[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 4528, TO MAKE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN MARINE FISH
CONSERVATION STATUES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 5248, ``SUSTAINABLE
SHARK FISHERIES AND TRADE ACT''; AND H.R. 1456, ``SHARK FIN SALES
ELIMINATION ACT OF 2017''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-43
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
29-838 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Chairman Emeritus Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Louie Gohmert, TX Jim Costa, CA
Vice Chairman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Doug Lamborn, CO CNMI
Robert J. Wittman, VA Niki Tsongas, MA
Tom McClintock, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Stevan Pearce, NM Vice Ranking Member
Glenn Thompson, PA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Ruben Gallego, AZ
Scott R. Tipton, CO Colleen Hanabusa, HI
Doug LaMalfa, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Darren Soto, FL
Paul Cook, CA A. Donald McEachin, VA
Bruce Westerman, AR Anthony G. Brown, MD
Garret Graves, LA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Jody B. Hice, GA Jimmy Gomez, CA
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Daniel Webster, FL
Jack Bergman, MI
Liz Cheney, WY
Mike Johnson, LA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Greg Gianforte, MT
John R. Curtis, UT
Cody Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Democratic Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Jim Costa, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Garret Graves, LA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jody B. Hice, GA CNMI
Daniel Webster, FL Jimmy Gomez, CA
Vice Chairman Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Mike Johnson, LA
Greg Gianforte, MT
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
----------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, April 17, 2018.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 2
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado, Prepared statement of................... 81
Statement of Witnesses:
Hueter, Robert E., Ph.D., Director, Center for Shark
Research, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida........ 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Supplemental testimony submitted for the record.......... 41
Questions submitted for the record....................... 43
Kondon, Vance, Assistant Manager, Rainbow Reef Dive Center,
Key Largo, Florida......................................... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Parsons, Dr. Glenn R., Professor of Biology and Director of
the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation Research,
Department of Biology, University of Mississippi, Oxford,
Mississippi................................................ 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Questions submitted for the record....................... 32
Polston, John, Owner, King's Seafood, Port Orange, Florida... 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Risenhoover, Alan, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Silver Spring, Maryland.................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Questions submitted for the record....................... 12
Royce, Hon. Edward R., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Soto, Hon. Darren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 70
Prepared statement of.................................... 71
Webster, Hon. Daniel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 64
Prepared statement of.................................... 70
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Lamborn
``A United States shark fin ban would undermine
sustainable shark fisheries,'' Marine Policy, by D.S.
Shiffman and R.E. Hueter............................... 73
``Bright spots of sustainable shark fishing,'' Current
Biology, by C.A. Simpfendorfer and N.K. Dulvy.......... 76
``Florida wildlife officials won't support Federal shark
fin ban,'' POLITICO, by Bruce Ritchie.................. 46
Mote Marine Laboratory & Aquarium, Robert Hueter,
Director of the Center for Shark Research, April 21,
2017 Letter addressed to Rep. Daniel Webster opposing
H.R. 1456.............................................. 47
State of Louisiana, Jack Montoucet, Secretary, July 7,
2017 Letter addressed to Acy Cooper, President,
Louisiana Shrimp Association opposing H.R. 1456........ 49
``The Shark Scientists Opposed to a U.S. Ban on the Shark
Fin Trade,'' NewsDeeply, by Sophie Yeo................. 50
U.S. Commercial Shark Fishery, Letter for the record
opposing H.R. 1456..................................... 51
Submissions for the Record by Representative Webster
Scientist Group, April 17, 2018, Letter addressed to
Members of Congress supporting H.R. 5248............... 65
SSFTA Partners Group, March 13, 2018 Letter addressed to
Members of Congress supporting H.R. 5248............... 67
Wildlife Conservation Society, Testimony for the Record
in support of H.R. 5248................................ 67
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 81
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4528, TO MAKE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO
CERTAIN MARINE FISH CONSERVATION STATUES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R.
