Shark Read online

  Methods and techniques which should be used for releasing sharks are basically the same whether the fish is to be tagged or not. Always have good gloves and a wet towel handy and if possible a soft, shady surface on which to place the shark. When a shark is brought to the boat, either net it, or swing it on board and quickly lay it horizontally, preferably on a soft carpet or piece of sponge. Always avoid placing fish on hot surfaces since their skin may be quite prone to burning. Hold the shark firmly behind the head, and around the tail wrist, using gloves and/or a wet towel, and try to remove the hook if possible. If the hook cannot be easily removed, the line or trace should be cut as close to the mouth as possible. More often than not, hooks will eventually fall out, or pass through the digestive tract whereas attempting to remove a deeply lodged hook could damage internal organs or blood vessels. The internal organs of many species of shark tend to be rather loosely held in place by connective tissue. In the water, these organs are supported by the surrounding medium, but if the shark is lifted vertically, especially by the tail, connective tissue may tear internally. There is also the danger of straining or tearing tendons which hold the vertebrae in place . . .13

  The outlook for deepwater shark species is bleak. As shown in the previous chapter, high seas bottom trawling destroys both habitats and ecosystems. The catch constraints placed on licensed fishing fleets have led to large-scale commercial poaching. The nutrient-rich deep waters around seamounts and cold-water corals attract enormous quantities of valuable teleosts which are targeted by both legal fishing fleets and illegal poaching trawlers. There are tens of thousands of seamounts, supporting any number of unknown life forms, but many of them have been damaged or destroyed. Conservation regulations are not easily enforceable on the high seas. The legal decimation of orange roughy stocks in the Southern Ocean off Tasmania and the illegal decimation of Patagonian toothfish stocks in the Southern Ocean near Antarctica both stand as grim testament to the rapidity and thoroughness with which demand was met at the expense of the marine environment. In 1997, orange roughy bottom trawling raised 1.6 tonnes of smashed coral to the surface for every hour of fishing time.14 By 1998 the Patagonian toothfish fishery had ‘reached the point of commercial extinction. In 1997 the total illegal catch of Patagonian toothfish was around 100,000 tonnes with a value of over AUD$760 million.’15 In the Atlantic the deepwater Portuguese shark and the leafscale gulper shark were fished out in just 20 years.

  The oceans’ deeps are critically important environments. Over 60 per cent of the planet’s surface water extends to depths beyond 1000 metres. Deepwater elasmobranchs are defined as those found at depths of 200 metres or more, their habitat being, ‘on or over the continental and insular slopes and beyond, including the abyssal plains and oceanic seamounts’.16 About half of the known species of sharks, batoids and chimaeras fall into this category, the least studied being those in the deepest reaches, but an estimated 20 per cent of deepwater species remain taxonomically undescribed. The reproduction rates of deepwater species are thought to be particularly slow, meaning that they are acutely vulnerable to overfishing—possibly to any form of exploitation at all. Three nations that most exploit these deep waters are Spain, Russia and New Zealand.

  Scientific research into the spatial dynamics of shark and ray populations has become a key factor in the chondrichthyan conservation effort. The more that is known about a species’ movement patterns, migratory routes, nursery grounds and feeding habitats, the better the advice that can be given to organisations and authorities charged with combating excessive and illegal marine exploitation. Given that so many species are known to be under threat, it could be assumed that such research would be given top priority. Unfortunately, this is not the case, primarily because of the costs involved: ‘Satellite tagging that provides information on actual migratory routes—rather than just start and end positions—and on depth behaviour is expensive . . . conventional tagging requires tagging large samples of each component of the population—newborns, juveniles, adult males, adult females . . . genetic studies require collection of large samples from different areas . . .’17

  Many governments are not prepared to fund such work, the complexities (and, therefore, the costs) of which are compounded by the huge distributions of species such as the blue shark, oceanic whitetip and great white. As an illustration of the difficulties involved in studying the large-scale spatial dynamics and population structures of the great white, pop-up satellite tagging in 2002 and 2003 revealed the surprising information that ‘a white shark performed a previously unknown fast transoceanic return migration spanning the entire Indian Ocean, swimming coast-to-coast from South Africa to Australia and back’. The journey also involved dives to depths of nearly 1000 metres and tolerance of water temperatures as low as 3.4 degrees Celsius.18

  Global problems require global solutions. The United Nations, through its agency the IUCN, has for many years been working to manage and protect the world’s flora and fauna. Over 10 000 scientists and experts are networked to the IUCN through its many subsidiary agencies, chief among which are the Species Survival Commission (SSC) specialist groups representing amphibians and reptiles, birds, invertebrates, mammals, plants and fishes. (To name but a few: the Crocodile Specialist Group; the Marine Turtle Specialist Group; the Flamingo Specialist Group; the Mollusc Specialist Group; the Antelope Specialist Group; the Canid Specialist Group; the Arabian Plant Specialist Group.) There are six fish groups: coral reef fish; grouper and wrasse; salmonids; sturgeon; freshwater fish; and sharks.

