bite incidents result in
a decreased support for sharks and they attribute it to the fact that pollers have had
experience with sharks in the past, details about the incident itself, and a thorough
understanding of sharks and their relationships with humans. Their study lends support
for the idea that endemic value can be a key issue when it comes to protecting sharks,
as well as education and proper information regarding shark attacks.
Another important aspect of education is how sharks are portrayed in the media.
Muter et al. (2012) compared Australian and U.S. news media portrayals of sharks from
2000-2010 and found that shark conservation was only the focus of 11% of articles while
shark attacks was the focus on over half. They also determined that Australian news
articles focused on shark attacks and politicians while those from the U.S. often
referenced popular shark-based entertainment and cited scientists for conservation
issues (Mutter et al. 2012). Most media outlets focus on sharks as a danger to humans
rather than as an important and threatened part of our ecosystems. Scientists and
51
conservationists need to push more conservation-based shark information in the media
if they want the public to see sharks as endangered rather than dangerous.
Public perception of sharks dictates what type of research is being done at any
given time. Simpfendorfer et al (2011) recounts a history of that correlation. When fear
was high research was focused on sensory biology and attack prevention. Communities
developed shark-control programs to reduce shark numbers off their shores. Although
these programs have been largely unsuccessful they have provided us with long-term
data on sharks. The authors have noted a shift in divers’ attitudes since the 1950’s from
wanting to hunt sharks to wanting to observe them. This correlates with the current
acknowledgment for the need for shark conservation and management.
One way to increase public rejection of shark products is by educating on them
on the dangers of its consumption. Mercury (Hg) is a highly toxic contaminant in marine
systems. There is evidence that mercury is dangerous to humans and public concern
over its consumption is strong (Pethybridge et al. 2010). Many fish species are known to
harbor mercury levels dangerous for human consumption and shark meat and fins is no
exception. The rules of bioaccumulation would suggest that as sharks are apex
predators, they accumulate more mercury the more mercury-filled prey they consume.
A 1999 study by Adams and McMichael found that shark catch from important
recreational and commercial shark stocks on the east-central coast of Florida contained
mercury levels as high as or higher than regulatory levels. Elevated mercury levels in
sharks have also been recorded in the southeastern US, Canada, Great Britain, and
Australia. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warns against
52
eating shark or other fish with high mercury contents. One Australian study tested 16
demersal shark species, many of which are commonly consumed in local markets, and
found that in all adults mercury concentrations were high enough to cause potential
human health concerns (Pethybridge et al. 2010).
The Hong Kong Government published tests in 2004 which indicated that ten
percent of all dried seafood samples (most of which were shark fins) contained
hazardous impurities not safe for human consumption including hydrogen peroxide and
formaldehyde. About ten years ago there was a campaign against shark fin soup led by
schoolchildren at Disney’s Hong Kong theme park because of its apparent toxicity. The
campaign was successful and Disney withdrew shark fin from their menu (Clarke et al.
2007). Increasing awareness on the dangers of consuming shark meat is a good way to
convince people not to eat these animals and to support legislation against killing them
for food.
Another important part of shark conservation is getting people to care about
shark welfare. This is done by focusing on the taxa itself, its role in the ecosystem, and
the dangers it faces. We already have plenty of evidence that people are fascinated by
sharks; movies such as Finding Nemo and Shark Tale have drawn huge audiences. The
Discovery Channel dedicates an entire week every year to just programs about sharks.
Granted, many of those programs focus on negative shark-human interaction, however;
they have been getting better at incorporating conservation and ecological programs as
well. There are even apps for smartphones that track Carcharodon carcharias sharks as
they travel through the world’s oceans (Expedition White Shark 2013). For many, sharks
53
are the most fascinating creatures in the sea. In 2008 American scuba divers listed
sharks as their top attraction, above even corals and turtles (Gallagher and
Hammerschlag 2011). The public loves watching sharks on their screens and going on
actual adventures in the sea with them, so it stands to reason they would be willing to
protect them.
