Working together, several of the most influential conservation organisations have published a new global strategy to conserve sharks and rays. The report, published in January 2016, is a partnership of IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Shark Specialist Group (SSG), Shark Advocates International, The Shark Trust, TRAFFIC, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and is the product of an intensive 18 month planning process.
The primary goal of the global strategy is to halt the decline of shark and ray populations globally and to improve the conservation status of the worlds shark and ray species. This main goal will be driven by three further goals which are to have been achieved by 2025:
"2025 Sustainable Fisheries Goal: Fisheries driven overexploitation and waste of sharks and rays are substantially reduced through increased adoption and implementation of sound, science-based fisheries management measures in at least 40 priority countries and in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ)"
"2025 Responsible Trade Goal: Effective trade controls are in place to ensure international trade in sharks and rays, and the products derived from them, is legal, sustainable and traceable."
"2025 Responsible Consumption Goal: The demand for (largely unsustainable) shark and ray meat, fins, squalene, manta and devil ray gill plates, and freshwater stingrays is significantly reduced in the most important global markets, while markets increasingly demand that any shark and ray products are sustainably produced and traceable."
This global management strategy comes at a critical time for the worlds sharks and rays. Not only are populations being exponentially reduced by the practise of shark finning, but unsustainable fishing practices mean that shark populations are being depleted at a faster rate than they can restock. in addition to this a general paucity of data on global shark populations and fisheries means many species are hard to assess and thus protect. Whilst 181 of the 1,038 known shark and ray species are listed in one of the three threatened categories in the IUCN Red List, almost half of the total number are listed as Data Deficient, meaning that we do not yet have enough information on the particular species in order to make an assessment of its conservation status.
Urgent attention will be given to the most threatened species first which includes the sawfishes, angel sharks, guitarfishes and wedgefishes; these families all contain species which have been classified as Critically Endangered or Endangered by the IUCN Red List.
Implementation of this global strategy will require extensive engagement with the public and governments in the primary target countries as well as continued research to bridge the gaps in current data. However, ambitious as this strategy is it is entirely necessary if shark and ray populations are to be protected; more heartening perhaps is the commitment that these large conservation organisation have promised towards protecting the worlds sharks and rays by releasing this strategy.
Bräutigam, A., Callow, M., Campbell, I.R., Camhi, M.D., Cornish, A.S., Dulvy, N.K., Fordham, S.V., Fowler, S.L., Hood, A.R., McClennen, C., Reuter, E.L., Sant, G., Simpfendorfer, C.A. and Welch, D.J. (2015). Global Priorities for Conserving Sharks and Rays: A 2015–2025 Strategy.
Tuesday, 1 March 2016
Saturday, 27 February 2016
Crackdown on illegal shark fishing in Dubai
Posting on their Facebook Page on Wednesday, Dubai Municipality have reported that the Environment Department have confiscated a large number of sharks from Deira fish market. The sharks had been landed at a time of the year when shark fishing is not permitted in the UAE and the photos showed the fins had been removed from the carcasses - something which is also illegal in the UAE.
According to Ministerial Decree No. 500 - which came into effect on the 1st September 2014 - registered fishermen may only fish for sharks between the 1st of July to the end of January the following year; in addition to this the Government has put in place further restrictions on shark fishing in the waters around the UAE. Fishermen may only use circle hooks to catch sharks; circle hooks have been proven to be more humane than J hooks (See The Shark Post: Researchers in Brazil find new techniques to improve the survival rate of tiger sharks caught in longline fisheries). The decree also forbids the taking of shark and manta species listed in CITES appendix I and II and enforces a 5 mile exclusion zone around the mainland. More importantly, the UAE Government has addressed the issue of shark finning by making it illegal to catch sharks solely for their fins. In addition to this sharks must be brought to land whole, preventing the removal of fins at sea.
Evidence that the Dubai Government is enforcing these laws and issuing heavy penalties to the violators is good news as it shows their commitment to protecting the fish species in their waters.
 |
| Sharks which had been illegally landed at Deira fish market. Photo credit: Dubai Municipality |
Evidence that the Dubai Government is enforcing these laws and issuing heavy penalties to the violators is good news as it shows their commitment to protecting the fish species in their waters.