5248, TO AMEND AND ENHANCE THE HIGH SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING MORATORIUM
PROTECTION ACT TO IMPROVE THE CONSERVATION OF SHARKS, ``SUSTAINABLE
SHARK FISHERIES AND TRADE ACT''; AND H.R. 1456, TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF
SHARK FINS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``SHARK FIN SALES ELIMINATION ACT
OF 2017''
----------
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:02 p.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lamborn, McClintock, LaMalfa,
Webster, Bishop (ex officio), Huffman, Beyer, Barragan,
Bordallo, and Sablan.
Also Present: Representative Soto.
Mr. Bishop [presiding]. This Subcommittee will come to
order. We appreciate your willingness to be here today. Mr.
Lamborn is not here, there are only four of us here. I can
talk. I will just talk quietly to you guys. Mr. Lamborn is
being detained, is actually flying back here today, his plane
is landing. I am usurping the authority of this Subcommittee
for a particular reason, because the Vice Chairman is one of
those who has a bill before us, so it will give him more
flexibility in talking about that.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), oral opening statements are
limited to the Chairman, in this case me, and the Ranking
Member, who showed up in time, as well as the Vice Chair, so
therefore, I am asking unanimous consent that all of the
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record
if submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00 p.m. today.
Also, I am going ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Florida, Mr. Soto, when he arrives, and the gentleman from
North Carolina, Mr. Jones, if he arrives, be allowed to sit
with the Subcommittee and participate in the hearing. Let's add
the same thing for Mr. Royce. If he wishes to stay, he can sit
with us and participate in the hearing, as well. If there are
any objections, if not, that will be so ordered.
Let me give my opening statement here to all of you and
then I will turn to Mr. Huffman if he has an opening statement
he wants to make.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. We are dealing with three bills that I consider
significant, all dealing with fish. And this is really cool
because it is the first time we are going to have a hearing on
fish and red snapper is not going to be part of it. In fact, we
will add red snapper, we don't have a bill, but we will just do
it so tradition maintains itself.
The first two that we are going to consider take different
approaches to address a really heinous practice of shark
finning. Shark finning was made illegal in the United States by
U.S. actors both in 2000, and once again in 2010. These two
laws, I think, have had an effect, and they have done something
that is very positive.
Today, we are going to talk about the practice that is done
by foreign nations. We have two different proposals that are in
front of us. The first bill we are going to consider will be
the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act by Congressman Royce, who
is here, that looks upon ways of expanding on our other bases
with regulations to also attack bad foreign actors who are
involved in this practice.
The other proposal to be considered by us is the
Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act, which is Congressman
Webster's, which is why I am putting you in this position
instead of right here so he can participate in the discussion
easier, which starts a traceability program that is modeled
after what we do with the shrimp import traceability program.
So, I want to thank both my colleagues here, Mr. Royce, who
is not part of this Committee, but I appreciate him being here.
I appreciate the efforts Mr. Webster has put in the
legislation, as well as Mr. Soto when he arrives, dealing with
a correction to the Billfish Conservation Act. He will be going
forward.
I hope that we can use these hearings to discuss all of
these efforts and that perhaps we can bring some kind of
consensus to the way we move forward because this is truly a
product that we need to deal with, a discussion we need to
have, and elimination of foreign actors who are bad, that we
need to find a good approach to it without making negative
impacts on the fishing industry here in the United States.
With that, I will submit a cleaner, nicer version of what I
just said to the record and return to Mr. Huffman if he has an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thanks Mr. Chairman. I agree, this is an
important subject, and I am glad to see we are having the
hearing on these bills today. Starting with H.R. 4528,
Representative Soto's bill, this is a bill that will make
technical amendments to the Billfish Conservation Act and the
Shark Conservation Act. The background on this is that in 2012,
Congress passed the Billfish Conservation Act to conserve
depleted billfish populations by prohibiting foreign imports
and sales of these fish into the United States, but there was
an exemption for traditional fisheries and markets so that
billfish caught in Hawaii and the Pacific Insular Areas could
still be sold and consumed locally.