Education and outreach can make all the difference when it comes to conserving
a species being overexploited for its products. There are different types of education
and outreach that have shown to be successful in the past and would be recommended
for sharks as well:
i. Educating the general public about the importance of sharks as apex predators
in their ecosystems, the unsustainability and cruelty of the shark finning
industry, and how and where products are used.
ii. Educating fisherfolk about sustainable yields and providing them with correct
management plans and techniques for sharks including proper equipment usage
as well as teaching them how to identify different species by their fins so as to
have complete data when reporting.
iii. Educating governments about the conservation issues regarding shark finning,
the dangers of eating shark meat, and the possibility of using tourism as a means
of sustainable income.
Australia is currently experiencing a public outcry against its recent shark culling
efforts. From January through April of 2014 the government of Western Australian
instituted a shark cull that targeted Carcharhinus leucas (bull sharks), Galeocerdo cuvier,
and Carcharodon carcharias over three meters in length. The government received an
exemption from Australia’s Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
54
to do this and cited recent shark attacks as their reasoning (despite only suffering 20
fatal shark attacks in their area in the past 100 years). The cull has caused a great stir in
the Greens political party, as well as the general public, with many Australians opposed.
The Greens are currently attempting to push the Save Our Sharks bill to end this and
future culls (Wildlifeextra.com 2014). This outcry tells us that a majority of the general
public understand that the threat of shark bites is overestimated, especially compared
to their conservation concerns.
c. Promote sustainable and safe ecotourism as a substitute to finning
Whale watching and other tourism activities have been contributing to marine
mammal conservation for years. The same strategy can and is being used for sharks as
well (Clua et al. 2011). Ziegler et al. (2012) examined the Rhincodon typus tourism
industry in Isla Holbox, Mexico. Using an importance-performance analysis they
pinpointed key issues with the industry including false advertising, tour cost, lack of
educational information, and perceived crowding. The authors discussed these factors
as a representative of the issue of uncontrolled growth of the tourism industry. While
shark tourism can help to instill value for sharks into the public as well as provide a
source of revenue other than finning, it’s clear that tourism must be managed
appropriately. Rhincodon typus tourism is also popular in Eastern Indonesia where
sharks seasonally aggregate in shallow coastal waters. By observing these patterns,
many countries have been able to develop ecotourism ventures (Stacey et al. 2012).
55
Some shark tourism companies (an estimated 40% of sites) use the process of
wildlife provisioning or using bait to attract sharks. A study by Maljkovic and Côté (2011)
investigated the effects of over 20 years of provisioning on a population of Carcharhinus
perezi (Caribbean reef sharks) in the Bahamas. Despite certain individuals monopolizing
the bait, the study found no evidence that provisioning caused a shift in behavior that
would affect the sharks’ ecological role. Provisioning should only be used if studies
suggest it does not negatively affect any other species in the area. If done correctly (i.e.,
not putting the ecosystem or tourists in danger) provisioning can be a useful tool in
shark tourism and therefore, conservation.
One type of tourism is shark feeding, which entails using natural bait to attract
animals to a given location where divers pay to observe them in the water. This can be a
useful way to guarantee satisfied tourists. However, it does have some drawbacks.
Decreasing mobility by keeping sharks in one area may possibly lead to inbreeding,
behavioral shifts, and increased aggressiveness (Clua et al. 2011). One study on
Carcharhinus falciformis showed that baiting populations allowed for closer observation
and identification of individuals and that even though the sharks are drawn to these
reefs originality, baiting can cause them to linger there (Clarke et al. 2011).
Ecotourism can be a useful tool not only to protect shark species and instill value
for them into local communities, but to provide those communities with a source of
income as well. Shark and ray tourism is becoming increasingly popular and comes in
many forms including drift diving, cage diving, and shark feeding; and shark tourism can
be found in more than 40 countries (Vianna et al. 2012). One of the best ways to
56
convince stakeholders and communities to participate in ecotourism is to attach
economic values to wildlife so their non-consumptive use can be directly compared with
consumptive use. By educating communities on how conserving shark species and using
them non-consumptively can save them money, they will be more likely to participate in
conservation and tourism activities (Clua et al. 2011).
