SOS attend international conference in Brussels

Following its acceptance of membership to the recently formed Shark Alliance, Save Our Sharks (SOS) attended the first anniversary and inaugural meeting of the Shark Alliance member groups in Brussels.
Around 35 delegates from 6 countries, U.K, France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland and Holland attended plus the directors and staff from the Pew Charitable Trusts, who financed the meeting.

Save Our Sharks were represented by Nigel Proctor (on behalf of the SOS committee) who met up at Brussels airport with the Sea Anglers Conservation Network (Scotland) representative, and SOS liaison officer Denis Kelly.

“Fins On”

One of the principal proposals that came out the conference is to be headed “Fins On” where the aim is to have sharks landed whole. There will be a drive to raise public awareness of the issue, and we will try to capitalise on the IUCN red listing, and create further publicity.

“Shark Week”

Another proposal is to hold a “Shark Week” in each member country, where each country’s members create a project to involve the community, schools, museums, aquariums and the like to raise awareness of shark issues.

There will be more to follow on the above shortly

There were many other issues and points made, however, these are the principal ones

• Strive to raise public awareness of shark related issues,
• Create adequate publicity and maintain the pressure,
• Educate journalists away from ‘sensationalism’ without portraying sharks as an animal they clearly are not, they are apex predators, not cuddly, loveable ‘toys’,
• Pre-influence the journalist way of thinking prior to ‘shark week’ and Ocean Day,
• Feed the media with facts and data to ‘force’ the attention on sharks prior to EU discussions on shark management,
• Similarly with CITES,
• Important to maintain ‘shark friendly’ states and get them to lobby less friendly countries,
• Lobby the UK to dispense with its ‘special permits’,
• Ensure that the Shark Alliance has a high profile at the release and showing of the new shark film,
• Don’t alienate the fishing industry,
• Work with fishermen, more is likely to be achieved at a faster rate,

Denis and Nigel were made extremely welcome and clearly treated as being amongst equals, if but a little less experienced in the ways of policy and lobbying. Nigel stated after the meeting that, “We have made significant moves along the pathway of shark conservation and have little to fear in the future, in terms of acceptability, we have a lot to offer and should not be afraid to push forward with our objectives, we can gain a great deal from liaison with the other member groups of the Shark Alliance, however, we also have a great deal to offer as well”.

At the conference Nigel reiterated the high level of importance UK anglers attached to sharks, skates and rays, making the point that the bad old days of trophy fish were long gone. He finished off by indicating our commitment and referencing the prohibition on the landing of tope along the English east coast (c 200 miles of coastline) which to the best of our knowledge is the first full protection, and or prohibition on the landing of any shark species in European waters. This brought about a warm and consensual round of applause, which probably indicates that we are not outcasts any more, but highly regarded and welcome members of an important Shark Alliance.

Well done to Nigel and Denis for helping to put recreational shark fishing on the front-line of European shark conservation

The next few months

We are in for a quiet time in Scotland until after the elections but there is much to do, in England and Europe. We will be writing to our members shortly with more details, please get involved.

• Liaise with the Shark Trust to organise a “Shark Week” to raise public awareness with the overall goal of banning the removing of fins at sea.

• Lobby Defra to stop handing out special permits which allows finning on Porbeagles. Both of the above are part of the “Fins On” campaign.

• Keep pressure on Defra to announce the results of the tope consultation.

• Build up a case to take to the EU to implement tope management across Europe.

• Remind Defra of their intention to implement a maximum landing size on rays, skate and spurdog.

• Keep pressure on the Scottish Exec. to have the Firth of Lorne, Sound of Mull and surrounding lochs and waters designated as a Spurdog nursery area.

• Lobby the EU to have the 25 per cent by catch on rays implemented in all UK waters.

• Continue with the red tape to get SOS listed for charitable status. Once achieved we can apply for grants to help with the campaigning and administrative costs.

Killing Sharks

Sharks have a great deal to fear from humans. Compared to the 10-15 people killed by sharks each year; over 100 million sharks perish at the hands of humans annually and many populations may face extinction. Sharks are killed for many reasons, including fear; food, sport, and ‘machismo’, but the great majority perish due to simple greed. Many shark products have commercial value, including: the flesh; the skin for high-quality leather; teeth and jaws for ornaments; liver oil for cosmetics, medicines, vitamin A, and skin-care products; and cartilage for false cancer ‘cures’. However; the product that drives the market are the fins. After drying, collagen fibers are extracted from them, cleaned, and processed to make ‘shark fin soup’. In spite of the fact that these fibers have little flavor or nutritional value, the soup is considered a delicacy, and may sell in the Orient for more than $100 ( £65) a bowl.

