Tuesday, 28 February 2012
I had a conversation this week with Rich Clothier from Shark Guardians. Rich has been promoting shark conservation through an awareness drive, drawing particular attention to shark products being made readily available on popular domestic outlets such as ebay and Amazon. Their primary goal is to achieve ten thousand signatures in this petition. There will be a few people who read this who will grumble about petitions not being effective, but I would draw their attention to the fact that it was not so long ago, 2008/09 that one such opinion based movement managed to dislodge alibaba.com's zeal for online shark fin trade, and thesharkgroup campaign led by shark superman Wolfgang Leander achieved a promise by chairman Jack Ma that there would be a cessation of trade in shark fin products on alibaba. This recent listing shows that orders do show up from time to time, but alibaba's 'no fins'policy is internally policed and such incidents are controlled whenever they come to light (we are told).
So, what about us bastions of conservation, the Europeans and North Americans, you know, the ones that make laws with handy finning loopholes allowing us to be one of the primary suppliers of shark's fin into the Hong Kong markets? Should we even be surprised that ebay and amazon have a vast array of shark products for sale? When I looked at ebay today to see just how many shark products are up for grabs, I could see over 14,000 listings for sharks teeth, beginning with full jaws of megalodon and great white, with the former topping nearly 60,000 USD. I'm sorry, did I say great white jaws were for sale? Surely I must be mistaken, as trade in their body parts are tightly restricted due to them being CITES appendix I listed right? Oh sorry, this guy's informative listing tells me I can only buy it if I am not asking him to post it across a border. Silly me.
Squalene is the next item to have a series of multiple and sometimes high priced items, starting at a massive $US 750 for a few pills, with no less than 4000 listings on amazon.
It would be naive of me to suggest that this trade is clear cut black and white good versus bad. Obviously it is not going to affect the megalodon population by trading a few fossils, I even came across a guy on our local beach last spring hunting for fossilised sharks teeth; for anyone who doesn't know, I live on the south coast of England where the now defunct fishing fleet wiped out our local sharks about 20 years ago, so fossils are about the only thing you can find here that is shark related here. I guess therein lies the deeper question: Is a person who collects shark fossils and memorabilia, the die hard shark fan, are they deeply allied to the wider cause of shark conservation? There must be a philanthropic based shark research paper mileage in that one surely.
But the real problem here is the wider issue of online trade in shark's fin. Thankfully ebay and amazon were free from those products, but it was not difficult to find a number of online bulk traders elsewhere, pushing dried shark fin based in the Far East and India, with many traders promising to meet a demand of 1 tonne per week. So depending on what loophole your supplier is exploiting and the size of the shark caught that could mean anything between 3300 to 5000 small sharks (>1m juvenile hammerheads for example) or 400 to 550 medium sharks (2m requiem species) and I'm making a wild stab at those figures based on what I've seen happening daily on some beaches, and those wild stabs are probably way underestimating the fact that I'm totting up freshly caught sharks, considering these traded fins are dried, therefore a lot lighter. Remember, that 1 tonne is a per week figure for one supplier, to one online trader. That means that one trader could be accounting for 1/4 million sharks per year. Ok lets not get into the whole how many millions? detraction, whatever the total is, that's a hell of a lot of sharks, and it is happening online, easily, and freely, just like our weekly shop at Tesco.
I am not going to theorise a solution here, but I have been somewhat surprised to see one possible solution bandied about freely, as if it were the holy grail of halting shark demise; that is eco-tourism through shark diving. The paraphrase popped up during the widely discussed Giam Choo Hoo fracas last week, and today is proposed as a discussion on the highly respected RJ Dunlap page.
