World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Shark finning

 

Shark finning

NOAA agent counting confiscated shark fins

Shark finning refers to the removal and retention of shark fins while the remainder of the shark is discarded in the ocean. Sharks returned to the ocean without their fins are often still alive; unable to move effectively, they sink to the bottom of the ocean and die of suffocation or are eaten by other predators. Shark finning at sea enables fishing vessels to increase profitability and increase the number of sharks harvested, as they only have to store and transport the fins, by far the most profitable part of the shark.[1] Some countries have banned this practice and require the whole shark to be brought back to port before removing the fins.

Shark finning increased since 1997 largely due to the increasing demand for shark fins for shark fin soup and traditional cures, particularly in China and its territories, and as a result of improved fishing technology and market economics. The International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Shark Specialist Group say that shark finning is widespread, and that "the rapidly expanding and largely unregulated shark fin trade represents one of the most serious threats to shark populations worldwide".[2] Estimates of the global value of the shark fin trade range from US$540 million[1] to US$1.2 billion (2007).[3] Shark fins are among the most expensive seafood products, commonly retailing at US$400 per kg.[2] In the United States, where finning is prohibited, some buyers regard the whale shark and the basking shark as trophy species, and pay $10,000 to $20,000 for a fin.[4]

The regulated global catch of sharks reported to the

  1. ^ a b
  2. ^ a b c
  3. ^ a b
  4. ^
  5. ^ The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2014 Page 17 and 124, FAO, Rome. ISBN 978-92-5-108275-1.
  6. ^ a b Fowler, S. & Seret, B. (2010). Shark fins in Europe: implications for reforming the EU finning Ban. (Plymouth and Burnaby, BC: European Elasmobranch Association and IUCN Shark Specialist Group)
  7. ^ a b c d
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^ BBC (UK) news item transmitted 5th March 2013
  15. ^
  16. ^ a b
  17. ^
  18. ^ Recovery Plan for Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata). National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009, Retrieved March 18, 2009.
  19. ^
  20. ^
  21. ^
  22. ^
  23. ^
  24. ^
  25. ^
  26. ^
  27. ^
  28. ^
  29. ^
  30. ^
  31. ^
  32. ^ a b c
  33. ^
  34. ^ Clarke et al. (2006), p. 1119: "Estimates of the total number of sharks traded annually worldwide, based on all fin positions combined, ranged from 26 to 73 million ... with an overall median of 38 million"
  35. ^ a b Clarke et al. (2006), p. 1120: "Our median biomass estimate for the global shark fin trade based on all fin positions combined (1.70 million tonnes year−1) is more than four times higher than the midrange FAO-based figure (0.39 million tonnes), and nearly three times higher than the high FAO estimate (0.60 million tonnes year−1)"
  36. ^ a b
  37. ^
  38. ^ Biery L. and Pauly, D. (2012) A global review of species-specific shark-fin-to-body-mass ratios and relevant legislation, Journal of Fish Biology
  39. ^ [2]
  40. ^
  41. ^ a b
  42. ^
  43. ^
  44. ^
  45. ^
  46. ^
  47. ^ a b
  48. ^
  49. ^
  50. ^
  51. ^
  52. ^
  53. ^
  54. ^
  55. ^
  56. ^
  57. ^
  58. ^
  59. ^
  60. ^
  61. ^
  62. ^
  63. ^
  64. ^ a b c
  65. ^
  66. ^
  67. ^
  68. ^
  69. ^ http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/shark-finning-outlawed-in-nz-5705963
  70. ^ "Palau pioneers 'shark sanctuary'" BBC News, 25 September 2009.
  71. ^ "Leading Singaporean supermarket chain says "no" to shark fin" WWF, 30 September 2011
  72. ^
  73. ^
  74. ^
  75. ^
  76. ^
  77. ^
  78. ^
  79. ^
  80. ^ Oregon House of Representatives bills of 2011 Oregon's shark fin bill was HB 2838 by Representative Brad Witt. Passed Senate unanimously, passed House 58 to 1. Signed into law by Governor John Kitzhaber on 2011-06-16.
  81. ^
  82. ^ a b c
  83. ^
  84. ^
  85. ^

