Shark Words

Although written in an authoritative style, Shiffman et al .’s paper “ The role and value of science in shark conservation advocacy ” (2021) contains a number of lethal flaws which invalidate it. In particular, it claims that the survey on which it is based shows that conservationists favour bans over sustainable shark fishing more than scientists. But in fact the survey of scientists cited (Shiffman & Hammerschlag 2016 b) showed that 63% of scientists favour bans while this paper states that only 41% of conservationists do. This mismatch between the findings of the two surveys and the claims of these authors invalidates much of what they state. Their survey also establishes that conservationists do in fact base their published information on scientific papers, rather than public belief or moral considerations, so the authors’ conclusion is seriously in error. Leaving aside for the moment the reason why alleged “shark scientists” would spend the time it took to write...

As The Year of the Shark 2019 draws to a close, we look out across the planetary oceans to learn the plight of sharks, after a year of spreading the word about their desperately needed protection.  What we see is that sharks are being targeted by international factory fleets around the world who trail millions upon millions of baited hooks through their realm, trawl the sea floors for rays, skates and other bottom dwellers to 4000 metres, and slaughter them by the millions. Sharks are the only profitable prey remaining, now that ninety percent of the original (fish) fisheries are fished out.   Thanks to the shark fin trade, the shark has become one of the most valued animals, with the result that these top predators are being targeted even by fleets that used to toss them out as trash. Their meat is thrust onto the markets and sold by different names; there is such a surplus that it is being used in everything from dog food to make-up.  Further, ...

With the loss of at least 90% of sharks worldwide, it would seem to be urgent to protect the ones that remain. Every global study of their status has reported a more dire situation than the last, and that the targeted hunt for the shark fin trade is responsible for their catastrophic depletion. Only one third of shark species are considered safe, and the most threatened are those accessible to fishing—those within about 1000 metres of the surface, or, for seafloor dwellers, 3000 metres in depth. Shark fins are among the most expensive seafood products. The total declared value of the world trade in shark products is close to US$1 billion per year and it is associated with much illegal activity, including murder. To supply it, intense shark fishing spans all oceans. Yet, as top predators, sharks have incalculable ecological importance and their removal has grave effects on the ecosystems where they live, as failures cascade down through the inter-tangled networks. Yet, shark...

Human stupidity is reaching new heights in the arguments put forth by American shark fisheries advocates in an effort to block  The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act of 2019. There are always scientists who are willing to speak up for industry and they, along with a variety of fisheries coalitions are  doing their best to keep it from becoming law. But their arguments amount to protesting that the ivory trade is good for elephants in the United States, or the trade in rhino horn is good for rhinos, in the United States.  This video debunks the main points raised by fisheries advocates. When shark fins bring in a fortune comparable to the drug trade, it is natural that these fishermen are going to fight and make up all sorts of stories to continue to get that money--it means so much to them. But The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act has determined that the amount of money that fishermen are losing is not enough to continue to perpetuate the monstrous shark fin ...

The Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act of 2017 was attacked by shark fisheries' advocates in a political opinion paper entitled,  “A United States shark fin ban would undermine sustainable shark fisheries.”   A new study, by shark ethologist Ila France Porcher, Dr. Brian W. Darvell of the University of Birmingham, and Professor Gilles Cuny, of the University of Lyon, demonstrates that the figures used in support of this claim were selectively chosen and misrepresented to support a pro-shark-fishing argument. The authors of the original paper, David Shiffman, of Simon Fraser University, and Robert Hueter, of Mote Laboratories, claimed that the United States is a small contributor to the shark fin trade. They stated that the Act was “misguided”, and argued that the United States of America should continue to participate in the shark fin trade, and that American shark fishermen should continue to profit from it, promoting the idea that banning the shark fin trade in ...

"The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act" is considered to be vital in the fight against shark finning. Yet shark fisheries lobbyists David Shiffman and Robert Hueter are doing their best to block it. They have published a paper opposing the legislation, which has been echoed by the press in ways suggesting that banning the shark fin trade in the United States could be "bad for sharks." But their short and vacuous paper gives only three reasons to support their position and concerns itself with the well-being of shark fisheries, not sharks.    Firstly, they state that passage of the Act will "undermine decades of progress made towards ensuring sustainable shark fisheries in the United States and around the world." But in the absence of any evidence or reasoning in support this allegation, it remains nothing more than an opinion. The statement is neither scientific nor relevant to the real issue. The second reason given is that the legis...