I won't go into the pros and cons of the behavioural changes issue and how that weighs in against the pro shark Zeitgeist generated by elated divers emerging from such interactions, basically because this guy will, and has done a better job of it, but, I will say this loud and clear: the view that all sharks can, or should, be saved by eco-tourism operations is deeply flawed. Most of the sharks that suffer from pressure generated by overfishing are migratory, skittish and predominantly pelagic. Developing any kind of tourist activity around these sharks, if not impossible, would require an enormous amount of input, and many hours of failure at encountering the quarry, and a decent helping of insanity (in this summary, I don't mean rocking up and copying someone else's business model, I mean getting out there and changing the game from scratch). Many such species, threshers, makos, even blues, would be impossible to dive with for the average Joe tourist, who might be falsely lulled into thinking they were a reborn shark whisperer after being suffered by the slumbering cuddliness of a nonchalant whale shark or having enjoyed the approaches of an inquisitive manta ray. How many thresher shark dives are there worldwide? Two? one and a half? The interests of these ops are in the hands of a few locals or ex-pats, who have the capital to invest in a tourist class boat or resort, whilst the rest of the impoverished fishing community stick to eking out a meagre living from a very uncomfortable panga from an ever dwindling supply of fish. I think the quantifiable potential income for the wider fishing communities is as incalculable and unlikely as ever determining just how many sharks are falling victim to directed fishing each year. The real answer to the overall problem lies in community derived sustainability through fisheries management where the community is the stakeholder, and where eco-tourism forms a part (small or large, depending on the circumstances) of that plan.
Oh dear, I seem to have wandered from the initial purpose of this post, please sign Rich's petition and then have a long hard think about the rest of this blog, if you come up with any more answers let me know.
Thursday, 23 February 2012
Monday, 20 February 2012
Are you interested in diving with blue sharks in the Azores? The Azores is the upcoming dive destination of Europe, with superb reef diving and cetacean watching opportunities. Blue shark diving has been developed by a handful of operators in the southern islands and we have access to a week long program to see the very best the Azores has to offer.
We are offering a discount on our charters for 2012, if you book before the end of March only! Please email us here for more details.
Friday, 3 February 2012
There have been a couple of interesting articles springing up across the internet over the last couple of days, bringing with them the ubiquitous 'likes' and whooops of joy from pseudo-satisfied readers on the ever burgeoning social network.
But how new are the efforts alluded to in these articles? How many sharks will be saved? This article on the International Institute for Sustainable Development site highlights the recent development by OSPESCA nations who have agreed to a multilateral approach to the problem of finning and passed a law prohibiting the finning of sharks.
But wait, before you press the like (or even worse the share) button, take some time to read the article, particularly the paragraph that states 'Furthermore, exports from or imports into SICA countries of fins not attached to a body must be accompanyied by a document from the competent authority in the country of origin, certifying that it is not the product of finning'. Oh dear!!! If anyone is unfamiliar with latin american gang politics, due to the normality of the extended family structure within latino society, it is most likely that any boat captain will have corruptible contact within the enforcement agencies. So this add on paragraph will only serve to increment opportunities in corrpution, otherwise known in Europe as a 'loophole' similar to the one we cleverly structured around the 5% law.
Then this article throws Colombia into the mix, saying it too has agreed to work with Costa Rica on prevention of shark finning.
Meanwhile, Ecuador sits quietly below (geographically, if not morally) having already regulated against shark finning back in 2007. Decreto 486 prohibited the landing of directed fishing of sharks, with all shark having to be landed whole. Fins are allowed to be commercialised under a licensing system, lo and behold exactly as in the OSPESCA nations pact.
Personally having worked in Ecuador since 2005 and being closely involved with marine conservation there, I have not seen the slightest reduction of sharks landed on any beach in Ecuador before or after Decreto 486 and I can only assume that the OSPESCA agreement will work about as well as trying to pick a lock with recently caught mackerel.
It is astounding to think that given the latin amercian love affair with corruption, that anyone could think that making any kind of law with such easy opportunity for flagrant disregard would do any good at all, unless of course such activity was created with the sole aim of appeasing the green (blue?) lobby.
This document by the Shark Specialist Group has some useful and telling histories of Shark Finning Law over recent years. A read of it will leave you unsurprised as to why the shark fin trade continues unabated, and where fins-on law has been successful has not reduced shark take from the ocean, but has resulted only in this.