References

See also

In 2012, legislators in the New York State Assembly, including Grace Meng, introduced a similar bill. While New York was not the only Eastern state considering a ban, passage there would be significant since its Chinese American communities in Chinatown, Manhattan and Flushing make New York the major importer of shark fins in the East. Meng admitted that while she loved shark fin soup, "it's important to be responsible citizens." Younger Chinese Americans in New York did not consider it an important part of their culture. "It's only the elderly who want it: when their grandkids get married, they want the most expensive stuff, like an emperor," said one waiter at a Chinese restaurant. Many businesses that sold fins had stopped placing new orders, expecting a ban would be passed.[85]

In 2010, Hawaii became the first state to ban the possession, sale and distribution of shark fins. The law became effective on July 1, 2011.[78] Similar laws have been enacted in the states of Washington,[79] Oregon,[80][81] California,[82] the territory of Guam[83] and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.[84] California governor Jerry Brown cited the cruelty of finning and potential threats to the environment and commercial fishing in signing the bill.[82] Opponents charged the ban was discriminatory against Chinese, the main consumers of shark fin soup, when federal laws already banned the practice of finning. Whole sharks would still be legally fished, but the fins could no longer be sold.[82]

As a result, in January 2011, President Barack Obama signed the Shark Conservation Act into law to close the loopholes. Specifically, the new law prohibits any boat to carry shark fins without the corresponding number and weight of carcasses, and all sharks must be brought to port with their fins attached.[76][77]

In 2002, in an apparent early success in stopping the shark fin trade, the United States intercepted and seized the King Diamond II, a U.S.-flagged, Hong Kong-based vessel bound for Guatemala. The vessel was carrying 32.3 tons (29.3 tonnes) of baled shark fins – representing the fins of an estimated 30,000 sharks – making it the largest quantity of shark fins ever seized.[74] This seizure was reversed in court six years later: in United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the SFPA did not cover the seized fins in this case. Judge Stephen Reinhardt found that the King Diamond II did not meet the statute's definition of a fishing vessel, since it had merely bought the fins at sea and had not aided or assisted the vessels that had caught the sharks.[75]

Small tied bales of flat gray objects, messily stacked underneath a translucent tentlike roof between white walls.
The King Diamond II was seized in 2002 while carrying over 32 tons (29 metric tonnes) of shark fins that were harvested from about 30,000 sharks

Bill Clinton signed the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 (SFPA), which banned finning on any fishing vessel within United States territorial waters, and on all U.S.-flagged fishing vessels in international waters. Additionally, shark fins could not be imported into the United States without the associated carcass. In 1991, the percentage of sharks killed by U.S. longline fisheries in the Pacific Ocean for finning was approximately 3%. By 1998, that percentage had grown to 60%. Between 1991 and 1998, the number of sharks retained by the Hawaii-based swordfish and tuna longline fishery had increased from 2,289 to 60,857 annually, and by 1998, an estimated 98% of these sharks were killed for their fins.

United States

The largest supermarket chain in Singapore, NTUC Fairprice and hypermarket Carrefour will also be banning all shark fin products from its outlets before April 2012.[72][73]

Leading Singapore-based supermarket chain Cold Storage (supermarket), has joined the World Wide Fund for Nature Singapore Sustainable seafood Group and agreed to stop selling all shark fin and shark products in its 42 outlets across the country. The supermarket is a subsidiary of Dairy Farm, a leading pan-Asian food retailer that operates more than 5,300 outlets and employs some 80,000 people in the Asia-Pacific region. It is the first supermarket in Singapore to implement a no shark fins policy.[71]

