Latest news with #sharkconservation
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Public policy expert praises movie Jaws (even with flaws) on 50th anniversary for helping (after harming) sharks
When Steven Spielberg's smash hit film Jaws opened in theatres in June 1975, it kindled a worldwide panic about shark bites that led many sharks to die by human hands. But as the original summer blockbuster nears its 50th anniversary, an expert on the politics of shark attacks has said it also deserves qualified praise for getting more people involved with shark conservation. Jaws 'provided the justification for, and weakened push-back against, all the anti-shark public policies that followed," acknowledged Chris Pepin-Neff, a public policy lecturer at the University of Sydney, in an article for Scientific American on Monday. "Yet, at 50 years old, Jaws is also a celebration of sharks, creating a fascination that helped lead to more than two generations of new shark researchers,' he writes. For nearly 20 years, Pepin-Neff has been studying how politicians in Australia and beyond respond to shark attacks, including how they draw on filmic examples to justify their actions — a phenomenon Pepin-Neff calls the "Jaws Effect.' They argue that interventions such as shark hunts, anti-shark netting, and baited traps do little to keep swimmers safe and do great harm to marine wildlife, propping up a false belief that the ocean can be governed by human institutions. "Initially, the movie's biggest impact was to portray shark bites as intentional "attacks" on swimmers," Pepin-Neff wrote. "[This] fictional story of the human-shark relationship ... has been one of the most successful Hollywood narratives in motion picture history.' The public 'believed this story of intentionality so completely that every shark bite was essentially a murder, and every shark a potential murderer, and the beach was the scene of a crime by a deviant monster against innocent beachgoers,' he notes. Shark populations have dropped drastically over the past few decades, and the film reportedly inspired a short-term burst of trophy fishing off the coast of the US. However, it's not clear how much Jaws had to do with the overall decline, because sharks are hunted commercially to make shark fin soup in far greater numbers than are killed for sport – or 'retaliation' or fear. Either way, Pepin-Neff also notes how many people involved with the making of the film later became strong advocates of shark protection, such as diver and documentarian Valerie Taylor and scientific consultant Leonard Compagno. Peter Benchley, who wrote the original novel that Spielberg's film is adapted from, spoke out frequently in support of sharks and wrote a book arguing that humans caused them more trouble than the other way around. 'Please, in the name of nature, do not mount a mindless assault on an endangered animal for making an innocent — however tragic — mistake,' he wrote in an open letter in 2000, urging Australians not to kill a shark that had recently killed a human. 'This was not a rogue shark, tantalized by the taste of human flesh and bound now to kill and kill again. Such creatures do not exist, despite what you might have derived from Jaws.' Spielberg too has said he "truly regrets" the impact Jaws had on sharks, joking that they might be "somehow still mad at [him] for the feeding frenzy of crazy sport fishermen that happened after 1975.' "Today, humanity has grown to have a better appreciation for all sharks, even those that swim near the beach," concluded Pepin-Neff. "We owe some of the public sentiment that it's 'safe to go back in the water' to Jaws.
Forbes
19-05-2025
- Science
- Forbes
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Passes New Shark Rules — With One Big Exception
At the recent 29th session of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission held in La Réunion, countries finally adopted a suite of shark conservation measures after years of lobbying by environmental groups. These new rules, which aim to cut down on shark bycatch and regulate harmful fishing practices, represent a significant step forward. But for some species… it may not be enough. The IOTC regulates fisheries for tuna and other highly migratory species like swordfish across the Indian Ocean. Tuna and sharks often swim in the same waters, so fishing fleets frequently haul in sharks as bycatch (animals fishers do not want, cannot sell, or are not allowed to keep). In some cases, like with blue sharks (Prionace glauca), they are caught in such high numbers that conservationists argue they should be managed as target species instead; blue sharks make up over 60% of swordfish fishery catches in the region. Many of these sharks species are also intentionally caught for their fins, which are used in delicacies and traditional medicine in parts of Asia. The newly passed resolution now requires that all sharks be landed with their fins still naturally attached, closing a major loophole that allowed for shark finning at sea. Cutting off a shark's fins and discarding the rest of the body not only kills the shark, but makes it nearly impossible to track which species are being caught. The new rule allows some flexibility, such as tagging fins and carcasses and storing them separately, but starting in 2028, any party wanting to use an alternative method will need to justify it with evidence. This change, IOTC argues, is a win for both enforcement and science. Also adopted were stricter retention bans that prevent fishers from keeping certain shark species if they are caught. Oceanic whitetips (Carcharhinus longimanus) and thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) were already protected under such bans. Whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) will be added to that list starting in 2026, assuming the IOTC's scientific committee gives it the green light. Meanwhile, blue sharks will soon be managed under a formal system that includes catch limits and quotas, a first for the species in the Indian Ocean. With updated data showing they're not currently overfished, this preemptive approach aims to keep it that way. But the shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus), already overfished and in danger of collapse, didn't receive the full protection that many hoped for. While there is now a partial retention ban, it applies only under specific conditions: if a mako is still alive when brought aboard, it must be released, but if it's dead (and if an observer or electronic monitoring system is on board) the vessel is allowed to keep it. Given that many makos are caught on wire traces, which virtually guarantee the shark won't survive the fight to the surface, critics say this rule is too weak to make a real difference. These wire traces are often made of steel and are used in longline fishing to prevent toothier fish (like sharks) from biting through the line. They also increase shark catchability (and at times, mortality). The IOTC has now restricted their use, but only in the area north of 20 degrees south latitude. That leaves much of the southern Indian Ocean, including key fishing zones for Spain and other EU countries, unaffected. Since EU fleets tend to fish in those southern waters and use electronic monitoring, they're allowed to keep dead makos while others are not. That discrepancy has drawn sharp criticism from conservation groups, who argue it undermines the intent of the ban and could keep mortality levels far too high for mako populations to recover. Scientific advice suggests mako mortality needs to drop by 60% to give the species a fighting chance. The current resolution likely won't achieve that, and some observers fear it could be too late already. Still, the IOTC considers the adoption of even a partial ban a success, though one unevenly shared. EU officials defended their position by pointing out that many developing coastal nations lack the resources to monitor their fleets as rigorously, leading to gaps in reporting. Without stronger commitments and better data, the path to true recovery for sharks like the shortfin mako remains uncertain.