Wednesday, 24 February 2016
Lemon sharks benefit from Marine Protected Area in Turks & Caicos
You may be forgiven for thinking that the creation of a marine protected area (MPA) would obviously lead to a greater abundance and diversity of marine life within the MPA as oppose to outside it's boundaries. However whilst creating marine reserves does typically lead to a greater density and size of organisms within the reserve boundaries, it is not to be assumed that this will be the case and until the particular reserve has been assessed it's success may largely be unknown.
In 1992, Bell Sound Nature Reserve (BSNR) in the Turks and Caicos Islands was established with a view to protect juvenile bonefish which are targeted in the Turks and Caicos Islands. A team of shark researchers led by Aaron Henderson from the Center for Marine Resource Studies in South Caicos have investigated whether this MPA is also having an effect on populations of the lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris).
Lemon sharks are classified as Near Threatened in the IUCN Red List as they are caught in both commercial and recreational fisheries; as yet no management plans have been put in place to protect these sharks.
The researchers observed higher numbers of lemon sharks within BSNR than in the waters outside the reserve. Lemon sharks do exhibit a preference for shallower water and so the increased quantity of sharks within BSNR could be owing to habitat selection rather than protection from fishing, however he researchers surmised that the protection from predation offered by the MPA was attractive to the sharks and could cause them to want to remain in the reserve as oppose to moving outside.
Whilst the reasons for the higher number of sharks inside the MPA as oppose to outside is not yet entirely clear, the conclusions drawn were that BSNR is important to the local juvenile lemon shark population.
In 1992, Bell Sound Nature Reserve (BSNR) in the Turks and Caicos Islands was established with a view to protect juvenile bonefish which are targeted in the Turks and Caicos Islands. A team of shark researchers led by Aaron Henderson from the Center for Marine Resource Studies in South Caicos have investigated whether this MPA is also having an effect on populations of the lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris).
Lemon sharks are classified as Near Threatened in the IUCN Red List as they are caught in both commercial and recreational fisheries; as yet no management plans have been put in place to protect these sharks.
The researchers observed higher numbers of lemon sharks within BSNR than in the waters outside the reserve. Lemon sharks do exhibit a preference for shallower water and so the increased quantity of sharks within BSNR could be owing to habitat selection rather than protection from fishing, however he researchers surmised that the protection from predation offered by the MPA was attractive to the sharks and could cause them to want to remain in the reserve as oppose to moving outside.
Whilst the reasons for the higher number of sharks inside the MPA as oppose to outside is not yet entirely clear, the conclusions drawn were that BSNR is important to the local juvenile lemon shark population.
Sunday, 21 February 2016
Shark teeth could pave the way to new dental therapies for humans
Whilst humans might be able to make do with a set of false teeth once the two sets we have during our lives have worn out, tooth loss is more critical amongst the rest of the animal kingdom. Elephants, for example, have 6 sets of replacement molars and once they have all been worn down the animal will die from starvation - a major cause of death in mature elephants. Sharks however, have developed a strategy to deal with the problem of tooth loss and that is to have unlimited sets of new teeth during their lifetime - something which most other vertebrate lineages have lost.
The genetic basis for tooth regeneration in sharks has recently been investigated by scientists at University of Sheffield using the catshark (Scyliorhinus spp.) as a model. The research indicated that the ancestral condition of vertebrates was likely to be that of constant tooth regeneration and that tooth development in vertebrates is governed by a core set of genes. The team discovered several potential reasons why sharks are able to produce unlimited sets of replacement teeth: firstly having a jaw made of cartilage as oppose to harder, bony material allows new teeth to constantly move forward replacing older, worn out teeth. Secondly sharks have an expanded dental lamina which houses multiple sets of teeth ahead of being required and the team suggests that this is essential for continuous tooth regeneration.
