The Shark Trust

The Shark Trust was established in 1997 to study, protect, and manage the elasmobranch species found in UK waters and internationally. It is a member of the European Elasmobranch Association and works with other EEA organizations to counter the enormous fishing pressure that European shark and ray stocks are under.

The Shark Trust’s mandate includes:

  • Introducing effective management on a regional basis to regulate shark and ray fisheries and ensure that they are sustainable.

  • Reducing shark and ray bycatch and mortality in other fisheries.

  • Increasing research efforts on the biology of sharks and rays and their fisheries, including the promotion of a collaborative tag and release program.

  • Improving records of catches, landings, and international trade in species of sharks and rays.

  • Improving management of critical habitats, including nursery grounds, under threat.

  • Increasing the amount of information available to the public and decision makers.

The Shark Trust encourages scientists, divers, fishermen, anglers, and the general public to join the growing number of ST members that currently lend their support.

Your membership in The Shark Trust adds to the pressure that it is able to be put on governing and regulatory agencies, and helps spread awareness on the plight of sharks and rays in general.

Subscription to The Shark Trust carries no obligation on your part unless you wish it to. However, if you would like to help educate or raise funds your added contribution will be most welcome.

Shark Trust members receive the trust’s magazine/newsletter ‘Shark Focus’ 3 times per year. This is a glossy publication that chronicles the latest work of the trust and has articles on a variety of shark and ray subjects. Upon joining the trust you will also receive i.d. posters of British shark and ray species and other Shark Trust goodies.

The Shark Trust also hosts a highly informative website with sections on all aspects of sharks and rays. The site also contains a good image database of elasmobranch species and an active and well moderated forum for anyone wishing to talk sharks.

Scientists Trace Origin Of Shark’s Electric Sense

The dark markings indicate gene expression in the electrosensory organs in the head of an shark.

Gainsville, Florida (Feb 6 2006 18:53 EST) Sharks are known for their almost uncanny ability to detect electrical signals while hunting and navigating.

Now researchers have traced the origin of those electrosensory powers to the same type of embryonic cells that gives rise to many head and facial features in humans.

The discovery, reported by University of Florida scientists in the current edition of Evolution & Development, identifies neural crest cells, which are common in vertebrate development, as a source of sharks’ electrical ESP.

It also fortifies the idea that before our early ancestors emerged from the sea, they too had the ability to detect electric fields.

“Sharks have a network of electrosensory cells that allows them to hunt by detecting electrical signals generated by prey,” said Martin Cohn, a developmental biologist with the departments of zoology and anatomy and cell biology, and the UF Genetics Institute. “That doesn’t mean they can only detect electric fish. They can sense electricity generated by a muscle twitch, even if it’s the weak signal of a flounder buried under sand.”

Likewise, sharks are widely thought to use the Earth’s magnetic field for navigation, enabling them to swim in precise paths across large expanses of featureless ocean, Cohn said.

“If you think of this in the big picture of evolution of sensory systems, such as olfaction, hearing, vision and touch, this shows sharks took a pre-existing genetic program and used it to build yet another type of sensory system,” Cohn said.

UF and University of Louisiana researchers analyzed electroreceptor development in the embryos of the lesser spotted catshark, an animal that is largely motionless during the day and hunts at night, mainly in the seagrass beds of the eastern Atlantic Ocean.

Using molecular tests, scientists found two independent genetic markers of neural crest cells in the animal’s electricity-sensing organs. Analysis shows these cells migrate from the brain and travel into the developing shark’s head, creating the framework for the electrosensory system – a previously unknown function of a much-studied group of cells, according to Renata Freitas, a doctoral candidate in UF’s zoology department and first author of the paper.

The process mirrors the development of the lateral line that allows fish to mechanically sense their environment, and organs of the inner ear that enable people to keep their balance. But scientists suspect as human ancestors emerged from the sea, they discarded their lateral lines as well as their ability to sense electrical fields.

“Our fishy ancestors had the anatomy for it,” said James Albert, a former UF biologist who is now at the University of Louisiana. “You can imagine how valuable this system would be if you were aquatic, because water is so conductive. But it doesn’t work on land – air doesn’t conduct electricity as well. When it happens, it’s called a lightning bolt and you don’t need special receptors to sense it.”

All primitive animals with backbones could sense electricity, according to Michael Coates, an associate professor of organismal biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago. Mammals, reptiles and birds lost the sense over time, as did most fish alive today.

But in sharks and a few other species, such as sturgeons and lampreys, electrosensory capability endured.

“Most fish you see today have large eyes,” Coates said. “But sharks are predators that do not particularly rely on vision. If you see a hammerhead shark searching for flatfish, it moves its head back and forth, almost as if it were using a metal detector. Knowing that the electrosensory system may have developed with involvement of neural crest cells is valuable for people trying to reconstruct vertebrate evolution. It gives us further indication of how all of the various sensory systems come on line.”

But the idea that the neural crest truly is the source of the electrosensory system will raise eyebrows, scientists say.

“It’s a very interesting paper for two reasons,” said Glenn Northcutt, a distinguished professor of neuroscience at the University of California, San Diego, and a leading expert in vertebrate neurobiology. “For the first time, someone has shown which molecules may be responsible for guiding the development of the receptors of the lateral line system. I think this will hold true and is a very important finding. But I’m skeptical about the claim the neural crest gives rise to electroreceptors. It still requires a definitive experiment, where the developing neural crest cells are marked with dye, the embryo develops and the dye clearly shows up in the electroreceptors.”

Dye tests are a classical way of mapping cell movements during development, and have been used to explore the origins of limbs and brain cells. In the current research, scientists used genetic markers to trace neural crest cells.

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