Shark Words

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...