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...

  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. T h e Sustainable Shark Alliance, which is an allian ce 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 ...

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, ...

 A Fisherman’s Farce If you think that the shark fin trade is confined to Asia and a few dingy warehouses along the coast that are “somewhere else,” the fact is that all of the shark fisheries in the United States of America are part of the deadly trade. With The Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act , shark fishermen are pushing hard to make sure that they will continue to be able to profit from it and disseminating a large amount of propaganda about it that does not reflect the true facts. They claim that they fish sharks sustainably, so should not have to give up their lucrative profits. But the fact is that sustainable shark fishing is nothing but a fishermen’s farce. If history has taught us anything, it is that no animals can stand up to sustained, targeted, commercial killing—not whales, not turtles, not fish, and not sharks. Sharks have become so valuable due to the rising demand for their fins that intensive shark fishing spans all ocean...

With co-authors Dr. Brian W. Darvell and Professor Gilles Cuny, I recently published a paper in Marine Policy: Response to “A United States shark fin ban would undermine sustainable shark fisheries” D.S. Shiffman & R.E. Hueter, Marine Policy 85 (2017) 138–140 It showed that the authors had used incorrect figures in order to promote shark fishing in the USA in their paper and had also minimized the shark fin trade and the dangers of eliminating the oceans' top predators. The same authors reacted by publishing another paper which essentially said the same thing, except that it claimed to be a rebuttal of our paper, and made several incorrect statements about it — their paper was essentially a thinly veiled personal attack. Similarly, we became aware that those authors, who appear to be incapable of making any kind of intellectual argument, have been personally attacking us openly elsewhere on the Internet. So with my co-authors, I wrote a Letter to the Editor to make su...