What is significant about these findings is how similar this core set of genes governing dental development is between sharks and our own species; in fact many of the genes which govern tooth development in vertebrates have thought to have remained unchanged for around 450 million years. The research suggests that slight genetic changes to this gene set could be the key to unlimited tooth regeneration as oppose to a finite set of teeth. Understanding how this gene set functions across the vertebrate lineage could contribute to the development of novel therapies for tooth loss in humans.
Rasch,L.J.,et al., An ancient dental gene set governs development and continuous regeneration of teeth in
sharks. Dev.Biol.(2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2016.01.038i
The genetic basis for tooth regeneration in sharks has recently been investigated by scientists at University of Sheffield using the catshark (Scyliorhinus spp.) as a model. The research indicated that the ancestral condition of vertebrates was likely to be that of constant tooth regeneration and that tooth development in vertebrates is governed by a core set of genes. The team discovered several potential reasons why sharks are able to produce unlimited sets of replacement teeth: firstly having a jaw made of cartilage as oppose to harder, bony material allows new teeth to constantly move forward replacing older, worn out teeth. Secondly sharks have an expanded dental lamina which houses multiple sets of teeth ahead of being required and the team suggests that this is essential for continuous tooth regeneration.
What is significant about these findings is how similar this core set of genes governing dental development is between sharks and our own species; in fact many of the genes which govern tooth development in vertebrates have thought to have remained unchanged for around 450 million years. The research suggests that slight genetic changes to this gene set could be the key to unlimited tooth regeneration as oppose to a finite set of teeth. Understanding how this gene set functions across the vertebrate lineage could contribute to the development of novel therapies for tooth loss in humans.
Rasch,L.J.,et al., An ancient dental gene set governs development and continuous regeneration of teeth in
sharks. Dev.Biol.(2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2016.01.038i
Monday, 15 February 2016
Predator and prey - even a whale shark isn't too much for a great white!
It seems as though great white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) are not adverse to taking on prey much bigger than themselves as two whale shark (Rhincodon typus) centra have been found amongst the stomach contents of a great white.
The centra - the central part of a vertebra - were removed from the stomach of a 4.5m long white shark which was caught in the 1960s at Cheynes Beach Whaling Station, Western Australia. The vertebrae remained at the Western Australian Museum until they were re-examined after a chance visit by Dr. Michael Newbrey from the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology in Alberta, Canada. Dr. Newbrey immediately identified the vertebrae - which had been mis-labelled all those years ago as belonging to a Basking Shark (Cetorhinus maximus) - as those of a whale shark. Based on the size of the centra, the individual they belonged to would have been at least 8.5m long.
The find raises a series of interesting questions. First of all, the ranges of the white shark and the whale shark do not commonly overlap; white sharks - whilst having a circumglobal distribution - prefer temperate waters whilst whale sharks are found in tropical and warm temperate seas. Secondly, did the white shark attack a live adult, whale shark or did it ingest the centra whilst scavenging from an already dead whale shark? White sharks are known to eat other elasmobranchs and have been observed feeding on dead baleen whales in certain areas so it is not out of the question that the whale shark was deceased by the time the great white came to feed on it.
Whilst we may never know the fate of the two sharks in this story, this new discovery is the first confirmed proof that white sharks will eat adult whale sharks, and that even the largest fish in the ocean is not safely off the menu for the worlds greatest predator (in this writers opinion :)
Read the article here
Glenn Moore's Blog @Western Australian Museum
The centra - the central part of a vertebra - were removed from the stomach of a 4.5m long white shark which was caught in the 1960s at Cheynes Beach Whaling Station, Western Australia. The vertebrae remained at the Western Australian Museum until they were re-examined after a chance visit by Dr. Michael Newbrey from the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology in Alberta, Canada. Dr. Newbrey immediately identified the vertebrae - which had been mis-labelled all those years ago as belonging to a Basking Shark (Cetorhinus maximus) - as those of a whale shark. Based on the size of the centra, the individual they belonged to would have been at least 8.5m long.
The find raises a series of interesting questions. First of all, the ranges of the white shark and the whale shark do not commonly overlap; white sharks - whilst having a circumglobal distribution - prefer temperate waters whilst whale sharks are found in tropical and warm temperate seas. Secondly, did the white shark attack a live adult, whale shark or did it ingest the centra whilst scavenging from an already dead whale shark? White sharks are known to eat other elasmobranchs and have been observed feeding on dead baleen whales in certain areas so it is not out of the question that the whale shark was deceased by the time the great white came to feed on it.