For many island countries in the Indo-Pacific region, fishing has played a large
role both economically and culturally for many years. One of these nations, Palau, has
recognized the importance of sharks as a tourism resource. Tourists visit the country to
dive with sharks and manta rays and in order to protect this budding investment, the
government of Palau declared all surrounding waters a shark sanctuary. This act
prohibits the capture, killing, or sale of sharks or shark-fishing related gear within their
waters. A study sought to estimate shark diving’s contributions to Palau. They found
that for the fiscal year of 2009/2010 tourism was the main source of income and
compromised 56% of the nation’s GDP. Results of the study proved the importance of
sharks and shark tourism to the country’s economy. Other countries have benefited
financially from shark tourism as well, including the Canary Islands, the Maldives, South
Africa, and Moorea, French Polynesia. Shark diving is valued at millions of dollars all
over the world (Vianna et al. 2012).
A study by Clua et al. (2011) took this to the next level by assigning monetary
value to individual sharks. Moorea, an island in French Polynesia, uses shark tourism to
generate $5.4 million per year. They determined that a single resident Negaprion
brevirostris (lemon shark) can generate up to $474,000 per year ($2.64 million over its
57
lifetime). Using figures like these, we can easily compare tourism to fishing and show
the immense economic benefits of conserving sharks rather than consuming them.
Sometimes tourism can inspire research. In Indonesia Rhincodon typus tourism
and community-based monitoring can provide information on Rhincodon typus seasonal
movements (Stacey et al. 2012). In the Seychelles the recreational scuba diving industry
spurred the creation of a formal study on Rhincodon typus by the Marine Conservation
Society, Seychelles (MCSS). The project included public monitoring activities that
increased education and awareness. The project set up the Whale Shark Monitoring
Network early on to induce community involvement right away. The MCSS program also
helps the local community by paying participants and giving business to local
establishments that rent out boats, etc. It was clear from the onset that early-on
community involvement was essential to the Seychelles Rhincodon typus conservation
plan and will be just as important to shark conservation efforts around the world (Rowat
and Engelhardt 2007).
One concern with tourism is regulation. For example, in Australia, there is no
single regulatory body that controls tourism. In Western Australia licenses are required
for tour operators. Techera and Klein (2013) believe that the best regulations of sharkbased ecotourism includes enforceable licenses and “non-binding codes of conduct” but
only insofar as they include strict compliance and enforcement.
By convincing local governments that ecotourism centered on sharks can bring
more revenue than shark finning (and there is ample data to support this) we may be
able to accomplish multiple goals at once. If a community were to forgo finning in return
58
for an ecotourism business they would not only be benefiting their community and
shark populations but would also serve as a way to increase awareness and education
about sharks and their conservation.
Analyses can be done to determine which local governments and communities
could best benefit from shark ecotourism and which it would be feasible to do so in.
Communities viable for ecotourism efforts should be stable enough to support a new
venture, include habitat tourists would be willing to visit, have community members
who are interested in protected that habitat and in participating in an ecotourism
venture, and can make enough money off of said venture. Veteran ecotourism
communities from around the world could work together to provide useful documents
and templates for startup communities. It would be especially beneficial if communities
could access start-up funds to start their own ecotourism effort. Research has shown
that shark ecotourism can be extremely beneficial to both shark populations and the
communities that instill it.
IV. Goals
In this paper I have outlined a three-pronged approach for shark conservation
related to shark finning. I believe that if scientific, political, and consumer-based
approaches are taken simultaneously then conservation plan would be most effective. A
long-term goal for any conservation plan is the protection of a species or taxon against
extinction, as well as protection of its habitat and prevention of ecosystem collapse that
would accompany the loss of those creatures. This is the same for this plan. Long-term
59
goals would be the stabilization of shark populations currently teetering on the edge of
extinction, and protection of the habitats they occupy, as well as a reduced, if not
completely eradicated, shark finning industry.
Short-term goals must be identified as well to determine if a conservation plan is
working. For this three-pronged approach, the short-term goals would include an
increase and re-focusing in shark research and monitoring, seeing an increase in
national and international protection of shark species and important shark habitats
(including the creation of MPAs), an effective system for labeling and identifying
companies that participate in the shark fin trade, a better and more scientifically
accurate portrayal of sharks in the media, an increase in shark ecotourism ventures, and
an increase in general knowledge and understanding of sharks and their conservation
needs.