  The Shark Specialist Group (SSG) came into being in 1991. Its membership is selected from eleven geographic regions.19 In addition to working on conservation, research, management and education issues, its major goal is to carry out Red List assessments for all of the known species of chondrichthyans—a significant and challenging undertaking. The SSG also works closely with CITES and TRAFFIC, the agency monitoring the international trade in wildlife.

  In 1999, the FAO published a significant resolution, the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, commonly known as ‘IPOA-Sharks’. The resolution comprises approximately 30 points for conservation and management actions by member states of the FAO. Some are straightforward, some complex and open to interpretation:

  States, within the framework of their respective competencies and consistent with international law, should strive to cooperate through regional and subregional fisheries organizations or arrangements, and other forms of cooperation, with a view to ensuring the sustainability of shark stocks, including, where appropriate, the development of subregional or regional shark plans . . . Where transboundary, straddling, highly migratory and high seas stocks of sharks are exploited by two or more States, the States concerned should strive to ensure effective conservation and management of the stocks.20

  The SSG is the key body which assesses the implementation of this resolution. In 2002, it reported that there had been ‘negligible progress . . . largely because the IPOA-Sharks is wholly voluntary and appears not to be considered a priority by many shark fishing States or Regional Fisheries Management Organizations’.21 Sadly, but not surprisingly, only a handful of countries have drawn up comprehensive strategies for management of their fisheries, and most of those are wealthy nations that can afford to put relatively strict controls on this area of their income generation.

  IPOA-Sharks was also supposed to have been a trigger for each member nation to investigate formally the present status of its shark catch and related shark stock issues within its exclusive economic maritime zone, but very few of these investigations have been completed. One which has is The Australian Shark Assessment Report (2002), a comprehensive 200-page document compiled for the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry by a shark advisory group whose 21 participants were drawn from State Fisheries Management Authorities, Commonwealth bodies, the recreational fishing industry and indigenous, scientific and conservation bodies. It is an
interesting survey of a nation ranked well down the list of shark catchers and producers (taking less than two per cent of the annual global catch). Some facts and statistics:

  • Australia’s vast Economic Exclusion Zone (EEZ) extends for 200 nautical miles around the continent and to the same extent around Norfolk Island, Lord Howe Island, Christmas and Cocos Islands, Macquarie Island, Heard Island and the Antarctic waters off its Australian territories. Each of the country’s six states has jurisdiction over the first three nautical miles from its shores.

  • Statistics are compiled for six forms of shark take: directed (targeted), non-directed (incidental), bycatch (discarded incidental), byproduct (retained incidental), recreational (from shore, private boat, charter, game fishing) and beach protection programs.

  • Statistics are unknowable for shark ‘cryptic mortality’ from such factors as net drop out (entangled sharks which fall out or are eaten by other sharks), ghost fishing (lost nets in which sharks can get entangled and drown), high voltage submarine cables linking electricity grids, seismic activity resulting from oil and mineral exploration, and fatal damage to caught sharks returned to the water.

  • Australian waters are home to 322 known species of sharks, rays and chimaeras, half of which are endemic to Australian waters and most of which are demersal. Some 50 species are listed as being of concern.

  • Sharks represented less than five per cent of Australia’s annual fish catch in 1998–99, at a total of 8593 tonnes valued at AU$22.7 million.

  • In the same period the gummy shark represented nearly one-third of the shark catch, followed by the school shark at just under ten per cent and the dogfish at just under five per cent. Species such as hammerheads and wobbegongs represented less than one per cent each. Fully one-third of sharks taken were classified as unidentified.

  • Queensland and New South Wales together have shark protection measures—drums, hooks and meshing—at 121 beaches. About two sharks are caught this way in Queensland each day, about one every two days in New South Wales. There has been a significant reduction in sharks taken this way since the 1970s, but it is not known if this reflects population decreases (or possibly increased shark awareness of nets).

  • Australia has an estimated four million recreational anglers who fish for 50 million days per year.

  • Finning is banned in Australian waters.

  • Cartilage processing is increasing.

  • Exploitation management processes include estimating the total biomass of a species and reducing that mass to no more than a certain percentage of that total.

  • Overwhelmingly, the Australian shark fishing industry is for the fish and chip trade.

  • The Game Fishing Association of Australia recognises eight species of shark for competition game fishing: blue, tiger, gummy, porbeagle, hammerhead, thresher, mako and whaler. The great white shark is no longer recognised because of its protected status.22

  This report served as the working document for Australia’s National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (Shark-plan), released in 2004. Shark-plan is ‘a national guide for managers and interested stakeholders on how to better incorporate shark conservation and management issues into the management of fisheries and the broader marine environment’.23 It sets out ten Objectives, identifies eighteen Issues, six broad Themes and 43 Actions—a classic case of bureaucracy-speak, except that this is no laughing matter. The combination of species annihilation and large-scale habitat destruction makes the rapid implementation of such an action plan all the more important. Thus each Issue addresses an Objective, and is a ‘need to’ or a ‘need for’, that is, an action that can be implemented. The Actions are graded according to priority for implementation, from ‘within 12 months’ to ‘within four years if not sooner’. The responsible agencies for each Action are clearly identified and funding issues are addressed. It is, in effect, a Business Plan for Sharks, with a committee set up to begin implementing its recommendations.

