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.

A STING IN THE TALE FOR SHARKS AND RAYS

Expert findings show sharks and rays are now amongst Europe’s most threatened animals as more are added to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

Gland, Switzerland, 20 February 2006 (IUCN)  The number of species of sharks and rays on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species will increase based on the findings of a three-day expert workshop, hosted by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), that examined the conservation status of the species in the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean waters.

The workshop confirms the widely-accepted notion that slow-growing sharks and rays are exceptionally vulnerable to over-fishing, and that deep-water species are being depleted at an alarming rate. Some formerly important commercial species are now so rare that they are no longer being sought by fishermen, but their risk of extinction is still rising because of continued incidental capture in fisheries for more abundant species. This situation is exacerbated by the lack of shark fisheries management in European waters.

“Sharks and rays are amongst the most threatened animal groups in the UK today. I welcome the development of a Red List baseline, against which to monitor the hoped-for changes in their status that should arise from increased awareness of their plight,” said Dr Malcolm Vincent, JNCC’s Director of Science.

Nearly 100 species of sharks and rays were evaluated against the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Categories range from Extinct to Least Concern and Data Deficient. Species deemed Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered are considered threatened with extinction and are added to the global IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. The IUCN Shark Specialist Group, which convened the meeting, will compile these assessments for a regional report that will include recommendations for conservation action.

Proposed additions to the Red List include three species of angel sharks, two species of skates, and several species of deep-water sharks, all of which are considered Critically Endangered in the region, as well as two species of coastal ray, now considered Endangered. The species found to be at lowest risk were generally small and fast-growing coastal species, like cuckoo ray and lesser-spotted catshark, and very deep ocean species that are still beyond the reach of today’s fishing fleets.

Angel sharks, formerly abundant large coastal sharks, were once a common sight in fish markets, but have largely vanished, almost unnoticed, from the European seas that are their world stronghold.

Now officially declared extinct in the North Sea by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (fisheries advisers to European countries), the angel shark was nominated in 2001 for strict legal protection in British waters, but we are still waiting for government action on this proposal, said Sarah Fowler, Co-Chair of the Shark Specialist Group. Workshop participants emphasised the urgency of protecting this, and many other imperilled species.

Three species of deep-water sharks, taken as incidental catch in fisheries and increasingly targeted for their meat and rich liver oil, were assessed as threatened. A population decline of 80-95% prompted a Critically Endangered classification for the region’s deep-water gulper shark.

These exceptionally slow-growing sharks are simply not biologically equipped to withstand such intense fishing pressure, said Tom Blasdale, Marine Species Adviser at the JNCC. We welcome recent European Union action to manage deep-water gillnet fisheries, but similar measures are still urgently needed to protect deep-water sharks taken by trawls and longlines.

The shortfin mako shark, a favourite target of commercial and recreational fishermen around the world, was proposed as Vulnerable in the Northeast Atlantic and Critically Endangered in the Mediterranean Sea.

This wide-ranging species is increasingly the target of fisheries and yet lacks any type of protective measures in this region, warned Alen Soldo of the Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries in Croatia. Of particular concern are mako sharks in the Mediterranean, where our findings revealed ongoing fishing pressure well beyond the reproductive capacity of the species.

In contrast to similar workshops held in North America, South Africa, and Australia, the workshop yielded little if any good news, due largely to the lack of shark and ray conservation measures in this region. Protection is granted by just a handful of European countries for the three largest species (basking shark, devil ray, and great white shark). The few European shark and ray quotas in place are routinely set far in excess of actual catches and therefore do not limit fishing pressure. They also cover only part of these stocks. Scientists advice for zero catch of many depleted shark and ray species has been ignored. There are no international limits on shark catch, even as fisheries for wide-ranging shark species (such as mako and blue sharks) expand and evidence of their declines mounts.

Scientists from government agencies, universities, and private institutions participated in the workshop including authors of published papers on shark and skate population status and experts who develop advice on shark quotas for European and international fisheries of the Northeast Atlantic. Experts from England, Scotland, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Croatia, Russia, Sweden, Canada, and the USA took part.

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is the world’s most authoritative guide to the status of biological diversity. The workshop was the eighth in a global series to assess all of the world’s shark and ray species and develop regional conservation priorities. Resulting Red List proposals are preliminary until accepted by the global Shark Specialist Group network.