This bill makes an important clarification that the Act
never intended to allow billfish landed in Hawaii and Pacific
Insular Areas to then be sent to other states. Unfortunately,
the ambiguity in the original language has caused NOAA to delay
implementation of this Act, so I think this is an important
bill, and I intend to support it going forward.
Then we come to the two shark conservation bills, a very
important subject I think for this Subcommittee because
stronger shark conservation measures are needed. The shark
populations of the world are declining at an alarming rate.
They face a higher extinction risk than most any other group of
mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, or other fish because on
average sharks are being caught and killed 30 percent faster
than they can reproduce. This is largely due to the demand for
their fins, which fuels the global shark fin trade, and I am
proud that a few years ago when I was a California State
Assembly member, I led the effort to pass that state's ban on
the possession and trade of shark fins. It was a great example
of bipartisanship.
Party labels fell away, and Republicans and Democrats
together looked at this practice as wasteful, as morally
repugnant, and also realized together that unless we tackled
the trade, not just the Act but the trade, we weren't going to
be able to stop it.
So, I am thankful that 11 other states and 3 territories
have now done the same thing as we did in California, as well
as corporate America, 40 airlines, 20 major international
shipping companies, and other corporations have stepped up and
refused to partake in the shark fin trade.
The bill before us today from Chairman Royce, H.R. 1456, is
a great example of continued leadership in this area, and I
want to applaud him for his good bipartisan work on this. It
would make it illegal to buy and sell shark fins in the United
States, and as an original co-sponsor of the bill, I appreciate
Mr. Royce and Mr. Sablan for bringing this forward. It is a
strong, I mentioned, bipartisan bill with over 230 co-sponsors,
including every Democrat on this Committee and many of the
Republicans on this Committee. It is also widely supported by
recreational fishing interests, aquariums, over 150 scientists,
150 chefs, dive businesses, and the list goes on.
Nevertheless, I do know that we will hear some testimony
today opposed to the merits of this bill. I believe those
arguments cannot at the end of the day ignore the facts. Sharks
continue to be finned, and shark fins continue to be bought and
sold in the United States. The Federal Government is still
allowing fins to be imported and exported out of states that
have passed bans. A recent report revealed that only 4 percent
of the global shark catch is managed sustainably.
So, we have a lot of work to do, and this bill is timely
and important and makes environmental and economic sense as we
will hear from some of our other witnesses. Sharks are
important not just to the ecosystem but to tourism for numerous
coastal communities. I look forward to supporting this bill,
and again, commend the bipartisan authors.
Finally, we will deal with Representative Webster's bill. I
believe this bill is well intended. There are elements of it
that I certainly would support, but I think it is important to
note that there are key differences between the shrimp import
legislation for sea turtle conservation and what this bill is
proposing to do for shark fisheries. In the case of the shrimp
import, it is a huge market. Our ability to leverage it is much
greater, and the one reform that we could leverage, a turtle
exclusion device, is very discrete. It is much more complicated
with these marginally managed shark fisheries.
So, I hope we can continue working together on that. Again,
there are certainly good elements to the bill, but I do want to
be clear that it should not be seen as a replacement or as a
substitute for the more comprehensive approach to ending the
shark fin trade, which we see in Mr. Royce's bill.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and thank you to
the witnesses for being here today. Shark conservation and ending the
global shark fin trade have long been top priorities of mine.
Today, we will be discussing three bills before our Subcommittee.
H.R. 4528, Representative Soto's bill, would make technical
amendments to the Billfish Conservation Act and the Shark Conservation
Act. In 2012, Congress passed the Billfish Conservation Act to conserve
depleted billfish populations by prohibiting foreign imports and sales
of billfish in the United States. The Act provided an exemption for
traditional fisheries and markets so that billfish caught in Hawaii and
the Pacific Insular Areas could still be sold and consumed locally.
The Act never intended to allow the billfish landed in Hawaii and
Pacific Insular Areas to then be sent to other states, but NOAA has
delayed implementation of the Act because of its ambiguous language.
