Is it legal to sell shark fins?

Do Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) protect sharks?

Sharks can be protected within certain MPA boundaries. But, many MPAs still allow fishing. Their size and effectiveness can be limited and the no-take zone, where no fishing can take place, usually represents a limited percentage of the MPA. Importantly, enforcement of the regulations is sometimes--some would say usually--inadequate.

As of February 2009, there were approximately 5000 MPAs located around the world – although only 0.8 of one percent of the world's oceans are actually included in marine protected areas.

Is Shark Finning illegal?

Shark Finning laws have been passed in several countries not only because shark finning is cruel, but also as a conservation measure because fewer sharks are generally killed if the fishermen must bring the entire shark to shore.

Only a small number of countries have banned finning and many more need to be encouraged to enact legislation. In some cases, only whole sharks may be landed, meaning the fins must be attached to the body. In other cases, the fins may be removed by the bodies for packing in the boat, but the vessel may not land shark fins that weigh more than 5 percent of the "dressed" weight of the sharks: that is, the weight of the carcass after the removal of the head and innards. Laws that require the fins to be landed still attached is better from a conservation standpoint because the 5% rule is easily manipulated.

The following countries have Shark Finning regulations:
American Samoa, Argentina , Australia (most States Territories), Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, European Union, India, Mexico, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Panama, Seychelles (foreign vessels only), South Africa (in national waters only), Spain, United States

Is shark fishing illegal?

Sharks are over-fished primarily for two reasons: 1) there is very high demand for their fins, with a few species also valued for their meat, and 2) sharks are very slow to reproduce when compared to other types of fish. One cannot fish for sharks at the rate that other fish are fished, using industrial methods of fishing like longlines, gillnets, and purse seines without severe population declines being the result.

Banning shark fishing is the best way to protect sharks. Short of a complete ban, there must be significant restrictions on shark fishing.

There are legal shark fisheries all over the world, many of which have little or no monitoring or management, even though major declines of shark stocks have been recorded in the last few decades. Many governments and the UN have acknowledged the need for shark fisheries management, but little progress has been made.

A number of countries have shark management plans, but these are not of equal quality from country to country. Many of the shark management plans establish quotas for shark fishing, but not all of these countries have species-specific quotas to ensure the most vulnerable species are protected. Even countries that have reasonably good protections, such as the United States and Australia, have quotas based on 'sustaining' already depleted shark populations. It is often very difficult to add new protections for specific species that are threatened.

Only the following countries / states have banned shark fishing entirely:
Congo-Brazzaville, French Polynesia (except for mako sharks), Israel, Republic of the Maldives, Palau, Honduras (moratorium), the US State of Hawaii

Why aren’t there more laws to protect sharks?

Little by little, though, more shark protections are being proposed and passed throughout the world. Pursuing legislation, however, is a frustratingly slow process.

Why don’t we put more sharks on CITES?

CITES is not a perfect vehicle to protect species, but it is the only treaty-based means to do so, with 175 countries that are contractually bound by the provisions of CITES. CITES meets as a Convention to consider new species once every two to three years for two weeks. Only a limited number of animal and plant species that are worthy of consideration are selected for the limited agenda. Species that are accepted to one of the Appendices must be approved by two-thirds of the member Parties.

At the last CITES conference in March 2010, seven shark species were considered for addition to the CITES II list (regulates trade). The case for listing all of these species was extremely strong, but not one of these shark proposals received the required two thirds of the vote.

It has been widely reported that commercial interests won out over the overwhelming scientific evidence, and there are also allegations of some countries buying the votes of other countries. As a result, the effectiveness and credibility of the CITES process is now in question. It will be interesting to see what happens in 2013 and we are hopeful that sharks will be more successful in the next Convention.

Does Legislation really protect sharks?

Given the stakes, many governmental officials may also lack the political will to enforce their legislation. Bribery and corruption are common – ensuring wealthy middlemen can continue acquiring their valuable fins for trade in other countries. For example in South Africa recently, a seized shipment of 4 tons of shark fins was sold back to the commercial fishery the fins were seized from.

Many economically strained countries do not realize the value the sharks can bring to their economies through tourism and healthier reefs and fisheries.

Providing the economic and environmental data to justify the protection of sharks in some of the most vulnerable parts of the world and developing shark sanctuaries that work is one of the primary focus areas for Shark Savers.