V. Conclusion
Despite increasing anti-finning legislation and media coverage, shark populations
are declining around the world. Sharks are a relevant topic not only to scientists
studying their decline but also the general public who has shown considerable interest
in the taxa as well. Now is the time to create better management techniques before too
many shark species are lost altogether By examining past conservation efforts such as
large mammal poaching, whaling, sea turtle egg consumption, and the dolphin-safe tuna
campaign, one can identify the conservation strategies that have worked and those that
have failed.
60
The best way to create an effective shark conservation plan would be a threepronged approach. The first part of the three-prong approach is a scientific one. Nations
and NGOs work to increase shark research on a broad variety of topics and species and
to apply that data to better techniques for sharks that include life-history appropriate
management. The second prong would be political; encouraging stricter legislation both
nationally and internationally, coupled with the creation of protected areas. Lastly,
would be a consumer-based approach, educating the public on shark conservation,
boycotting shark fin soup and other products, and encouraging shark-based ecotourism.
Sharks are mobile species, which do not belong to any one country and,
therefore, their conservation efforts must be international. Only through a combination
of different approaches can we create conservation plans that will be effective in
protecting shark populations against the damage of shark finning.
61
Literature Cited
Adams, D.H. and R.H. McMichael Jr. 1999. Mercury levels in four species of sharks from
the Atlantic coast of Florida. Fisheries Bulletin. 97: 372-379.
Bascompte, J., C.J. Melián and E. Sala. 2005. Interaction strength combinations and
the overfishing of a marine food web. PNAS 102 (15): 5443-5447.
Baum, J.K., R.A. Meyers, D.G. Kehler, B. Worm, S.J. Harley, and P.A. Doherty. 2003.
Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic.
Science 299: 389-391.
Beck, M.V., K.L. Heck, K.W. Able, D.L. Childers, D.B. Eggleston et al. 2001.The
identification, conservation and management of estuarine and marine
nurseries for fish and invertebrates. Bioscience 51: 633-641.
Bulte E.H. 2003. Open access harvesting of wildlife: the poaching pit and conservation
of endangered species. Agricultural Economica 28: 27-37.
Burn, R.W., F.M. Underwood, and J. Blanc. 2011. Global trends and factors
associated with the illegal killing of elephants: A hierarchical Bayesian
Analysis of carcass encounter data. PLoS ONE 6(9):
Carr, L.A., A.C. Stier, K. Fietz, I. Montero, A.J. Gallagher, and J.F. Bruno. 2013. Illegal
shark fishing in the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Marine Policy 39: 317-321.
Clarke, C., J.S.E. Lea and R.F.G. Ormond. 2011. Reef-use and residency patterns of a
baited population of silky sharks, Carcharhinus falciformis, in the Red Sea.
Marine and Freshwater Research 62: 668-675.
Clarke, S. 2008. Use of shark fin trade data to estimate historic total shark
removals in the Atlantic Ocean. Aquatic Living Resources 21: 373-381.
Clarke, S., E.J. Milner-Gulland, and T. Bjorndal Cemare. 2007. Social, economic, and
regulatory drivers of the shark fin trade. Marine Resource Economics 22: 305327.
Clarke, S.C., S.J. Harley, S.D. Hoyle and J.S. Rice. 2013. Population trends in Pacific
oceanic sharks and the utility of regulations on shark finning. Conservation
Biology 27: 197-209.
Clua E., N. Buray, P. Legendre, J. Mourier, S. Planes. 2011. Business partner or
simple
catch? The economic value of the sicklefin lemon shark in French Polynesia.
Marine and Freshwater Research 62: 764-770.
Cortés, E. and J.A. Neer. 2006. Preliminary reassessment of the valifity of the 5% fin to
carcass weight ratio for sharks. Col.Vol.Sci.Pap. ICCAT 59(3): 1025- 1036.
62
Davis, B. and B. Worm. 2012. The International Plan of Action for Sharks: How does
national implementation measure up? Marine Policy 38: 312-320.
Drew, J., Philipp, C., and M.W. Westneat. 2013. Shark tooth weapons from the 19 th
century reflect shifting baselines in central pacific predatory assemblies. PLoS
ONE 8(4).
Ericsson, G., and T.A. Heberlein. 2003. Attitude of hunters, locals, and the general public
in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biological Conservation 111: 149-159.