Mr. Soto's bill would fix this problem. The Senate companion bill has
already passed the Senate by unanimous consent. I hope the Committee
will move this bill expeditiously.
Next on the agenda are two shark conservation bills. It is
especially important for our Subcommittee to address the need for
stronger shark conservation measures because so many populations are
declining at an alarming rate. Sharks are facing a higher extinction
risk than most groups of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, or other
fish. On average, sharks are being caught and killed 30 percent faster
than they can reproduce. This is largely due to the demand for their
fins, which fuels the global shark fin trade.
I am proud that while I was a California assemblyman, I led the
effort to ban the buying and selling of shark fins in the state of
California. Eleven other states and three territories have done the
same. In addition, over 40 airlines, 20 major international shipping
companies, and other corporations have all refused to partake in a
trade that devastates shark populations and impacts ocean ecosystems
around the world.
H.R. 1456, The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act, would build on the
leadership of these states and companies to make it illegal to buy and
sell shark fins in the United States. As an original co-sponsor of the
bill, I appreciate that Chairman Royce and Mr. Sablan have taken on
this important issue.
The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act is a strong, bipartisan piece
of legislation with over 230 co-sponsors, including every Democrat and
a number of Republicans on this Committee.
It is also widely supported by recreational fishing interests,
aquariums, over 150 scientists, 150 chefs, over 300 dive businesses,
and over 130 non-profits. I know that we will hear arguments today
against the merits of the bill despite this widespread support, but
those arguments can't ignore the facts.
Shark fins continue to be bought and sold in the United States, and
the Federal Government is allowing fins to be imported and exported out
of states with bans. A recent report revealed that only 4 percent of
global shark catch is managed sustainably, yet it is unclear how many
shark fins are even coming into our country. The bill also makes
environmental and economic sense: sharks are important to the ecosystem
and to tourism for numerous coastal communities. Addressing the global
shark fin trade is vital to shark conservation and the United States
should be a leader in tackling this issue.
Finally, we will discuss Representative Webster's bill, H.R. 5248,
which would develop a complicated certification scheme to require
foreign countries to demonstrate that they have shark, ray, and skate
fishery management regulations comparable to the United States in order
to access our markets. Mr. Webster's bill is modeled after the Shrimp
Import Legislation for Sea Turtle Conservation, which allows the United
States to reject shrimp imports from countries that do not have sea
turtle protection programs comparable to that of the United States.
The bill is well-intentioned and looks good on paper, but there are
some key differences between it and the sea turtle conservation
program. The United States does not import nearly as many shark
products as compared to shrimp, so our ability to influence other
countries through access to our markets would be very limited. If the
Committee decides to move forward with the bill, we will need to ensure
that every shark fishery in the United States would meet the standards
brought forward in the bill. This would require the United States to do
much more to manage its own sharks and shark data, or otherwise risk a
potential WTO challenge and add shark products to the growing list of
trade fights under this Administration.
Thank you to the witnesses and Chairman Royce for being here today,
and I look forward to hearing from you.
I yield back.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. All right. Let's begin our testimony
today. We will first start with Mr. Royce. You will have 5
minutes to introduce your bill, and once again, if you would
like to stay with us for the rest of the testimony, you are
welcome to do that.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. EDWARD R. ROYCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Royce. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and I thank
Ranking Member Huffman, as well. I am grateful that we have
this little dialogue here. Quite coincidentally, today at lunch
I was with an old friend of mine, David Marinoff. He was
telling me his wife June and he were on Galapagos Island, and
they were on the beach. Washing up are these dead sharks who
have been finned, and therefore, died, and you would ask
yourself, well, there is an irony here, the Galapagos Island is
sort of a case study of ecological balance, and here you have
the beach filled with these dead sharks. How common can that
be?