Whilst we may never know the fate of the two sharks in this story, this new discovery is the first confirmed proof that white sharks will eat adult whale sharks, and that even the largest fish in the ocean is not safely off the menu for the worlds greatest predator (in this writers opinion :)
Read the article here
Glenn Moore's Blog @Western Australian Museum
Tuesday, 9 February 2016
The 2015 Worldwide Shark Attack Summary is out!
According to the 2015 Worldwide Shark Attack Summary of the International Shark Attack File (ISAF), 2015 saw a record high number of unprovoked shark attacks. Out of a total of 164 recorded attacks, 98 were categorised as unprovoked; this figure surpasses the previous highest number of 88 unprovoked shark attacks in 2000.
However, before you go grabbing your speargun and practising the line "Smile you son of a bitch", it's important to point out that whilst the number of unprovoked attacks has risen in 2015, the overall rate of attacks could very well have remained unchanged or even fallen. The researchers who curate the ISAF attributed the increase in shark attacks to more humans in the water and better reporting of shark attacks rather than an increase in the rate of shark attacks. The researchers also caution against putting too much faith in short term trends owing to year to year variability of environmental conditions which can affect shark populations.
Of the 98 unprovoked shark attacks in 2015, there were only 6 fatalities worldwide and long term trends indicate that the rate of fatalities owing to shark attacks is decreasing. Whilst news of shark attacks will always draw media attention and excitement, the numbers pale into insignificance when compared to the 1.24 million people who were reported to have been killed in road traffic accidents in 2010.
Geographically the majority of the shark attacks occurred in North American waters, with Australia coming a close second with 18 unprovoked attacks - 1 of which was fatal. People participating in activities which caused a lot of surface turbulence such as surfers were the most vulnerable to attack whilst snorkellers constituted only 9% of the number of people attacked. There were no reports of unprovoked attacks on scuba divers in 2015.
The ISAF has been run from the Florida Museum of Natural History since 1988 and is the longest running database on shark attacks globally. As well as curating worldwide shark attack information, the ISAF also provides regular advice on shark attacks issues.
However, before you go grabbing your speargun and practising the line "Smile you son of a bitch", it's important to point out that whilst the number of unprovoked attacks has risen in 2015, the overall rate of attacks could very well have remained unchanged or even fallen. The researchers who curate the ISAF attributed the increase in shark attacks to more humans in the water and better reporting of shark attacks rather than an increase in the rate of shark attacks. The researchers also caution against putting too much faith in short term trends owing to year to year variability of environmental conditions which can affect shark populations.
Of the 98 unprovoked shark attacks in 2015, there were only 6 fatalities worldwide and long term trends indicate that the rate of fatalities owing to shark attacks is decreasing. Whilst news of shark attacks will always draw media attention and excitement, the numbers pale into insignificance when compared to the 1.24 million people who were reported to have been killed in road traffic accidents in 2010.
Geographically the majority of the shark attacks occurred in North American waters, with Australia coming a close second with 18 unprovoked attacks - 1 of which was fatal. People participating in activities which caused a lot of surface turbulence such as surfers were the most vulnerable to attack whilst snorkellers constituted only 9% of the number of people attacked. There were no reports of unprovoked attacks on scuba divers in 2015.
The ISAF has been run from the Florida Museum of Natural History since 1988 and is the longest running database on shark attacks globally. As well as curating worldwide shark attack information, the ISAF also provides regular advice on shark attacks issues.
Sunday, 7 February 2016
Sustainability of shark fisheries on the Great Barrier Reef
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) is known worldwide as a natural wonder: a protected underwater haven for tropical fish, sharks and other marine fauna. However, only 33% of this marine protected area is closed to commercial fishing activities - within the rest of the park commercial fishing boats are allowed to operate and to carry out large scale fishing activities such as trawling and gill netting.