Singapore

In 2009, the Republic of Palau created the world's first shark sanctuary. It is illegal to catch sharks within Palau's EEZ, which covers an area of 230,000 square miles (600,000 km2). This is an area about the size of France. President Johnson Toribiong also called for a ban on global shark finning, stating: "These creatures are being slaughtered and are perhaps at the brink of extinction unless we take positive action to protect them."[70]

Palau

At 10 November 2013, an announcement was made by the conservation minister proposing that shark finning will be outlawed in New Zealand waters.[69]

The great white sharks have been given full protection in the territorial waters of New Zealand[66] but shark finning is legal on other shark species if the shark is dead. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand are campaigning to raise awareness of shark finning[67] and a number of foodies have fronted the campaign.[68]

New Zealand

In 2007, Malaysia's Natural Resources and Environment Ministry, Azmi Khalid, banned shark's fin soup from official functions committing to the Malaysian Nature Society (for conservation of shark species).[65] In 2012, the Sabah Tourism, Culture and Environment Minister proposed an amendment to the Fisheries Act that would give force to setting up a shark sanctuary zone in Semporna and other shark populated areas in Saba. This ban was put on hold pending the Federal Government’s decision on the issue.In 2015, Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Minister, Ahmad Shabery Cheek, said that the ban of shark finning is "unnecessary" as the finning industry does not exist in Malaysia He went on further to say "Sharks are normally caught by accident when they enter the fish nets along with the other fishes."[64]

Malaysia was one of the top 10 importers and exporters of shark fins in the world between 2000 and 2009.[64] The country caught 231,212 tonnes of sharks from 2002 to 2011, making it the eighth highest in the world and accounting for 2.9% of the global sharks caught during the same period.[64]

Malaysia

Taiwan banned shark finning in 2011.[63]

Taiwan

Disneyland Hong Kong removed shark fin soup from its wedding banquet menu after international pressure from environmental groups, who threatened to boycott its parks worldwide despite the high demand for the delicacy. The University of Hong Kong has banned shark fin soup on campus.[61] The Peninsula Hotel banned shark fin in 2012.[62]

Hong Kong

NBA All-Star Chinese basketball player Yao Ming pledged to stop eating shark fin soup at a news conference on August 2, 2006.[56][57] American basketball player Tracy McGrady, a teammate of Yao's, reportedly stated that he was impressed by the soup when he tried it for the first time, but was criticized by the Hong Kong branch of the World Wide Fund for Nature for his remark.[58] The Australian naturalist Steve Irwin was known to walk out of Chinese restaurants if he saw shark fin soup on the menu.[59] American chef Ken Hom sees the West doing little to protect stocks of cod and caviar-producing sturgeon despite the outcry over shark-finning, but he also stresses the wastefulness of harvesting only the fins.[60]

Protestors in Hong Kong, May 2012
Shark fins on display in a pharmacy in Yokohama, Japan

China

On May 27, 2013, against the wishes of the Shark Fin Free Calgary organization, Calgary City Council overturned the ban. There were protests against the ban from Calgary’s Chinese community, and Calgary’s city task force recommended against the ban. According to the article in The Calgary Herald, Calgary’s Mayor Naheed Nenshi never wanted a full ban, even though he had voted for the ban the previous year.[55]

On May 8, 2013 Calgary’s City Council decided to wait until December 2013 and recommended leaning away from a total ban and look for ethical sources of shark products. Alderman John Mar said there will be more time to discuss and engage and to look for other options. The new wording in the bylaw was meant to ban the sale, distribution and trade of shark fins, but not ban the possession and consumption. Canada’s city of Vancouver councillor Kerry Jang was at Calgary’s council meeting and said that it was not a cultural thing, and that even China and the Chinese government decided to phase out all shark fins from state banquets. He also mentioned that the wordings of the bylaws in Calgary and Toronto, which face legal problems with municipal jurisdiction, are trying to ban possession and consumption, but that is hard to enforce and regulate.[54]