Well, the facts are that 73 million sharks are finned that
we know of every year and they end up in the global shark fin
trade. This is putting multiple species of sharks at risk for
extinction. Shark fins are considered a delicacy in parts of
the world. They are sold for high prices the same way that
ivory was sold for high prices a few years ago. They drive a
trade that is not only inhumane due to the practice of shark
finning, but increasingly detrimental to the oceans due to the
size of this trade. Sharks play an integral role in the
ecosystem of the planet, and if populations continue to decline
at the current rate, because they are being killed faster than
they can reproduce, our oceans as we know them, are going to be
adversely affected.
This bill, which has over 230 bipartisan co-sponsors,
including the majority of this Committee and Subcommittee's
members, would make it illegal to buy, sell, or possess shark
fins in the United States. To be very clear, the bill does not
prohibit shark fishing. The proposal builds on previous
congressional action targeting the shark fin trade and it
mirrors similar state-level bans, such as the one that our
Ranking Member authored when he was in California legislature.
Additionally, I have conferred on this with the
Congressional Budget Office. They have told me that the bill
will not cost the government. And while protecting wildlife
from extinction is, from my perspective, the right thing to do,
it makes an awful lot of sense economically. As apex predators,
sharks ensure balance below them in the food chain. Their
preying, or lack thereof, on species directly below them in the
food chain has a compounding effect on the availability of fish
that many people rely on as a food source and that the fishing
industry depends on for income.
For example, a decrease in the population of tiger sharks
can lead to an increase in prey species such as monk seals,
reef sharks, turtles, and so forth, which in turn can cause a
decline in tuna populations.
Shark survival also contributes to an ever-growing shark
ecotourism trade, as I think many of you know. My state of
California is home to 134 dive shops that focus on shark dives.
Florida is home to 185, the most in the Nation, where direct
expenditures for shark encounters brought in $221 million and
fueled 3,700 jobs in 2016. That market dwarfs that of the
domestic shark fin market, which in 2016 was worth $850,000 in
exports. That is a difference of 250 to 1 in terms of the
bottom line of what it generates.
I am a firm believer in the principle that when the United
States leads, other countries follow. I am going to give you a
quick example--the ivory trade. We knocked out the ability to
take down elephants for their tusks. The consequences when we
put that bill into law, which would also put pressure
internationally, the Chinese moved, just as the Europeans, to
shut down their ivory trade market. They acquiesced to the
pressure, and they shut that down at the end of 2017. When we
lead, other countries do follow. And I am pleased to say that
we are starting to see this now with the shark fin trade.
Last year, in response to the pressure associated with this
bill, Air China and China's Southern Air announced they would
no longer allow shark fin cargo. With the strong support for
this bill and today's hearing, we have laid the foundation to
move the bill. I can only imagine what impact signing this bill
into law would have, not just here in the United States, but
importantly, around the world and to the health of our oceans.
Thank you for your consideration. Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Royce follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Edward R. Royce, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Thank you, Chairman Lamborn and Ranking Member Huffman, for
agreeing to hold this timely hearing on ocean conservation. I'm very
grateful that my bill, the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act, was
included. I'd also like to thank the other witnesses today for taking
time out of their schedules to come to Capitol Hill and speak on this
important issue.
Each year, the fins from as many as 73 million sharks end up in the
global shark fin trade, putting multiple species of sharks at risk for
extinction. Shark fins, as many of you know, are considered a delicacy
in parts of the world. Sold for high prices, they drive a trade that is
not only inhumane due to the practice of shark finning, but
increasingly detrimental to our oceans due to its size. Sharks play an
integral role in our oceans' ecosystems and if populations continue to
decline at the current rate, our oceans, as we know them, will cease to
exist.
My bill, which has over 230 bipartisan co-sponsors, including a
majority of this Committee and Subcommittee's members, would make it
illegal to buy, sell, or possess shark fins in the United States. To be
clear, the bill does not prohibit shark fishing. The proposal builds on
previous congressional action targeting the shark fin trade and mirrors
similar state-level bans. Additionally, I've conferred with the
Congressional Budget Office, and they have told me that the bill will
not cost the government.