Espinoza, M., T.J. Farrugia, and C.G. Lowe. 2011. Habitat use, movements and site
fidelity of the gray smooth-hound shark (Mustelus californicus Gill 1863) in a
newly restored southern California estuary. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology 401(1-2): 63-74.
Expedition White Shark. 2013. http://www.expeditionwhiteshark.com/about-us.html
Feretti, F., B. Worm, G.L. Britten, M.R. Heithaus, and H.K. Lotze. 2010. Patterns and
ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecology Letters 13:
1055-1071.
Ferretti, F., G.C. Osio, J. Jenkins, A.R. Rosenberg, and H.K. Lotze. 2012. Long-term
change in meso-predator community in response to prolonged and
heterogeneous human impact. Nature. Scientific Reports 3 Article Number 1057.
Field, I.C., R.C. Buckworth, G. Yang, M.G. Meerkan, G. Johnson, J.D. Stevens, R.D. Pillans,
C.R. McMahon, and C.J.A. Bradshaw. 2012. Changes in the size distribution of
commercially exploited sharks over 25 years in northern Australia sing a
Bayesian approach. Fisheries Research 125-136: 262-271.
FIS. 2014. Three state shark finning laws consistent with conservation act: NOAA.
Fish Info & Services Co.Ltd, from
http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=&day=5
&id=66301&l=e&special=0&ndb=0
Francis, M.P. 2013. Temporal and spatial patterns of habitat use by juveniles of a small
coastal shark (Mustelus lenticulatus) in an Estuarine Nursery. PLoS One 8 (2).
Frid, A., G.G. Baker, and L.M. Dill. 2008. Do shark declines create fear-released
systems?. Oikos 117: 191-201.
Gallagher, A.J., and N. Hammerschlag. 2011. Global shark currency: the distribution,
frequency, and economic value of shark ecotourism. Current Issues in Tourism
14 (8): 797-812.
Godin, A.C. and B. Worm. 2010. Keeping the lead: How to strengthen shark conservation
and management policies in Canada. Marine Policy 34: 995-1001.
63
H.R. 5461--106th Congress: Shark Finning Prohibition Act. 2000. In www.GovTrack.us.
Retrieved July 13, 2013, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/h
H.R. 5946--109th Congress: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act of 2006. (2006). In www.GovTrack.us. Retrieved July 13,
2013, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr594
H.R. 81--111th Congress: International Fisheries Agreement Clarification Act. (2009).
In www.GovTrack.us. Retrieved July 17, 2013, from
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr8
Harriman, L. and J. Muhlhausen. 2013. A new eye in the sky: Eco-drones. Environmental
Development 7: 155-164.
Hart, K.A., T. Gray, and S.M. Stead. 2013. Consumptive versus non-consumptive use of
sea turtles? Stakeholder perceptions about sustainable use in three communities
near Cahuita National Park, Costa Rica. Marine Policy 42: 236-244.
Heimbuch, J. 2013. Big win for sharks: European Union bans all shark finning.
Treehugger. http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/big-win- sharkseuropean-union-bans-all-shark-finning.html
Heithaus, M.R., Frid, A., Wirsing, A.J., and B. Worm. 2007. Predicting ecological
consequences of marine top predator decline. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 23(4): 202-210.
Heithaus, M.R., Wirsing, A.J., and L.M. Dill. 2012. The ecological importance of intact
top-predator populations: a synthesis of 15 years of research in a seagrass
ecosystem. Marine and Freshwater Research 63: 1039-1050.
Heltberg, R. 2001. Impact of the ivory tade ban on poaching incentives: a numerical
example. Ecological Economics 36: 189-195.
Holland, K., B.M. Wetherbee, J.D. Peterson, and C.G. Lowe. 1993. Movements and
Distribution of Hammerhead Shark Pups on Their Natal Grounds. Copeia 1993(2):
295-502.
Holmes, B.J., W.D. Sumpton, D.G. Mayer, I.R. Tibbetts, D.T. Neil, and M.B. Bennett.
2012. Declining trends in annual catch rates of the tiger shark (Galeocerdo
cuvier) in Queensland, Australia. Fisheries Research 129-130: 38-45.
IUCN 2013. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2.
<http://www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 21 November 2013.
Jacques, P.J. 2010. The social oceanography of top oceanic predators and the decline of
sharks: A call for a new field. Progress in Oceanography 86:192-203.