This is not to say that these activities are allowed to happen unchecked, however. Commercial fishing within the park operates under strict zoning rules and, as with most commercial fisheries there are maximum fishing quotas and possession limits in place.
The difficulty with any type of commercial fishing activity is assessing whether the existing marine populations truly can bear the brunt of the fishing activity. The ocean is a huge area and species are typically wide ranging, making accurate assessment of animal numbers difficult.
In recent study published in Fisheries Research a team of researchers have discovered that some commercial fishing activities within the GBRMP may not be sustainable.
The study focused on tagging and assessing the three most commonly harvested sharks in the GBRMP: the Australian blacktip shark (Carcharhinus tilstoni), the Spot-tail shark (Carcharhinus sorrah), and the Spinner shark (Carcharhinus brevipinna). The Pigeye shark (Carcharhinus amboinensis) and the Australian Sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon taylori) were also included as two example of non-target species. In total, 3,413 sharks were tagged during the course of the study.
Whilst the team discovered that harvest rates were highest for the Pigeye shark it was summarised that the numbers were still around the acceptable optimal equilibrium harvest rate for this species. Only a small amount of the population of this stock were vulnerable to commercial fishing activity and therefore the species may be able to withstand greater fishing pressure. However such high harvest rates for this species are surprising as it is not a target species and is instead being caught as bycatch by fishing boats.
The more worrying outcome of the study was that whilst the annual harvest rate was lower for Australian Blacktip sharks than for Pigeye sharks, the current level of exploitation of this species could be too high. This is owing to 2 main factors: the population of Blacktip sharks in the GBRMP is thought to have a lower reproductive rate than populations from northern Australia making it more difficult for stocks to replenish themselves, and this species is available to commercial fisheries from age 0 meaning that all of the population can be fished at any stage of their life cycle.
Whilst these findings can only make assumptions about localised depletion of the study species within the GBRMP, the results are important and further research and monitoring is essential to ensure that fish stocks remain healthy in this marine protected area.
Harry et al. (2016) Assessment of a data-limited, multi-species shark fishery in the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park and south-east Queensland
This is not to say that these activities are allowed to happen unchecked, however. Commercial fishing within the park operates under strict zoning rules and, as with most commercial fisheries there are maximum fishing quotas and possession limits in place.
The difficulty with any type of commercial fishing activity is assessing whether the existing marine populations truly can bear the brunt of the fishing activity. The ocean is a huge area and species are typically wide ranging, making accurate assessment of animal numbers difficult.
In recent study published in Fisheries Research a team of researchers have discovered that some commercial fishing activities within the GBRMP may not be sustainable.
The study focused on tagging and assessing the three most commonly harvested sharks in the GBRMP: the Australian blacktip shark (Carcharhinus tilstoni), the Spot-tail shark (Carcharhinus sorrah), and the Spinner shark (Carcharhinus brevipinna). The Pigeye shark (Carcharhinus amboinensis) and the Australian Sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon taylori) were also included as two example of non-target species. In total, 3,413 sharks were tagged during the course of the study.
Whilst the team discovered that harvest rates were highest for the Pigeye shark it was summarised that the numbers were still around the acceptable optimal equilibrium harvest rate for this species. Only a small amount of the population of this stock were vulnerable to commercial fishing activity and therefore the species may be able to withstand greater fishing pressure. However such high harvest rates for this species are surprising as it is not a target species and is instead being caught as bycatch by fishing boats.
The more worrying outcome of the study was that whilst the annual harvest rate was lower for Australian Blacktip sharks than for Pigeye sharks, the current level of exploitation of this species could be too high. This is owing to 2 main factors: the population of Blacktip sharks in the GBRMP is thought to have a lower reproductive rate than populations from northern Australia making it more difficult for stocks to replenish themselves, and this species is available to commercial fisheries from age 0 meaning that all of the population can be fished at any stage of their life cycle.
Whilst these findings can only make assumptions about localised depletion of the study species within the GBRMP, the results are important and further research and monitoring is essential to ensure that fish stocks remain healthy in this marine protected area.
Harry et al. (2016) Assessment of a data-limited, multi-species shark fishery in the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park and south-east Queensland
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)