  As more and more people become aware of the uncertain future facing the planet’s elasmobranchs, an impressive range of organisations throughout the world have emerged, all dedicated to shark conservation. Collectively they play a major role in educating and informing the general public and lobbying governments, with a freedom perhaps denied to some of the government-affiliated agencies equally devoted to shark conservation. A representative sample of entities wholly or partly dedicated to some form of elasmobranch conservation shows that many are closely linked. This sampling can be categorised broadly by type (although there is a good deal of crossover between types): national/international; regional; educational; advocacy; single species; single focus. The youthfulness of most of these organisations reflects the reality that not very long ago shark conservation did not exist, but it also confirms that we have come a long way since Jaws.

  Some national and international shark conservation organisations

  The European Elasmobranch Association, founded in 1996, coordinates the activities of numerous European organisations involved in shark conservation, management, education and research. In other words, it is an association of organisations, not individuals. At present, organisations from nine countries are involved and the association’s members meet annually. One example of its work is a major report published in 2007. The report focused on the European Union’s regulation of the ban on finning and concluded that ‘the current EU Shark Finning Regulation cannot be characterized as effective’, setting out a raft of recommendations including a ‘fins attached’ policy, that is, sharks should not be processed until landed at the dock. The report urges its members to lobby EU officials to enact appropriate legislation.24

  The American Elasmobranch Society, founded in 1983, has nearly 600 American and international members (individuals). It is a non-profit organisation that seeks to advance ‘the scientific study of living and fossil sharks, skates, rays, and chimaeras, and the promotion of education, conservation, and wise utilization of natural resources’.25 The society’s annual meeting gives rise to management resolutions such as the following from 2006, in respect of the sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumlseus):

  Whereas the most recent, peer-reviewed stock assessment for northwest Atlantic Ocean sandbar sharks is significantly less optimistic than the previous assessment; Whereas National Marine Fisheries Service scientists have determined that this sandbar population is in an overfished state and overfishing is occurring; Whereas Atlantic sandbar sharks are now estimated to require more than 60 years to rebuild from their current overfished state; and Whereas the sandbar shark has been the most important species in US Atlantic commercial and recreational shark fisheries; Therefore Be it Resolved that the American Elasmobranch Society urges the National Marine Fisheries Service to immediately begin the process to reduce fishing mortality on sandbar sharks by strengthening Atlantic fishing regulations.26

  In the same year a subcommittee of the Society undertook an ‘AES International Captive Elasmobranch Census’, conducted in 64 aquariums in the United States and 48 in Europe, Australasia, Africa and elsewhere in the world. The census recorded just under 10 000 captive individuals, comprising 103 species of ray, 86 species of shark and two species of chimaera, with by far the most common captives being the cownose ray, followed by the bamboo shark. At the other end of the scale, sixteen bull sharks were recorded, four tiger sharks and five whale sharks.

  The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia’s national science agency, was founded in 1926 and is active across many disciplines. Its Hobart-based Marine and Atmospheric Research division (CMAR) looks after one of the world’s largest national marine jurisdictions and cooperates in many regional and international projects, including elasmobranch research. CMAR is concerned with ecosystems-based fisheries management, including the effects of fishing on non-target species. A total of 480 great whites have been tagged by CSIRO since 1974—that auspicious shark year in which Peter Benchley’
s Jaws was first published as an instant bestseller. One satellite tagging programme, in which tags were inserted in the dorsal fins of eleven sharks, enabled the animals to be tracked across great distances in the Southern, Indian and Pacific oceans. CMAR tracking has done much to improve our understanding of these endangered animals:

  The longest continuous satellite track of a white shark to date is for a 3.6-metre male nicknamed ‘Bruce’. Bruce was tagged at North Neptune Island in March 2004 by CMAR scientists with help from staff of the Melbourne Aquarium. Bruce remained around the Neptunes for several days before heading rapidly east through Bass Strait, then north along the NSW and southern Queensland coasts. He spent most of the winter in offshore waters east of Rockhampton. In late October, Bruce returned south and last transmitted from eastern Bass Strait in early November. Bruce covered a distance in excess of 6000 km during this eight month period.27

  CMAR’s acoustic tagging program tracks gulper sharks (Centrophorus spp.) in deep waters off the South Australian coast, where fishing severely depleted their numbers. In both cases, identifying a pattern of the sharks’ movements will enable scientists to advise on commercial fishing activities likely to impact further on the species.

  CMAR also maintains and develops the Australian National Fish Collection, with some 135 000 preserved specimens including many Indo-Pacific sharks and ray species. It is not a public access collection, its primary role being as a biodiversity reference and research tool.