On March 27, 2013 a private members bill to ban shark fin imports into Canada failed in the House of Commons. Shark finning was already illegal in Canadian waters, but there was no law to stop importing into Canada.[53]

On December 1, 2012, Ontario Superior Court Judge James Spence ruled that Toronto’s ban was not valid. Members of Toronto’s Chinese business community had also challenged that ban. Judge Spence had said the city does not have the power to enforce the ban. Toronto's mayor Rob Ford in September 2012 believed the ban was not the cities responsibility and so did not support it at that time.[52]

In late 2012, the Ontario Superior Court overturned Toronto's shark fin ban, ruling that the law as written was outside the powers of the city to impose without a "legitimate local purpose", and was therefore of "no force and effect." The judge accepted that the practice of shark finning was inhumane, but he did not agree with Toronto's justification of local purpose —– namely, that the consumption of shark fins may have an "adverse impact" on the health and safety of its residents and on the environmental well-being of the city.[47] Toronto has served legal notice that it plans to appeal the court ruling.[51]

Markham and Richmond Hill opted not to bring forth the motion, suggesting that this issue is a federal matter. Chinese restaurants and businesses selling shark's fin opposed the ban, and in late 2011, suggested that they will challenge the by-laws before the courts once fines are imposed.[50] When Toronto imposed steep fines, they did just that.

In late 2011, the city of Brantford, Ontario became the first city in Canada to pass new bylaws to ban the possession, sale or consumption of shark fin products. In that medium-sized city in which no restaurants exist which serve shark fin, there was no opposition to the ban, which was largely symbolic. Nevertheless, a handful of cities soon followed, notably Toronto, Calgary, Mississauga and several others in Southern Ontario:

Shark finning has been illegal in Canada since 1994, but importing fins from other regions without such regulations is allowed.[41]

Canada

No permits are required for the import of specimens obtained from shark species other than those listed above, however, to avoid seizure all products must be clearly labelled or have documentation certifying the species of origin.

  • The specimen is accompanied by a valid Australian CITES import permit (Australian import permits can be granted only if an overseas CITES export permit has been granted); or
  • The specimen is accompanied by a valid certificate issued by the overseas CITES management authority confirming that the specimen was obtained before the species was listed on CITES (pre-CITES certificate); or
  • The specimen is accompanied by an overseas CITES export permit or equivalent, is part of personal accompanied baggage and is intended for personal use and not for trade or sale.

In Australia, the export and import of wildlife and wildlife products is regulated under Part 13A of the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), which is administered by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Regulation applies equally to individuals, commercial organisations and not-for-profit organisations. CITES Appendix II shark specimens cannot be legally imported into Australia for personal or commercial purposes unless:

Imported products

Shark finning is not allowed in any tuna or billfish longline fishery, or in any Commonwealth fishery (i.e. federal waters ranges from 3–200 miles (4·8 to 321·9 km) offshore) taking sharks. Fins must be landed attached, and additional regulations apply in some states or territories. In New South Wales, sharks taken or any relevant portion of a shark taken may not be on board any vessel at any time (including after landing) without fins naturally attached (Fisheries Management Act 1994, s.8 Notification – Fishing Closure (Official Notices, 2 September 2011 NSW Government Gazette No. 86 Department of Primary Industries).

Australia

National restrictions

On 6 June 2013, the Council of the EU completed the final step to close loopholes in the EU shark finning ban. By adopting a "fins naturally attached" policy without exception, the EU has now effectively ended the practice of shark finning by EU vessels.[36]

On 19 March 2012, the Council of the EU adopted a general approach supporting the Commission's proposal to close the loopholes in the EU shark finning legislation by ensuring that all sharks were landed with their fins naturally attached without exception. It is believed that Spain and Portugal were the only EU Member States to raise objections to the Commission's proposal.

