Jun 17, 2010

CSI in Real-World, Shark Conservation and Management — Better than TV!

by Mahmood Shivji

Shark populations around the world are being decimated by indiscriminate overfishing to supply the market demand for shark fin soup.  These severe and rapid population reductions of the ocean’s apex predators have led to legitimate worries about disruptions to the delicate balance of marine ecosystems.  The U.S. government, recognizing this looming environmental disaster, has made landings of 20 shark species deemed especially sensitive to overfishing illegal in U.S. Atlantic federal waters (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/Compliance_Guide/Comm/Comm_Compliance_Guide_QR_Sharks.pdf for list).

Shark "logs" Photo credit: M. Shivji, GHRI

Shark "logs" Photo credit: M. Shivji, GHRI

Until recently, shark species were landed as processed carcasses or “logs”, i.e., in gutted form with their heads, tails and fins removed (see photo).  The highly valuable, detached fins were kept separate from the carcasses.  Since many sharks are difficult to identify even as intact animals, this processing practice made it extremely difficult to determine whether legal or illegal species were being landed.  In fact, because of this species-identification difficulty, shark “finning” – the illegal practice where high value fins from some species (e.g., hammerhead, dusky, sandbar sharks) were landed without the corresponding carcasses, was commonplace.  To prevent finning, new government regulations established in July 2008 require the fins of sharks landed in the U.S. Atlantic fisheries to be “naturally attached” to the carcass when landed – i.e., they can still be cut along most of their attachment point as long as they remain dangling from the carcass by a small piece of uncut skin.  The cutting away of most of the fin is allowed so that the fishers can fold the fins back along the carcass to save on vessel storage space.  The shark’s head, however, can still be removed at sea. Unfortunately, even with this new regulation, identifying the species landed by visual inspection only is still difficult for the non-expert. Furthermore, this new regulation does not yet apply to sharks landed in U.S. Pacific fisheries.

Confiscated Shark Fins.  Photo credit: A. Samuels, NOAA OLE

Confiscated Shark Fins. Photo credit: A. Samuels, NOAA OLE

To help management agencies detect landings of illegal shark species, scientists from the Guy Harvey Research Institute (GHRI) at Nova Southeastern University pioneered the development of a rapid DNA forensics test to accurately identify shark body parts (carcasses, fins, fillets) to species. This test has routinely been used since 2003 to help NOAA’s Office for Law Enforcement and international government agencies enforce their regulations pertaining to illegal fishing of protected shark species.  The GHRI has assisted with over 20 such federal law enforcement cases, including one where the DNA analysis showed a U.S. fish dealer in illegal possession of fins from 19 great white sharks, a species considered by the IUCN (http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/3855/0)  at high risk for extinction in the wild.  This case resulted in the fish dealer being assessed US $ 750,000 in fines!

The GHRI’s DNA forensic test has given fishery managers extra “teeth” to enforce regulations that, although well intentioned, were previously difficult to implement.  We now have a powerful set of DNA-based, crime-fighting tools similar to those used in human criminal cases also being successfully applied in fish conservation and management.  High-tech “Fisheries CSI” is now a reality!  Ideas for a TV show, anyone?

LA. Times:                              http://www.nova.edu/ocean/ghri/latimes_dna.html

Conservation Magazine:         http://www.nova.edu/ocean/ghri/conservation_07.html

For a complete list of our other featured blog posts and to see the full line of Guy Harvey Sportswear, please visit: www.guyharveysportswear.com

Related posts:

  1. Hammerhead Shark Fins — Too Delicious for the Shark’s Own Good
  2. Marine Conservation Update
  3. Two Uncommon Species – The Blacktip Shark and Oceanic Whitetip Shark
  4. The Misunderstood Tiger Shark Shows Remarkable Migratory Behavior
  5. Oooops, That White Marlin is…not a White Marlin

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Anti-Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree