Keller with a Bonnethead, the main species he is studying for his Doctorate at Florida State University.
An article in the St. Augustine Record caught my eye on social media this week. Viewed as a winter resident of Florida the headline was quite shocking, especially since I have many times seen sharks hauled ashore by surf-fishing tourists and subsequently abused. By abuse I mean leaving the animal in the sand while relatives run to find cameras to record the grisly images for bragging rights, not at all concerned about the suffering of the shark and/or the fact that it needs water to be able to “breathe.”
The header in the Record was even more worrisome: “Sale and trade of shark fins to continue in Florida, despite threat to ecosystem, tourism.”
The Boston Globe-credited-photo leading the post was worse. Caption: “Sharks are usually alive when the fins are cut off, and are thrown back in the water afterward, where they die slow deaths because they are unable to swim.” Indeed. A man is pictured hacking off the dorsal fin, a practice called “shark-finning,” while the shark has blood running like tears from a glassy, empty eye. Eye catching for sure.
The gist of the matter is that the Florida Senate recently amended a bill (Senate Bill 884) that was introduced in February. Florida Senator Travis Hutson, R-Elkton’s original bill would have slowed or stopped the sale, trade or distribution of fins. Environmentalists are concerned about the amendments, which they feel would weaken the bill.
The current bill can be found here.
The original bill can be found here.
Sharks are a critical part of the ocean ecosystem and have been persecuted ever since the Movie “Jaws” premiered in the 1970’s. The recent spate of “Sharknado” movies may be funny viewed through a certain lens, but are another reason sharks are treated as commodities and objects of human domination. True fishermen (and I know a few) would never engage in the activities described in the lede to this post.
The original bill discusses the importance of sharks and their vulnerability to overfishing. Florida is identified as market for shark fins--a market that could potentially drive demand. This is basic economics at work. Punish demand with sanctions and kill the market. The original bill would also ban the possession, sale, trade, or distribution of shark fins/tails in Florida. Any person that catches a shark lawfully must destroy the fins unless used for education purposes. However the suggested legislation does provide for the collection of fins for research.
Science is, or should be, the genesis for decisions of this magnitude, so we contacted Bryan Keller, a doctoral student at Florida State University.
Our shark expert Keller finds a few problems with the original bill. Sharks do not usually “occupy the top of the marine food chain.” This is a “broad generalization, as most shark species are not upper-level predators,” he wrote in an email correspondence. There are also problems with basic shark/fish biology, although Keller concedes the bill may have been written for non-scientists.
“For example, the shark fin is defined as "the raw, dried, or otherwise processed detached fin of a shark". The bill then defines a shark tail. In ichthyology, a shark tail (as with other fish) is called the caudal fin. Therefore, by independently defining fins and tails, there appears to be a lack of understanding of basic fish biology,” Keller says.
Is it true, as implied in the bill, that shark finning is common? Not in the United States.
Keller says that this is a sensationalism of the issue and offers a citation that there is evidence the shark population may be increasing.
Also, the amended bill may be redundant and an understanding of legislation already on the books might allay some fears. That is not to say that ocean life is not of critical importance to all life, and these are important issues that need discussion as well as an understanding of the basic science.
Keller writes:
“Shark finning, or removing fins at sea and discarding a living animal, is illegal in the U.S. In 2010, the Shark Conservation Act filled some legal loopholes and made it illegal to land a shark (when you put the animal's body on the dock) without its fins attached. This means that no fins could be legally cut off a shark in the U.S. unless the animal was already at port (no discarding at sea).”
Keller feels “the bill also promotes a tone that suggests sharks facing extinction is likely/common. There are certainly problems in other parts of the world where there are no conservation efforts, but due to fishery management practices instituted in early 1990’s, many shark populations have risen in the US. The vast majority of shark species are currently at no risk of extinction.”
I did some research on my own and concur that U.S. and Florida shark fisheries seem to be well managed. A 2015 coastal shark survey reveals shark populations are improving off the U.S. East Coast. In addition, the number of sharks caught (landings) by recreational anglers and commercial harvesters is closely monitored by the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI), which has conducted studies throughout Florida since 1999.
So, why are environmentalists upset by amendments to the original bill?
The St. Augustine Record post paraphrases Erin Handy, a campaign organizer for Oceana’s Climate & Energy Campaign in Florida. “The original version of SB 884 would make it a first-degree misdemeanor in the state to trade or sell shark fins and tails, as well as suspending or revoking permits of commercial and recreational fishers found in violation.
“But under the amended version, language regarding sale and trade has been eliminated. Instead, SB 884 clarifies serious punishment for fishers found in possession of fins,” according to the Record post.
To recap, according to the 2010 Shark Conservation Act, it is currently illegal to possess a shark fin “in or on the waters” of the United States that has been separated from a shark. It is also already illegal to land a shark whose fin has been separated (cut off), with special authorized exceptions.
So environmentalists seem to have a legitimate worry, since the original version of the bill would have legal repercussions for people who are in possession of shark fins (which is currently legal), but the second version seems to only redefine legislation that already exists, eliminating the legal consequences.
But isn’t the real issue waste of a resource?
In 2015 our contact and resource, Keller, authored legislation that was introduced to the South Carolina Senate. Coincidentally it was very similar to the first version of Florida Senate Bill 884. “I thought that banning shark fin possession would help increase the population health of sharks. As I progressed in my studies, I learned that banning shark fins wouldn’t do much for our managed fisheries and in some cases, it could be contradictory to the intention,” Keller wrote.
Why kill an animal if you are only going to use part of it? If possession of shark fins is banned, but you can legally keep the shark, isn’t that the definition of waste?
“Wanton waste is the deliberate waste of an animal,” Keller says.
Perhaps a better way of looking at this complicated issue is another bill Keller authored.
This bill would make it illegal for people to catch a shark and not use the meat for bait or human consumption. A good idea. Prohibit people from killing an animal just to take the fins or the jaw. Visit any tourist shop in Florida and see shelf after shelf of shark jaws.
Keller supports fishermen’s rights to capture the animal as long as they don’t waste it. He claims this shouldn’t be a scientific issue as the populations are already well managed. Rather, the issue is one of morality.
From personal experience over the last thirty years I can attest to finding dozens of sharks littering Sanibel Florida’s beaches with jaws removed and the body rotting in the sun.
Maybe it is time to look at the best use of legally caught sharks, eliminate the waste, and ensure, as Keller writes, that the sacrifice of the animal is not in vain.
Bryan Keller earned his M.Sc. at Coastal Carolina University while studying shark behavior in the Bahamas. Now a Ph.D. student at Florida State University, he is studying the seasonal migrations of coastal sharks. Mr. Keller is an advocate for properly managing shark fisheries and reducing the wanton waste associated with harvesting sharks and other vulnerable species. He has been involved with drafting legislation that would prohibit the wanton waste of sharks in the state of South Carolina.