While protecting wildlife from extinction is, from my perspective,
the right thing to do, it also makes sense economically. As apex
predators, sharks ensure balance below them in the food chain. Their
preying, or lack thereof, on species directly below them in the food
chain has a compounding effect on the availability of fish that many
people rely on as a food source and that the fishing industry depends
on for income. For example, a decrease in the population of tiger
sharks could lead to an increase in prey species, such as turtles, monk
seals, and reef sharks, which in turn could cause a decline in tuna
populations.
Shark survival also contributes to the ever-growing shark eco-
tourism industry. My home state, California, is home to 134 dive shops.
In Florida, which is home to 185 dive shops (the most in the nation),
direct expenditures for shark encounters brought in $221 million and
fueled over 3,700 jobs in 2016. This market dwarfs that of the domestic
shark fin market, which, in 2016, was only worth $850,000 in exports.
I'm a firm believer in the principle that when the United States
leads, other countries follow. We've seen this with the ivory trade.
After the United States took action to eliminate its own ivory trade,
China acquiesced to pressure and shut down its ivory trade at the end
of 2017.
I'm pleased to say that we're starting to see this now with the
shark fin trade. Last year, in response to pressure associated with
this bill, both Air China and China Southern Air announced that they
would no longer allow shark fin cargo. With the strong support for this
bill and today's hearing, we have laid the foundation to move this
bill. I can only imagine what impact signing the bill into law will
have in the United States and around the world.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Mr. Lamborn [presiding]. Thank you for being here. Thank
you for your testimony, Chairman Royce. Your passion on this
issue is very clear. You are welcome to join us for the
remainder of the hearing, but if you need to meet other
obligations you are free to be excused.
I now want to call forward our second panel of witnesses. I
will introduce the panel as they come forward and take their
seats.
Our first witness is Mr. Alan Risenhoover, Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries for NOAA Fisheries from Silver
Spring, Maryland; our second witness is Mr. John Polston, owner
of King's Seafood from Port Orange, Florida; our third witness
is Mr. Vance Kondon, Assistant Manager and scuba diver trainer
for Rainbow Reef Dive Center from Key Largo, Florida; our
fourth witness is Dr. Glenn Parsons, Director of the University
of Mississippi, Center for Biodiversity and Conservation
Research from Oxford, Mississippi; and our final witness is Dr.
Robert Hueter, Senior Scientist and Director for Shark Research
at the Mote Marine Laboratory from Sarasota, Florida.
Please have a seat, get situated, and make yourselves
comfortable. Thank you all for taking the time to be here.
Each witness' written testimony will appear in full in the
hearing record, so I ask that witnesses keep their oral
statements to 5 minutes as outlined in our invitation letter to
you and under Committee Rule 4(a).
I want to explain also how our timing lights work. When you
are recognized, press the talk button to activate your
microphone. Once you begin your testimony, the Clerk will start
the timer and a green light will appear. After 4 minutes, a
yellow light will appear, and at that time you should begin to
conclude your statement. At 5 minutes, the red light will come
on. You may complete your sentence, but I would ask that you
stop at that point.
We will now hear testimony from our panel on H.R. 1456. And
again, if your testimony is broader than just this bill we will
still hear the entire statement but we will ask you to remain
for questions on other measures that we will have later in this
hearing.
Mr. Risenhoover, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ALAN RISENHOOVER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SUSTAINABLE
FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND
Mr. Risenhoover. Good afternoon, Chairman Lamborn, Ranking
Member Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate
the opportunity to speak with you today about shark and
billfish conservation and their contribution to the Nation's
valuable commercial and recreational fisheries.
My name is Alan Risenhoover. I am the Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries in NOAA Fisheries within the
Department of Commerce. Today, I will briefly describe the
Agency's work to conserve and manage sharks and billfish and
offer some initial reactions to the bills being discussed
today.