Big sharks are disappearing

he rapid decline of great sharks in the world’s oceans is disrupting the marine ecosystem by allowing more lowly fish to thrive, scientists warn today.
Overfishing of the ancient predators has lead to a sudden uprising of species they prey on, causing an abundance of skates, rays and smaller sharks, which are steadily devastating populations of shellfish, including scallops, oysters and clams, the researchers claim.
The findings suggest that the demise of the great sharks, whose primitive ancestors cruised the seas long before the rise and fall of the dinosaurs, may have unforeseen knock-on effects on marine life lower down the food chain.
Records from fisheries and research vessels dating from the 1970s to 2005 have revealed a dramatic nosedive in great shark populations. Tiger sharks and scalloped hammerheads may have declined more than 97% since the mid-1980s, while numbers of smooth hammerheads and bull sharks are believed to have fallen by 99% off the east coast of the US.
Writing in the journal Science, a team of marine biologists led by Ran Myers at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, analyse fish research surveys over the past 16 to 35 years. The records show that while the abundance of 11 great shark species fell dramatically over the past 35 years, 12 of the 14 fish species they prey on had increased sharply.
In the waters along the US Atlantic coast, numbers of cownose rays, a staple of the great shark diet that can grow to four feet across, jumped 8% a year to an estimated population of around 40 million.
The explosion of the cownose population coincides with an almost complete collapse of scallops in the waters, leaving only those protected behind marine fences for local fisheries to take.
Without sharks to keep their numbers in check, researchers fear the migrating rays will drive down shellfish populations as they swim through, to the point where they are unable to recover .
Julia Baum, a co-author of the paper, said: “With fewer sharks around, the species they prey upon, like cownose rays, have increased in numbers, and in turn, hordes of cownose rays dining on scallops, have wiped the scallops out.”
Sharks are targeted by fisheries for their fins and meat, but are also taken as by-catch by fleets fishing for tuna and swordfish. As many as 73 million sharks are killed each year around the globe for the finning trade.
Ellen Pikitch, executive director of the Pew Institute for Ocean Science in Miami, said: “This is the first published field experiment to demonstrate that the loss of sharks is cascading through ocean ecosystems and inflicting collateral damage on food fisheries such as scallops. These unforeseen and devastating impacts underscore the need to take a more holistic, ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management.”
Charles Peterson, a researcher on the paper and marine biologist at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, said the study highlighted the importance of maintaining populations of the ocean’s top predators. “Despite the vastness of the oceans, its organisms are interconnected, meaning that changes at one level have implications several steps removed. Through our work, the ocean is not so unfathomable, and we know better now why sharks matter,” he added.
In British waters, historic overfishing has seen the common ray decline to the point that surveys in the western channel have failed to spot any since the 1930s. More recently, numbers of blue and porbeagle sharks are believed to have fallen. The porbeagles are believed to be taken by Danish and French fleets, while Spanish long-line vessels take blue sharks migrating into British waters.
Last year, a team lead by David Sims of the Marine Biological Association in Plymouth tagged six blue sharks off the coast of Portugal to investigate their fate. Two were landed by fisheries within three months. “The ones that get here may be the survivors,” he said.
Dr Sims said the lack of hard data makes it extremely difficult to produce reliable assessments of fish populations, adding that many predators have such varied diets that cascade effects through ecosystems are complex and often difficult to pinpoint.
“There’s no doubt the fisheries are having an impact on the big shark populations, but what we really don’t know is what the ecosystem effects of that will be. There could be other factors involved that haven’t been measured,” he added.

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

Shark’s teeth

There is something unique about sharks’ teeth! A shark without teeth could not survive; it would starve.  Therefore, unlike many other animals like dogs and canines, sharks continuously get new teeth to replace those that fall out.  A shark’s mouth generally contains five or more rows of teeth, one behind the other. All rows, with the exception of the first, lay flat in the animal’s mouth. The next row rises up to replace any teeth that have fallen out or were broken. Sharks always make new teeth and have always spare rows of teeth.  Sharks’ teeth are adapted to what they eat. Unlike humans, sharks do not chew. They are not omnivores, but carnivores. They use their teeth to grasp prey and, if needed, tear the prey into smaller chunks they can swallow.  Most shark teeth are very sharp. Sharks’ jaws are powerful and the sharp teeth are capable of cutting through bone and even thin steel chains.

Shark teeth vary from being ferocious-looking curved spikes to flat triangular points, to points that are so small that they are not used for anything at all.  The larger sharks, like the great white and the tiger shark, have triangular teeth with jagged edges. This helps to keep hold of large fish and animals so as to tear chunks of meat from their bodies or slice through a turtle’s shell. A sand tiger’s teeth, on the other hand, are long and narrow which make them look frightening, but in fact this type of shark is not very aggressive. The shape of its teeth is ideal for grabbing hold of slippery prey, like fish and squid. However, the whale shark, one of the biggest sharks on earth, has very small teeth. Whale sharks don’t use their teeth for biting because they simply filter their food.

« Previous PageNext Page »