La importancia de medir otras variables en relación a la inteligencia emocional

The practice of shark-finning is characterised by the removal of fins from the torso of the shark with

the rest of the shark discarded at sea. This practice is banned in all States and Territories in

Australia and on vessels under bilateral agreements within the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ)

(Shark Advisory Group & Lack 2004) (Table 1.1). The rationale for this ban was to enable adequate

species identification of landed sharks, monitor compliance with by catch limits, monitor the catch

of protected species, ensure compliance with legal size limits, prohibit the practice of finning live

sharks, and to encourage the full use of the whole carcass (Shark Advisory Group & Lack 2004).

Awareness about the effect of the price of shark fin on global shark fishing became apparent when

FAO reported that global fin production exceeded 6000 tonnes in 1997, well above previously

reported levels (Rose & McLoughlin 2001, Rose 1996, Shivji, et al. 2002). In Australia, shark fin

can fetch from between AU$30 to AU$100 per kg for wet unprocessed fin (Dr S. Taylor, pers obs

2008) and up to AU$700 per kg for dried, skinless fin (L. Marshall, pers obs 2007). As previously

mentioned, the high value of shark fin has resulted in a heavy increase in shark mortality both of

targeted species and those that were traditionally released as a large component of commercial

Table 1.1 Fisheries regulation regarding shark-finning for the six Australian States and Territories where such regulations are specified.

State /

Territory Finning Legislation Reference

NSW Shark can be headed and gutted at sea, but the fins must remain attached until the shark is brought ashore.

(Rose & Mcloughlin 2001; Brooks 2006).

VIC Shark can be headed and gutted at sea, but the fins must remain attached until the shark is brought ashore.

(Rose & Mcloughlin 2001; Brooks 2006).

TAS

“…a person must not, in State waters, be in possession of shark fins without the trunks or bodies from which they came”

(Rule 130, Fisheries (Scalefish) Rules 2001).

NT

Shark product on board a vessel must conform to a series of percentage ratios for fin vs. whole, trunk or fillet weight for both dry and wet fins, and ‘No shark trunk, fillet or meat (is) to be allowed on board a vessel upon

commencement of the next voyage’

(Shark product licence conditions for all offshore net and line fishery licenses 2005).

WA Shark can be processed at sea, as long as all parts of the sharks other than head and guts are retained.

(Section 16B, Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995)

QLD

The practice of ‘finning’ sharks (i.e. keeping the fins but throwing away the body of the animal) is prohibited for all shark and ray species in Queensland. It is an offence for a fisher to possess a shark or ray fin on a boat without also possessing the body of the same shark or ray.

(Queensland Government 2009).

Within Australian commercial fisheries the effectiveness of shark-finning bans and the

extent of illegal shark-finning has not been assessed. Despite the aforementioned legislation,

AFMA has advised that there is evidence of illegal finning within the commercial domestic fleet

(Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee 2005). As such, there is concern

about the effectiveness of shark-finning bans to reduce shark mortality due to current lucrative fin

prices. Protection of sharks therefore, must go beyond shark-finning bans, as a ban on shark-finning

will lead to an increase in the use of whole shark, not a decrease in mortality (Clarke, et al. 2007).

Compounding the exploitation of shark species is that shark fin, as a high-value and low-

volume product, is vulnerable to organised criminal exploitation. Indeed, a recent report on criminal

activity in Australian commercial fisheries identified shark fin as one of three fisheries products

Fishing action (Putt & Anderson 2007). For example, in the Northern Territory, stakeholders

considered that large scale and well-organised shark-finning had developed in northern Australia,

with involvement ranging from small family groups to larger scale commercial companies (Putt &

Anderson 2007).

Poor documentation of shark catch was first highlighted by an investigation into the extent of

shark-finning in Australian fisheries (Rose & McLoughlin 2001). The study reported Australian

exports of dried shark fin to be 92 tonnes, valued at more than AUD$5.5 million, between 1998 and

1999, with around a third of this figure derived from unrecorded shark catch. Ten years later, shark

fin exports appear to have doubled, with reported figures of around 206 tonnes of shark fin exported

between January 2007 and February 2008 (AQIS 2008), the majority of fin being exported from

Melbourne (Table 1.2). Using a standard conversion of 2% of wet fin weight to 98% whole shark

(Rose & McLoughlin 2001), these shark fin export figures represent 10,329 tonnes of whole shark.

However, using average conversion rates of 1.62% (wet fin to whole carcass) and 0.73% (dry fin to

whole carcass) derived from Salini et al. (2007b), the estimate inflates to 8,934t (for wet fin) and

8,467t (for dry fin), a total of 17,403t of whole shark represented by fin exports in 2007. This figure

is more than double that of the reported FAO figures of 7,269 tonnes for Australia’s shark

production for the year 2007 (Table 1.3). Considering the main category reported to FAO was

undifferentiated ‘sharks, rays, skates, etc. not elsewhere indicated’, this category would also contain

rays, skates and chimeras that do not contribute to the shark fin trade. Indeed, Clarke et al. (2006)

estimated this category, globally, to contain 45% chondrichthyans potentially used in the shark fin

trade. Despite the large variation (depending on conversion factor used) these figures indicate

Table 1.2 Australian fin exports in tonnes between January 2007 and February 2008. Source: The Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS).

Loading Port Destination City Frozen Dried Total

Brisbane Cebu 16.21 2.47 18.67 Hong Kong 2.18 5.02 7.2 Total 18.39 7.48 25.87 Cairns Cebu 0 10.93 10.93 Hong Kong 0.96 42.73 43.69 Total 0.96 53.66 54.62

Darwin Hong Kong 0 0.68 0.68

Total 0 0.68 0.68 Melbourne Cebu 117.92 0 117.92 Singapore 7.48 0 7.48 Total 125.4 0 125.4 Total 144.75 61.83 206.58

For many cases, trade data can provide a truer representation of mortality (Baker 2008).

This may be particularly true in the case of shark-finning, due to its association with under-

reporting and illegal fishing. When sharks are harvested, the fins are most likely retained body

parts. As previously mentioned, the dorsal, pectorals and caudal fins are the most valuable and thus,

the most likely to be kept. As such, the most accurate representation of shark mortality can be

obtained by investigating the catch and trade from any of these fins.

Table 1.3 FAO Fishstat Capture Production data (tonnes) for Australia for the year 2007 for the three elasmobranch reporting categories that are likely to contain species that would contribute to the fin trade. Source: FAO, Fishstat Plus (v. 2.3), Capture Production 1950-2007 (Release date: February 2009).

Region Reporting Category Indian Ocean

Eastern

Pacific Southwest

Pacific

Western Central Total Sharks, rays, skates etc.

(not otherwise indicated) 1,493 273 2,564 4,330

Smooth-hounds (not

otherwise indicated) 2,644 19 2,663

Tope shark 276 276