Sharks are vital to the marine ecosystem, and due to their
biology many shark species are at risk of overfishing. To
protect these important species, the United States has some of
the strongest shark conservation management measures in the
world.
Almost two decades ago, Congress prohibited shark finning
in the United States, that is the practice of removing shark
fins at sea and discarding the carcass. In 2008, NOAA
implemented even more stringent regulations to require all
Atlantic sharks be landed with fins naturally attached.
In 2010, Congress extended this fins attached requirement
to almost all sharks in the United States. Currently, only 4 of
36 U.S. shark stocks or stock complexes are listed as subject
to overfishing. Strict measures are currently in place to
rebuild overfished stocks and prevent future overfishing.
In the United States, both shark fins and shark meat are an
important source of revenue. In the Atlantic, for example,
about 26 percent of the landing's value came from the sale of
fins. The United States is also a global leader in promoting
the conservation of sharks. We work with numerous international
bodies to promote a fins naturally attached policy and
sustainable shark management globally.
Overall, the United States is a relatively small player in
the global shark trade. In 2015, only 24 metric tons of shark
fins were imported into the United States. This compares with
the global shark fin imports estimated at 13,000 metric tons.
While we strongly support the intention of reducing the illegal
trade of shark fins, we cannot support these bills in their
current form.
Regarding H.R. 1456, we believe the bill's negative impact
on the U.S. fisherman would outweigh its benefit to shark
conservation. Prohibiting the possession and sale of shark fins
in effect hurts U.S. fishermen who harvest sharks under strict
sustainable focused management.
Regarding H.R. 5248, we strongly support its recognition of
the sustainable shark management in the United States, however,
the breadth of shark products covered by the legislation goes
beyond the jurisdiction of NOAA fisheries. Implementation of
such a program would entail significant costs and challenges.
Finally, the rule of construction section in H.R. 4528 does
not affect the statutorily created smooth dogfish exemption or
provide the Secretary any additional authority under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Similar to sharks, the United States carefully regulates
its domestic billfish fisheries and participates in
international fishery management bodies that regulate billfish.
The commercial harvest of billfish in the Atlantic has been
prohibited since 1988 to protect overfished stocks. In the
Pacific and Western Pacific, with the exception of striped
marlin, billfish populations are not overfished or subject to
overfishing and are sustainably managed.
In 2014, U.S. fisheries represented approximately 1 percent
of billfish captured. The Billfish Conservation Act of 2012
effectively ended the importation of billfish to the United
States, stopping the importation of over 8 million pounds since
enactment. It also provided two exemptions that cover a small
amount of billfish trade sold mainly in Hawaii and the Pacific
Insular Areas.
We believe the amendment in H.R. 4528 limiting sale to only
Hawaii and the Pacific Insular Areas would not advance
conservation of billfish significantly and would block a small
amount of sustainably harvested domestic product from entering
commerce in the U.S. mainland.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the conservation
and management of sharks and billfish. I look forward to any
questions and working with the Subcommittee in the future on
these very important topics. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Risenhoover follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan Risenhoover, Director of the Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department Of Commerce on
H.R. 4528, H.R. 5248, and H.R. 1456
introduction
Good afternoon, Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, and
members of the Subcommittee. My name is Alan Risenhoover and I am the
Director of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries within the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the Department of Commerce. Shark and
billfish species are important contributors to the Nation's valuable
commercial and recreational fisheries as well as serving an important
role in our ocean ecosystem. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with
you today about the work by NMFS to conserve and manage sharks and
billfish and to provide our perspective on the main bills being
discussed.
shark conservation and management
Almost two decades ago Congress prohibited shark finning--which is
removing shark fins at sea and discarding the rest of the shark--when
it amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
by enacting the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000. The law
prohibits any person under U.S. jurisdiction from engaging in the
finning of sharks, possessing shark fins aboard a fishing vessel
without the corresponding carcass, and landing shark fins without the
corresponding carcass.
