Tags: Auswirkungen 

The Impact of the Shark Fin Trade

 With the growth of the shark fin trade over the past 30 to 40 years, shark species around the world have experienced dramatic population declines, including some total fishery collapses, as well as a drastic decline in their size and body mass.  Surveys done comparing sharks from the 1950s and the 1990s shows shark size to be significantly smaller, 50% or more in some species, with a lack of large individuals suggesting that over-exploitation has left few mature sharks in these populations.   

All 14 shark species most prevalent in the shark fin trade are now at risk of extinction.

We have listed the impact on the shark species most commonly found in the shark fin trade in decreasing order, however there are many more affected.  A total of 141 shark species are classified as threatened or near threatened with extinction, and others are data deficient, meaning there is not even enough information to decide if they are at risk.  

populationdeclines.jpg

Blue Shark

Status: Near Threatened

Population Declines:

In the Central Pacific by 87%1

In the Northwest Atlantic Ocean by 60%2

Great Hammerhead Shark

Status:  Endangered, Very High Risk of Extinction

Population Declines:

In South Africa by 79%3

In the Eastern Atlantic Ocean by 80%4

In the US Atlantic by 90%5

Collapsed populations in West Africa6

Scalloped Hammerhead Shark

Status: Endangered, Very High Risk of Extinction

Population Declines:

In Mexico by 62%7

In South Africa by 64%3

In the Northwest Atlantic Ocean by 98%8

In the Gulf of Mexico by 99%9

Collapsed populations in Belize10

Smooth Hammerhead

Status: Vulnerable, High Risk of Extinction

Population Declines:

In the Northwest Atlantic Ocean by 99%8

Silky Shark

Status: Vulnerable, High Risk of Extinction

Population Declines:

In Costa Rica by 60%11

Worldwide by 63%12

In the East Central Pacific Ocean by 65%13

In the Southeast Pacific Ocean by 65%13

In the Northwest Atlantic Ocean by 85%14

In the Gulf of Mexico by 91%15

In the tropical Central Pacific Ocean by 90%16

Oceanic Whitetip Shark

Status: Vulnerable, High Risk of Extinction

Population Declines:

In the Northwest and Central Atlantic Oceans by 70%17

In the Gulf of Mexico by 99%18

Common Thresher Shark

Status: Vulnerable, High Risk of Extinction

Population Declines:

In the Northwest and Central Atlantic Oceans from 50-80%19

In the Northeast Atlantic Ocean by 60-75%20

In the Eastern Central Pacific Ocean by 70%21

Pelagic Thresher Shark

Status: Vulnerable, High Risk of Extinction

Population Declines:

In the Northwest and Central Atlantic Oceans from 50-80%19

Bigeye Thresher Shark

Status: Vulnerable, High Risk of Extinction

Population Declines:

In the Eastern Central Pacific Ocean by 83%22

Sandbar Shark

Status: Vulnerable, High Risk of Extinction

Population Declines:

In Australia by 65%23

In the Northwest Atlantic Ocean by 84-97%24

In the South US Atlantic Ocean by 85-90%25

In the Northwest Pacific Ocean by 97%26

Shortfin Mako Shark

Status: Vulnerable, High Risk of Extinction

Population Declines:

In the Northwest Atlantic Ocean by 48%27

In the Mediterranean Sea by >99%28

In the Adriatic Sea by >99%29

Bull Shark

Status: Near Threatened

Population Declines:

In Lake Pontchartrain, US by 98.6-99.9%30

In the Northwest Atlantic by >99%2

Dusky Shark

Status: Vulnerable, High Risk of Extinction

Population Declines:

In the Northwest and West Central Atlantic by 62-92%31

In Southwest Australia by >75%32

In the Gulf of Mexico by 79%33

Tiger Shark

Status: Near Threatened

Population Declines:

Around the United States by 65%34

In the Northwest Atlantic by >97%35

References

1 From 1950s-1990s, Ward and Myers 2005

2 From 1986-2000, Baum et al. 2003

3 From 1978-2003 using catch information from shark nets off the beaches Kwa-Zulu Natal, Dudley & Simfendorfer 2006

4 “The Conservation Status of Pelagic Sharks and Rays” Report of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group. Feb 2007

5 From 1986-2000, Baum et. Al 2003

6 “The Conservation Status of Pelagic Sharks and Rays” Report of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group. Feb 2007

7 Soriana et al., 2006

8 From 1972-2000, using data from the Eastern seaboards longest continuous shark-targeted survey, conducted annually since 1972 off North Carolina. Myers et al. 2007

9 Since 1834, “Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico” Julia K. Baum and Ransom A Myers, Ecology Letters (2004)  7:135-145

10 R.T. Graham pers. obs. 2006

11From 1991 to 2000, Bonfil et al. 2009

12 From 2000 to 2004, FAO Catch Data per IUCN Assess. Ref: Bennett, M.B. & Kyne, P.M. 2003. Carcharhinus dussumieri. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4.

13 From 1993 to 2004, Bonfil et al. 2009

14 Baum et al. in Prep – per IUCN 2010 assessment

15 40 years (3 generations), Baum and Myers 2004

16 Bonfil et al. 2009

17 From 1992-2000, U.S. Pelagic Longline logbook data

18 For 40 years, U.S Pelagic Longline logbook data

19 From 1986-2005, U.S. Pelagic Longline logbook data

20 From 1990s-2002, Goldman et al. 2009

21 From late 1970s-1980s, Drift Gillnet Fishery landings from the US Pacific

22From the 1950s-1990s, U.S. Pelagic Longline research survey

23 McAuely et al 2005

24 From 13-41 years, Myers et al. In prep

25 In 10 years, Musick et al. 2009

26 From 1992-2004, Japan Fisheries Agency 2006

27 From 1992-2005, Cortes et al. in prep

28 From 1950s-1970s, Boero and Carli 1979

29 From the late 19th Century to 1972. Soldo and Jardas 2002

30 From 1953-2005, O’Connell et all 2007

31From 1974-2003, NMFS Stock Assessment

32From 1970s-2000, Musick et al. 2009

33From mid 1950s-late 1990s, Baum and Myers 2004

34From 1986-2000, Baum et al. 2003

35From 1972-2000, Baum et al. 2003