In November 2011, the EC approved a rule that would require all EU-registered fishing boats to land only sharks which have retained all their fins. Because the legislation allowed fins to be removed on the boat and different body parts to be landed at different ports, the ban proved difficult to enforce. The EU Parliament's fisheries committee supported the EC's proposal to ban the separate landing of shark bodies and fins, however, the committee approved an amendment which allows fins to be removed on board a vessel.[40]

Shark finning was prohibited in the EU in 2003 (Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003).[39]

European Union

  • Shark sanctuary (an area where shark fishing is entirely prohibited);
  • Areas where sharks must be landed with fins attached;
  • Areas where fin to body mass ratio-based regulations have been implemented;
  • Areas where shark product trade regulations exist.[38]

There are four main categories of restrictions, as follows:

In 2013, 27 countries and the European Union had banned shark finning,[36] however, international waters are unregulated. International fishing authorities are considering banning shark fishing (and finning) in the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Finning is banned in the Eastern Pacific,[37] but shark fishing and finning continues unabated in most of the Pacific and Indian Ocean.[7] In countries such as Thailand and Singapore, public awareness advertisements on finning have reportedly reduced consumption by 25%.

Fresh shark fins drying on a pavement in Hong Kong

International restrictions

Simply put, they say that the industry is either under-reporting the sharks taken annually, or is frequently engaging in the practice of finning. [35] According to the researchers, this discrepancy "may be attributable to factors ... such as unrecorded shark landings, shark biomass recorded in [non-specific] categories, and/or a high frequency of shark finning and carcass disposal at sea."[35] That figure, when converted to shark [34] However, researchers dispute this claim by pointing to the data: using a statistical analysis of shark fin industry trade data, a 2006 study estimated that between 26 and 73 million sharks are harvested each year worldwide.

According to Giam Choo Hoo – the longest serving member of The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Animals Committee,[32] and a representative of the shark fin industry in Singapore[33] – "The perception that it is common practice to kill sharks for only their fins - and to cut them off whilst the sharks are still alive - is wrong.... The vast majority of fins in the market are taken from sharks after their death."[32]

Line graph showing the rapidly growing annual shark harvest
Global shark catch, since 1950. Source [1]

Reporting

In 2007, Canadian filmmaker and photographer Rob Stewart created a film, Sharkwater, which exposes the shark fin industry in detail. In March 2011, the VOA Special English service of the Voice of America broadcast a 15-minute science program on shark finning.

A third of fins imported to Hong Kong come from Europe.[27] Spain is by far the largest supplier, providing between 2,000 and 5,000 metric tons a year.[28][29] Norway supplies 39 metric tonnes, but Britain, France, Portugal and Italy are also major suppliers.[30] Hong Kong handles at least 50% and possibly up to 80% of the world trade in shark fin, with the major suppliers being Europe,

Photo of single-masted boat at sea
Shark fin fishing boat off the Galapagos, Ecuador

Because of the lucrative profits and alleged size of the market, there are allegations of links to organized crime.[3][26] Opponents also raise questions on the medical harm from the consumption of high levels of toxic mercury reportedly found in shark fins.

Animal welfare groups vigorously oppose finning on moral grounds and also because it is one cause for the rapid decline of global shark populations.[7]

The crew of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society conservation vessel RV Ocean Warrior witnessed and photographed industrial-scale finning within Costa Rica's Cocos Island National Park protected marine area.[23] The practice is featured in the documentary Sharks: Stewards of the Reef, which contains footage from Western Australia and Central America and also examines shark finning's cultural, financial and ecological impacts. Underwater photographer Richard Merritt witnessed finning of living sharks in Indonesia where he saw immobile finless sharks lying on the sea bed still alive below the fishing boat.[24] Finning has been witnessed and filmed within a protected marine area in the Raja Ampat islands of Indonesia.[25]

A mural protesting shark finning in Wellington, New Zealand

Opposition

A further 5 species are listed, to come into effect in 2014 -

Appendix II, which lists animals that are not necessarily now threatened with extinction but that may become so unless trade is closely controlled, lists

