Only in Hawai’i, among the 50 states, is the practice of shark-finning legal. This distinction has not gone unnoticed; lately, shark-finning by the Hawai’i longline fleet has come under increasing fire from a broad spectrum of national groups.
The issue came to a head in the October meeting of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, which, under federal law, regulates fishing in U.S. waters (the area between 3 and 200 miles from shore) around Hawai’i and other U.S.-flagged Pacific islands. At that meeting, the council voted to limit the catch of oceanic sharks to 50,000 a year. Voting against the measure were the head of the regional office of National Marine Fisheries Service (which is on record as opposing the practice of finning) and the state of Hawai’i representative on the council, Tim Johns, head of the Department of Land and Natural Resources.
Coincidentally, the last day of the council’s October meeting, October 21, the U.S House of Representatives’ subcommittee on fisheries conservation, wildlife and oceans heard testimony in Washington on a measure to ban shark-finning on vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Testifying in opposition was the Western Pacific council chairman, Jim Cook. Supporting testimony was provided by several national conservation organizations as well as NMFS.
History
Shark-finning in the waters around Hawaii is a relatively recent phenomenon. Its rise reflects the expansion of the longline fleet, which shot up rapidly in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but which has now leveled to about 110 Hawai’i-based vessels.
Although the longline fleet targets swordfish and tuna, in point of fact, it hooks more sharks than it does any other single species. It took several years for the longliners to take advantage of the market for shark fins. Initially, and up to about 1991, the number of sharks caught was just over 70,000 a year. Almost all of these were released. Beginning in 1992, the number of sharks kept and “processed” (that is, finned) began to rise. By 1998, the number of sharks finned reached about 6o,ooo (of approximately 100,000 sharks hooked). Most of the sharks that are not finned and simply thrown back, dead or alive, are caught by vessels targeting swordfish. Because of the time it takes to haul in swordfish (their heads – or at least their bills – must be removed before they are put in the hold), crew on swordfish trips have less time to deal with sharks, say sources at the NMFS laboratory in Honolulu.
The finning done by Hawai’i boats represents only a fraction of all finning done in the international waters. This fact has allowed the Western Pacific council to point out that finning conducted by the Hawai’i fleet is inconsequential with respect to the much larger effort of usually Asian vessels. According to congressional testimony of Jim Cook, the shark fins generated by the Hawai’i longline fishery comprise only 1 percent of the world shark fin production.”
Many of the fins collected by foreign ships are landed in Honolulu by other commercial vessels and forwarded on to Asian markers by brokers. The council estimates the value of fins landed from foreign vessels at between $2.4 and $2.6 million a year. A ban on finning in Hawai’i might affect this trade and, the council warns, could cause a “significant” decrease in the number of port calls and associated revenues made by foreign vessels delivering these fins. As a result, the state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism has joined with the council in opposing any effort to ban shark finning.
High Value
Money from the sale of shark fins traditionally is kept by the crew. While in the past, this income may have been “beer money,” as some referred to it, it now represents a far more substantial fraction of crew pay and, critics say, a means for vessel owners to avoid having to pay crew members higher wages.
Council sources say crew members now a days receive about $26 for a “set” of fins. At 6o,ooo fin-sets sold per year, this puts the wholesale value of the fins at more than $1.5 million a year. The “average earnings from shark fins ranges from $2,357 to $2,850 per crew member, or about 10 percent of the estimated annual income of these individuals,” the council stated in its testimony to Congress in October.
Three Honolulu dealers purchase most of the fins landed in Hawai’i. A review of commercial dealer reports submitted earlier in 1999 by two of these dealers to the Department of Land and Natural Resources shows the price paid varies widely depending generally on the species of shark and type of fin. For example, a dried mako shark tall fin is valued at about $50 a pound by the dealers. The price paid for blue shark fins is about $17 a pound (again, dried weight); that for white tip is roughly $25 a pound. Thresher fins are of relatively low value ($3 a pound). Occasionally a tiger shark is finned. Tiger-shark fins are as highly valued as mako tall fins.
Unwelcome Testimony
The council argues that there is no evidence that the Pacific populations of oceanic blue sharks are being harmed by the finning. Typically, fisheries managers use stock assessments to gauge the health of fish populations The council and National Marine Fisheries Service are in the process of developing such an assessment for sharks, but none is available yet. Thus, despite claims that the quota of 50,000 animals a year is conservative and reasonable, there is no hard science on which to base such claims.
At the October council meeting, owners and crews of longline fishing vessels testified generally in favor of the proposed quota. Testimony from the public was universally opposed. Among those presenting opposing testimony were David Wilmot of the Oceans Wildlife Campaign, a coalition of six national conservation organizations; Eric Gilman Honolulu representative of the National Audubon Society’s Living Oceans campaign; Bob Endreson of the Western Pacific Fisheries Coalition; Linda Paul of the Hawai’i Audubon Society (also a member of the Fisheries Coalition); William Aila Jr., a fisher and harbormaster at Wai’anae; and Stephanie Fried of Waimanalo, on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund. Most of their comments focused on the fact that sharks’ reproductive strategies make them more vulnerable to overfishing than other pelagic fishes, such as tuna and swordfish. Wilmot suggested that given the low reproductive rates of shark, it was more appropriate to compare their ability to support fishing effort to that of marine mammals than other pelagic fish.
Despite the testimony, Cook has said that calls for a ban on finning are the work of non-resident trouble-makers. “The current outcry against the council and shark finning in Hawai’i,” he stated in testimony delivered to the House subcommittee, “is driven by privately funded organizations that are largely based on the East Coast where they actively lobby.”
Difficult Enforcement
When the 50,000 shark quota is reached, how will enforcement authorities know?
According to Paul Dalzell of the council staff, the council has been discussing enforcement issues relating to the shark quota with both the Coast Guard and NMFS enforcement officers.
Through dealer report forms as well as logbooks, there is some way of monitoring the number of sharks retained (either finned or kept whole) by the longline fleet. When the quota is reached, Dalzell says, the word will get out immediately to the longliners. Any sharks or shark fins landed alter that point will count as a violation, he said.
Dalzell was asked if it were possible that Hawai’i-based longliners might get around the quota by using the tender vessels that pick up the shark fin from Asian fishing vessels (mostly Korean) on the high seas and bring them to port in Honolulu. This wasn’t likely, he said. The price paid for the fins from foreign ships are generally much lower than that paid for fins from Hawai’i vessels. Thus, Dalaell said, there probably was no incentive to use the tenders.
— Patricia Tummons
Volume 10, Number 7 January 2000