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
CT lawmakers poised to pass protections for sharks from a ‘cruel,' bloody practice. What to know
After years of trying, Connecticut appears poised to join its neighbors in instituting a ban on a 'cruel' practice that has contributed to decreasing numbers of sharks throughout the world. Shark finning is the practice of fishing sharks, cutting off their fins and tail and dumping them still alive back into the ocean where they inevitably die of drowning or blood loss. The fins are among the most profitable of all seafood, selling for hundreds of dollars per pound or over a $1,000 per fin, according to published reports. The fins are particularly valued in parts of Asia, where they are served almost exclusively in shark fin soup. The dish, first served by emperors, was thought to have medicinal benefits and was considered a symbol of prosperity and hospitality. Shark fin soup continues to be served in restaurants and at weddings, banquets and celebrations despite widening bans, thus demand continues. While shark fins, though themselves virtually tasteless, are prized, the rest of the shark is not and so fishermen trying to conserve space on their boats cast the mutilated animals overboard after slicing off their fins. Today shark finning has been banned in most countries and the Chinese government has worked to discourage the practice but shark finning continues, with dried, processed and fresh fins sold throughout the world. A watchdog site listed a now-closed New Haven restaurant as offering the dish as well as numerous others in the U.S. According to Oceana in 2023, 'Fins from as many as 73 million sharks end up in the global shark fin market every year.' Connecticut is home to five species of sharks: the spiny dogfish, the smooth dogfish, the dusky shark, the brown shark, also known as the sandbar shark, and the sand tiger shark. Some of the species are protected from fishing. Those species have been increasing as water quality has improved and the ecosystem recovers enough to support their need for abundant food, experts from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection have said. While shark finning has had a devastating impact on shark populations, bans and conservation efforts have helped species to rebound. In 2000, the U.S. passed the Shark Finning Prohibition Act, which was updated in 2010 to require all sharks except one species to be 'landed' with their fins attached. While those laws sought to end shark finning in U.S. waters, the sale and trade of shark fins in the country was still legal until 2023, when the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act took effect. Several states have passed their own regulations, including New York, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Efforts in Connecticut were stalled over exceptions, now included in the 2025 House Bill 5012, which passed the House unanimously on Tuesday. This year's bill was co-sponsored by Rep. Joe Gresko, D-Stratford, an environment committee member and former chair and now deputy speaker. 'It's important for Connecticut to continue to be a leader as far as protection of our wildlife,' he said by phone Friday. 'We have been witnessing at least in our lifetime the repopulation of some species that had long been gone from our state, that includes in the waters of Long Island Sound. So we want to keep that momentum going.' Codifying a ban in Connecticut statutes will close any loopholes and discourage those 'looking to skirt the law … so maybe they'll reconsider this practice which is really the worst of the worst as far as treatment of animals,' Gresko said. The bill says 'no person shall possess, sell, offer for sale, trade or distribute a shark fin.' It makes exceptions for 'any person who holds a license or permit to take or land sharks when separating a fin or tail from a lawfully landed shark during the ordinary course of preparing the body of the shark for consumption, sale, trade or distribution, provided such fin or tail that is separated from the shark shall be immediately destroyed unless it is used by such person for the purpose of personal consumption or taxidermy.' It also makes exceptions for scientific research or educational purposes. Violating the proposed new law would be classified an infraction with an accompanying fine. The exceptions that entangled previous years' versions of the bill are included in HB 5012: It does not protect any species in the order Batoidea or any smooth hound. That means rays and smooth dogfish sharks are exempt from the ban. The exemptions mirror federal regulations, Gresko said. Rays and smooth dogfish have more abundant populations. Dogfish, a smaller fish, are fished commercially for their meat and are less likely to be discarded after finning. They also reproduce more quickly than the larger shark species, he said. In written testimony, while supporting the bill, advocates including Rep. Mary Mushinsky, Annie Hornish, Connecticut state senior director of The Humane Society, Susan Eastwood, chapter chair of the Sierra Club and Lori Brown, executive director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, all called for the exemptions for rays and smooth dogfish to be removed. The bill has moved to the Senate calendar and is awaiting a vote.
