Misinformation Spread by the Shark Fishing Industry

 


Misinformation is being spread around by the shark fishing industry in an effort to take the focus off the dangers of the shark fin trade and see that The Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act is not passed. This Act would make the fin trade illegal in the USA, and conservationists consider it to be an important step towards weakening the lethal trade and working towards lessening shark mortality worldwide.

But the shark fishing industry intends to continue to sell its fins, and is promoting The Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act. The Sustainable Shark Alliance, which is an alliance of shark fishermen, processors and dealers, argues that it will solve the problem of shark depletion and render the complete ban on shark fins unnecessary.

But though the catch word “sustainable” makes it sound attractive, it would be impossible to supply the demand for shark fins from sustainable fisheries, if you actually look at the numbers. For many reasons, this Act would be impossible to put into practice. However, if enough misinformation is spread around, their persuasive propaganda could block the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act, to the detriment of sharks.

One of the most voluble spokesmen for the shark fishing industry is David Shiffman, a shark fisheries scientist, who argued in 2017 that the shark fin trade is “good for sharks.” He and his partner, Robert Hueter, are promoting H.R. 788, The Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act, while claiming to be shark conservationists. But they are not. They promote the shark fin trade. Shiffman, especially, has a long history of papers promoting shark fishing, including sports fishing of sharks, while suggesting that conservationists don’t know what they are talking about.

Word for word, the ideas expressed by the Sustainable Shark Alliance, (SAS) are almost identical to the points that David Shiffman and Robert Hueter make in their articles.

For example:

Point one: Law abiding American shark fishermen need to continue to make the same amount of money from their catch:

SAS:

"[The Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act] ensures that our domestic fishermen can continue to realize the full value of their strictly regulated catch."

S&H:

"The proposed fin ban would therefore eliminate about 23% of the ex-vessel value of legally caught sharks, causing economic harm to rule-following fishermen and undermining decades of progress towards sustainable shark fisheries management in the United States."

(In other words, American shark fishermen should profit from the shark fin trade, in spite of how depleted sharks have become.)

Point two: American fisheries losing out to unregulated or illegal fisheries from other nations:

SAS:

“...the net fins exported from sustainable American fisheries represented by SAS will be replaced by those from unmanaged and unsustainable fisheries,”

“Barring possession, domestic sales, exports, and imports of shark fins has no extraterritorial impact other than ceding the global fin market to nations with cruel and unsustainable fishing practices.”

“Sustainably-sourced fins from our well-managed fishery will be replaced by those from bad actors. Only American fishermen, abiding by the world’s strictest shark conservation laws, and sharks in unmanaged waters will suffer.”

S&H:

“...the elimination of United States-supplied fins in world markets would open the door to increased market share for IUU (illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing) nations not practicing sustainable shark fishing.”

(But the fin trade is so huge and sustainable shark fisheries are so few, if they still exist at all, that it would be impossible to supply the fin trade from sustainable fisheries.)

Point three: more sharks will be killed if the shark fin trade is banned:

SAS:

“In fact, limiting fin sales will make it more difficult for other nations to effectively manage their shark, skate, and ray fisheries because more of these fish will have to be caught to obtain the same level of income.”

S&H

“...the probability that a reduced value per shark may also cause fishermen to simply catch more sharks to obtain the same income as prior to a ban.”

(But American shark fishermen are supposed to be “rule following”.)

Point four: focusing on shark fins ignores the demand for meat.

SAS:

“Notably, however, it is demand for shark meat, which has sharply increased over the past couple of decades, and not the declining demand for fins, that is prompting the need for stepped-up conservation efforts in other parts of the world.”

S&H

“... a United States shark fin ban would likely not significantly and directly reduce shark mortality and would ignore the growing global trade in shark meat.”

(But it is the shark fin industry that has loaded toxic shark meat onto local markets as a result of fins attached regulations, where vendors have tried to sell it under other names.)


Shiffman and Hueter, through publishing their recent papers arguing in favour of the shark fin trade, have managed to give these ideas, and others along the same lines, the ring of scientific credibility, though they are not scientific—they are nothing but industry propaganda. But, once they are published in a scientific journal—even if it is a fisheries journal—they gain the same status as the results of pure scientific research, and become part of scientific truth.

Thus industry propaganda is laundered the way criminals launder money.

In my response to Shiffman & Hueter 2017, I systematically debunked each of their points using top scientific articles published on the status of sharks. This was not hard, because they all agreed; not one scientific paper supported their false, rhetorical claims. The figures they used were incorrect, and grossly misrepresented the facts to claim that the USA is scarcely involved in the shark fin trade, when, in fact, it is heavily involved.