  • Requiem sharks
  • Hammerhead sharks
  • Basking shark
  • Mackerel sharks
  • Whale shark

Appendix I, which lists animals that are threatened with extinction, lists

In 2013, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) listed the vulnerability of sharks.[21][22]

On the IUCN Red List there are 39 species of elasmobranches (sharks and rays) listed as threatened species (Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable).[20]

Vulnerability of sharks

Fins from the critically endangered sawfish (Pristidae) "are highly favored in Asian markets and are some of the most valuable shark fins".[18] Sawfishes are now protected under the highest protection level of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), Appendix I.[19]

Sharks are apex predators and have extensive implications for marine systems an processes, particularly coral reefs.[17] A report by WildAid on global threats to sharks further explains the importance of these animals.[2]

On other populations

Numbers of some shark species have dropped as much as 80% over the last 50 years.[16] Some organizations claim that shark fishing or bycatch (the unintentional capture of species by other fisheries) is the reason for the decline in some species' populations and that the market for fins has very little impact — bycatch accounts for an estimated 50% of all sharks taken[7] — others that the market for shark fin soup is the main reason for the decline.[16]


Sharks have a K-selection life history, which means that they tend to grow slowly, reach maturity at a larger size and a later age, and have low reproductive rates.[15] These traits make them especially vulnerable to overfishing methods, such as shark finning. Recent studies suggest changes in abundance of apex predators may have cascading impacts on a variety of ecological processes.

Some studies suggest 26 to 73 million sharks are harvested annually for fins. The annual median for the period from 1996 to 2000 was 38 million, which is nearly four times the number recorded by the United Nations,[12] but considerably lower than the estimates of many conservationists.[13] It has been reported that the global shark catch in 2012 was 100 million.[14]

On shark populations

Removal of a shark's fins prevents it from swimming. It is therefore incapable of hunting for prey or from avoiding predators. Further, some species, known as obligate ram ventilators, lack the ability to pump water through their gills and must swim without rest; these species presumably asphyxiate if unable to move.[11]

The sand tiger shark is a large coastal shark that inhabits coastal waters worldwide. Its numbers have declined significantly, and it is now listed as a vulnerable species on the IUCN Red List.[10]

On individual sharks

Impacts

A diagram of a shark, with every fin highlighted in pink and drawn separated from its body, except for the top half of its tail
Highlights showing the typical targets of finning

Because the rest of the shark has little value relative to that of its fins, and because it is much bulkier, the finless and often still-living shark is thrown back into the sea to free space for more fins aboard the vessel.[7] Shark species that are commonly finned are:[8][9]

Nearly every fin of a shark is targeted for harvest, as highlighted in the diagram. The primary and secondary dorsal fins are removed from the top of the shark, plus its pectoral fins, and, in a single cutting motion, the pelvic fin, anal fin, and bottom portion of its caudal fin, or tail. The term "shark finning" specifically refers to the practice of removing the fins and discarding the carcass while still at sea.[6] The removal of fins on land during catch processing is not considered shark finning.[6]

Process

Contents

  • Process 1
  • Impacts 2
    • On individual sharks 2.1
    • On shark populations 2.2
    • On other populations 2.3
  • Vulnerability of sharks 3
  • Opposition 4
  • Reporting 5
  • International restrictions 6
    • European Union 6.1
  • National restrictions 7
    • Australia 7.1
      • Imported products 7.1.1
    • Canada 7.2
    • China 7.3
    • Hong Kong 7.4
    • Taiwan 7.5
    • Malaysia 7.6
    • New Zealand 7.7
    • Palau 7.8
    • Singapore 7.9
    • United States 7.10
  • See also 8
  • References 9

[5]

Help improve this article
Sourced from World Heritage Encyclopedia™ licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0
Help to improve this article, make contributions at the Citational Source
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.