64
Knip, D.M., M.R. Heupel, and C.A. Simpfendorfer. 2012. Evaluating marine protected
areas for the conservation of tropical coastal sharks. Biological Conservation
148: 200-209.
Gusset, M. and D.D.G. Lagendijk. 2008. Human–Carnivore Coexistence on Communal
Land. Environmental Management 42: 971-976.
Bordering the Greater Kruger Area, South Africa. Environm. Manage. 42: 971-976.
Liu, V. S., C.C. Chan, O. Lin, C. Hu, and C. Allen Chen. 2013. DNA Barcoding of shark
meats identify species composition and CITES-listed species from the markets in
Taiwain. PLoS ONE 8(11)
Losing The Taste for Shark Fins. May 1 2013 The Humane Society of the United States.
Retrieved 19 July 2013, from
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/shark_finning/timelines/shark_fin s.html
Lucifora, L.O., V.B. Garcia and B. Worm. 2011. Global diversity hotspots and
conservation priorities for sharks. PLoS ONE 6(5): e19356.
McAuley, R.B., Simpfendorfer, C.A. and N.G. Hall. 2007. A method for evaluating the
impacts of fishing mortality and stochastic influences on the demography of two
long-lived sharks. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64: 1710-1722.
Madden, F. 2004. Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: Global
perspectives on local efforts to address human-wildlife conflict. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife 9: 247-257.
Maisels F, Strindberg S, Blake S, Wittemyer G, Hart J, et al. 2013. Devastating decline of
forest elephants in Central Africa. PLoS ONE 8(3)
Maljkovic, A., and I.M. Côté. 2011. Effects of tourism-related provisioning on the trophic
signatures and movement patterns of an apex predator. Biological Conservation
144:859-865.
Marine Mammals. 2014. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved from:
http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/marine_mammals.html
Mazur, K.E. and S.T. Asah. 2013. Clarifying standpoints in the gray wolf recover conflict:
Procuring management and policy forethought. Biological Conservation 167: 7989.
Mazzanti, M. 2001. The role of economics in global management of whales: reforming or re-founding IWC. Ecological Economics 36: 205-221.
Moore, J.E., B.P. Wallace, R.L. Lewison, R. Žydelis, T.M. Cox, and L.B. Crowder. 2009. A
review of marine mammal, sea turtle, and seabird by-catch in USA fisheries and
the role of policy in shaping management. Marine Policy 33: 435-451.
65
Musick, J.A., G. Burgess, G. Cailliet, M. Camhi, and S. Fordham. 2000. Management of
sharks and their relatives (Elasmobranchii). Fisheries 25 (3) 9-13.
Muter, B.A., M.L. Gore, K.S. Gledhill, C. Lamont, and C. Huveneers. 2012. Australian and
U.S. news media portrayal of sharks and their conservation. Conservation
Biology 27(1): 187-196.
Myers, R.A., J.K. Baum, T.D. Shepherd, S.P. Powers, and C.H. Peterson. 2007. Cascading
effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science 315:
1846-1850.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012. 2012 Shark Finning Report to Congress.
U.S. Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Neff, C. L. and J.Y.H. Yang. 2013. Shark bites and public attitudes: Policy implications
from the first before and after shark bite survey. Marine Policy. 38: 545-547.
Pethybridge, H., D. Cossa, and E.C.V. Butler. 2010. Mercury in 16 demersal sharks
from southeast Australia: Biotic and abiotic sources of variation and consumer
health implications. Marine Environmental Research 69: 18-26.
Punt, A.E., and G.P. Donovan. 2007. Developing management procedures that are
robust to uncertainty: lessons from the International Whaling Commission. ICES
Journal of Marine Science 64: 603-612.
Robbins, W.D., M. Hisano, S.R. Connolly, and J.H. Choat. 2006. Ongoing collapse of
coral-reef shark populations. Current Biology 16: 2314-2319.
Robles, R. 2014. Philippine Airlines agrees to stop shipping shark fins. South China
Morning Post. Retrieved from: http://www.scmp.com/news/hongkong/article/1495191/philippine-airlines-agrees-stop-shipping-shark-fins
Rowat, D. and U. Engelhardt. 2007. Seychelles: A case study of community involvement
in the development of whale shark ecotourism and its socio-economic
impact. Fisheries Research 84:109-113.