The claim that it is the demand for meat that is threatening sharks is simply a lie. It twists the fact that the shark is killed for the value of its fins. But then what do you do with the shark? The meat has been proven to have high levels of mercury and other toxins so is likely dangerous to human health. No worries. The shark fishing industry loads the meat onto local markets, relying on the use of other names to sell it. This has been found to be true in countries around the world.

Another angle Shiffman uses to muddy the waters is to claim that there is a lot of disagreement among conservationists about what to do about shark depletion.

But that is not true. The disagreement is between the shark fishing industry, which wants to go on profiting from the shark fin trade, and conservationists (Shiffman is not a conservationist) who are raising the alarm because the expanding demand for shark fin soup, driven by high prices and profits, contrasted against the continuous depletion of the animals supplying the trade, is driving sharks to extinction.

Another way shark fishing propaganda is trying to confuse the facts is by saying that we need to be concerned about treating each species properly, so need more data. However, the shark fin trade is not at all concerned about what species the shark is, as long as it has fins. Every shark which is accessible to commercial fishing fleets is therefore in danger. This is reflected by the way one shark species after another is being listed on the IUCN redlist of threatened species. Some have been more resilient than others, but around the world, studies of shark catches reflect the same situation. Catches consist of mostly immature sharks—caught before reproducing, they will not be sustained.

More data on the status of many shark species is difficult and in many cases almost impossible to get. And while much money and time is spent trying to get more information, shark fishermen go on killing.

Sharks have become the only profitable prey, along with tuna, because the shark fin trade has made their fins valuable. It is daunting to see the effect on sharks around the world, just because of one recipe for one bowl of soup in just one of the world’s cultures. That national fishing fleets from around the world, including the western powers, are willing to profit from this trade is a telling comment on the ethics of shark fisheries.

Indeed, means must be found to end the domination of industry.

Please share this article to spread the word about the misinformation being broadcast by the shark fishing industry.

(c) Ila France Porcher

To subscribe to my newsletter, click HERE

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Letter to the Discovery Network

Image
To the Discovery Network: Members of our Internet shark discussion forum, SHARK-L, have been asked by your marketing representatives to help promote your famous Shark Week sequence. This letter, signed by list members and friends, is our formal response to the request from your grass roots agency, New Media Strategies, for our support of the programming. How can we support Discovery Channel when we are fighting for shark conservation, and its biggest obstacle is the monster image given to sharks by the media, including Shark Week programs? Further, some of us who have been directly involved in the production of your documentaries feel disgusted at the way that our interviews were censored and our words twisted around. Our group is comprised of scientists, researchers, educators, media companies, and many NGO's, lobbyists and others. In aggregate we represent a strong network of influence that can help or hurt the efforts of any Shark related programming or initiatives. In...
Read more

On the gestation period of the blackfin reef shark, Carcharhinus melanopterus in waters off Moorea, French Polynesia

Image
Originally published in the Journal "Marine Biology" at: http://link.springer.de   Abstract Underwater visual and photographic observations, over a four year period, monitored the presence of mating wounds on female Carcharhinus melanopterus . Mating begins in November and continues until the end of March as each female follows her own temporal cycle. Correspondingly, parturition begins in September and continues until January. Each female again mates 1.5 to 2.5 months after parturition, thus completing an annual reproductive cycle. The gestation period is 286 to 305 days, with slight individual differences. All resident sharks under observation followed this pattern. Evidence of reproductive events presented by transient females conformed with the pattern of the residents. Introduction The few studies postulating a gestation period for the reef blackfin shark Carcharhinus melanopterus have varied greatly in their conclusions. Based on an examin...
Read more

SHARKS DON'T BITE like we do

Image
Though sharks have gained a mythical reputation for being biters, their behaviour in nature is the opposite of what we would expect from the vicious animals depicted in the media. I had many opportunities to observe sharks under circumstances in which I expected them to bite, as a dog, cat, horse, or bird would tend to do. Yet they did not.  All other species, wild and tame, with whom I had the intimacy I shared with sharks, had bitten me sooner or later, either by accident or in a fit of pique; even my pet dog sometimes grabs my hand in her teeth along with the offered cookie.  Further, while the blackfin reef sharks I knew enjoyed roaming with favourite companions, I never saw them fighting with each other. They had friends but no enemies ! For years people had told me, and I half believed myself, that one evening I would be bitten and would bleed to death, or faint and drown. Since I was alone far from shore as night was falling, I could expect no one to...
Read more