Over the years, shark fisheries have come and gone. In the early part of the century, sponge fishermen in Florida killed sharks to boil them down for their oil. The oil was then thrown on the ocean to smooth the surface of the water and make it easier to see the sponges from the boat. That ended when a plague killed off the sponges. In the 19405 to .19505 a number of shark fisheries sprang up to supply the market for vitamin A. That ended with the discovery of a method for its synthetic production. However; most shark fisheries, such as the one for dogfish sharks to supply the ‘fish and chips’ market in the UK, have ended only when the number of sharks dropped too low for the fishery to be sustained.

The explosive growth of the Chinese economy and rapid expansion of trade with the outside world during the 1985 and 1995 created an unprecedented situation. Suddenly there was an insatiable demand for shark fins of almost any size or type. Improvements in shipbuilding and navigational electronics meant that shark fishing boats could now go anywhere in the world, moving from one place to another as local shark populations were destroyed. The fins are now so much more valuable than the rest of the shark that the carcass is often discarded after the fins are removed, to save storage space on the boat. Often the fins are sliced off when the shark is still alive and the mutilated shark is dumped back into the water to die a slow and agonizing death.

Why should we be concerned about this situation? After all, wouldn’t the ocean be much safer without sharks? The answer is no. The chance of being attacked by a shark is already less than the chance of being struck by lightning. The real dangers for people in the water are drowning, exposure, and being struck by a boat. In the USA, for example, drowning incidents outnumber shark attacks by 1,000 to I. Without sharks, the whole experience of being in a natural ocean wilderness would be immeasurably reduced. It would be like being on the Serengeti with no lions or cheetahs. In losing the opportunity to view these magnificent and superbly-adapted predators in the wild, we are also losing part of our spiritual connection with nature.

But something else would be changed as well -the whole ecology of the ocean. Predators control the populations of their prey species in a beneficial way. They eliminate diseased and genetically defective individuals, and they stabilize population fluctuations. On land, when we have removed the natural predators of deer; for example, their populations have exploded until they overgrazed their food supply and died of starvation and disease. In the ocean we are not sure what all the consequences of removing the apex predators from the food pyramid might be. We do have one example, though. A shark fishery in Tasmania collapsed after two years of over fishing. Shortly afterwards, the fishery for spiny lobsters also collapsed and fishermen observed a lot of octopus in the area. Octopuses are both major predators of spiny lobster and an important food item for sharks. It seems that once the numbers of octopus were no longer controlled by the sharks, they became too numerous and decimated the lobsters. Economically, for those other than shark fishermen, it doesn’t make sense to allow sharks to be fished out, not only because of the possible damage to sustainable fisheries, but also because of the loss of earnings from divers coming to see sharks. Worldwide, shark-watching has become a multi-million dollar business.

Why do shark populations collapse so quickly when people begin fishing them? The answer lies in the life history of these animals. In many aspects, sharks are more similar to mammals such as whales, dolphins, or ourselves, than to other fish. Whereas most fish reach maturity in only a few years and produce thousands or millions of eggs per year; sharks take many years to reach maturity. Some species may not begin to reproduce until they are over 15 years old. Some species produce as few as two pups biannually, averaging only one offspring per year: So when a population is over fished, it may take many years to recover; or it may never recover: Some scientists believe that sharks should never be fished at all, that their biology is too fragile to withstand any exploitation. Perhaps sharks should have the total protection given to marine mammals in many countries. Unfortunately, sharks do not have big ‘fan clubs’ as dolphins do.

Although both are large predators with slow reproductive rates, sharks are handicapped, from a.: public relations perspective, by the fact that their mouths appear to be frowning, and that they must open their mouths to pass water over their gills, exposing their teeth. Dolphins, on the other hand, always appear to be smiling, because of the shape of their mouths. Since they breathe through the blowholes on top of their heads, they do not have to open their mouths and expose their formidable teeth in order to get oxygen. But even the dolphin’s smile may not protect it from the greed inspired by the high prices being offered by international buyers of shark fins. In a number of countries, fishermen are slaughtering dolphins to chop up for shark bait.

We should create save our sharks and dolphins lanyards to create awareness