Sankin, A. 2012. Shark fin ban challenged as discriminatory against Asians in new
lawsuit. Huffington Post San Francisco. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/shark-fin-ban-challenged- innew-lawsuit_n_1684581.html
Schuette, P., S. Creel, and D. Chistianson. 2013. Coexistence of African lions, livestock,
and people in a landscape with variable human land use and seasonal
movements. Biological Conservation 157: 148-154.
66
Sebele, L.S. 2010. Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and challengers: Khama
Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Central District, Botswana. Tourism Management 31:
136-146.
Senko, J., A.J. Schneller, J. Solia, F. Ollervides, and W.J. Nichols. 2011. People
helping turtles, turtles helping people; Understanding resident attitudes
towards sea turtle conservation and opportunities for enhanced community
participation in Bahia Magdalena, Mexico. Ocean & Coastal Management 54:
148-157.
Shark Savers. 2014. The Impact of the Shark Fin Trade. Shark Savers. Retrieved from:
http://www.sharksavers.org/en/education/sharks-are-in-trouble/theimpact-of-the-shark-fin-trade/
Simpfendorfer, C.A., M.R. Heupel, W.T. White, and N.K Dulvy. 2011. The importance of
research and public opinion to conservation management of sharks and rays: a
synthesis. Marine and Freshwater Research 62: 518-527.
Stacey, N.E., J. Karam, M.G. Meekan, S. Pickering, and J. Ninef. 2012. Prospects for
whale shark conservation in eastern Indonesia through bajo traditional
ecological knowledge and community-based monitoring. Conservation and
Society 10(1): 63-75.
Stevens, J.D., R. Bonafil, N.K. Dulvy, and P.A. Walker. 2000. The effects of fishing on
sharks, rays, and chimeras (chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine
ecosystems. Journal of Marine Sciene. 57L 476-494.
Techera, E.J. and N. Klein. 2011. Fragmented governance: Reconciling legal strategies
for shark conservation and management. Marine Policy: 35: 73-78.
Techera, E.J., and N. Klein. 2013. The role of law in shark-based eco-tourism: Lessons
from Australia. Marine Policy 39: 21-28.
Teisl, M.F., B. Roe, and R.L. Hicks. 2002. Can eco-labels tune a market? Evidence from
dolphin-safe labeling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43:
339-359.
Treves, A., L. Naughton-Treves, and V. Shelley. 2013. Longitudinal analysis of attitudes
toward wolves. Conservation Biology 27 (2): 315-323.
Vianna, G.M.S., M.G. Meekan, D.J. Pannell, S.P. Marsh, and J.J. Meeuwig. 2012. Socioeconomic value and community benefits from shark-diving tourism in Palau: A
sustainable use of reef shark populations. Biological Conservation 145: 267-277.
Wasser, S.K., C. Mailand, R. Booth, B. Mutayoba, E. Kisamo, B. Clark, and M. Stephens.
2007. Using DNA to track the origin of the largest ivory seizure since the 1989
trade ban. PNAS 104 (10): 4228-4233.
67
Wildlifeextra.com. 2014. Australian political party fight to end shark cull. Wildlife Extra.
Retrieved from: http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/shark-cull-233.html#cr
Wirsing, A.J., and W.J. Ripple. 2010. A comparison of shark and wolf research reveals
similar behavioral responses by prey. Front Ecol Environ
Worm, B., B. Davis, L. Kettemer, C.A. Ward-Paige, D. Chapman, M.R. Heithaus, S.T.
Kessel, and S.H. Gruber. 2013. Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding
options for sharks. Marine Policy 40: 194-204.
Zacharias, M.A., L.R. Gerber, and K.D. Hyrenbach. 2006. Review of the Southern Ocean
Sanctuary: Marine protected areas in the context of the International Whaling
Commission Sanctuary Programme. Journal of Cetacean Research and
Management 8(1): 1-12.
Ziegler, J., P. Dearden, and R. Rollins. 2012. But are tourists satisfied? Importanceperformance analysis of the whale shark tourism industry on Isla Holbox,
Mexico. Tourism Management 33:692-701.
68