In 2008, NOAA implemented even more stringent regulations to
require all Atlantic sharks to be landed with all fins naturally
attached to facilitate species identification and reporting and improve
the enforceability of existing shark management measures, including the
finning ban. Today, Atlantic sharks are primarily managed through
NOAA's Atlantic Highly Migratory Species program.
The Shark Conservation Act of 2010 amended the High Seas Driftnet
Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to
further strengthen rules against shark finning. Among other things, the
Shark Conservation Act extended the fins-attached requirement to all
sharks in the United States, with an exception for commercial fishing
of smooth dogfish sharks.
Sharks are among the ocean's top predators and are vital to the
natural balance of marine ecosystems. Due to their biological
characteristics, many shark species are vulnerable to overfishing. To
help protect these important marine species, the United States has some
of the strongest shark conservation and management measures in the
world. By conducting research, assessing stocks, working with U.S.
fishermen, and implementing restrictions on shark harvests as called
for in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we have made significant progress
toward ending overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks for long-
term sustainability. As of the end of 2016, only 3 out of 36 U.S. shark
stocks or stock complexes were listed as subject to overfishing and
just 5 shark stocks were listed as overfished.\1\ Strict management
measures are currently in place to rebuild overfished shark stocks and
to end overfishing when it occurs. We expect continued progress in this
regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Status of the Stocks 2016. NMFS Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/2016-
report-congress-status-us-fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In partnership with regional fisheries management organizations and
other international bodies, the United States continues to be a leader
in promoting the global conservation and management of sharks. NMFS
works internationally to promote our ``fins naturally attached'' policy
overseas and provide technical support for other countries' shark
conservation and management efforts. We collaborate with other
countries on research aimed at achieving science-based management
measures and conservation of sharks in our global ocean.
Shark fisheries are valuable contributors to the U.S. economy. In
2015, U.S. fisherman landed approximately 25 million pounds of sharks,
valued at nearly $7 million.\2\ Fins remain an important source of
revenue for our shark fisheries. In the Atlantic, commercial landings
of the primary shark species, other than spiny dogfish, were worth
approximately $2.5 million in 2016, of which approximately 26 percent
came from the sale of fins.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See NOAA Annual Commercial Fisheries Landings Data base,
available at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/
commercial-landings/annual-landings/index.
\3\ 2017 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States is a relatively small player in the global trade
in sharks, but we work with other countries on the trade of shark
species internationally. According to 2015 data from the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, global imports of shark
fins were approximately 13,000 metric tons. Only a small portion of
that volume was imported into the United States. In 2015, 24 metric
tons of shark fins valued at $288,000 entered U.S. Customs districts
from outside the United States. These shark fins were imported through
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection districts of Houston-Galveston;
Los Angeles; Miami; New York; Portland, Maine; and Seattle and all came
from New Zealand or Hong Kong. Due to the complexity of the shark fin
trade, fins are not necessarily harvested by or produced in the same
country from which they are exported. In 2015, the United States
exported 18 metric tons of shark fins valued at a little over $1
million.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 2016 Shark Finning Report to Congress, available at:
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/17060.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
billfish conservation and management
The United States carefully regulates its domestic billfish
fisheries and participates in international fishery management bodies
that regulate billfish in both the Atlantic and Pacific. The United
States has successfully implemented measures aimed at ending
overfishing and rebuilding all overfished billfish stocks.
In the Pacific and Western Pacific, with the exception of striped
marlin, billfish populations are not overfished or subject to
overfishing and are being sustainably managed under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. The U.S. catch of billfish has been below established
limits set by international bodies for Pacific striped marlin stocks.
Commercial harvest of billfish in the Atlantic has been prohibited
by regulation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act since 1988 due to
conservation concerns. Under existing regulations, seafood dealers and
processors are required to use the Billfish Certificate of Eligibility
(COE) to document that billfish possessed or offered for sale were not
harvested from the Atlantic Ocean. The certificate must document the
harvest event and accompany the billfish to any dealer or processor who
subsequently receives or possesses the billfish. The COE certifies that
the accompanying billfish was not harvested from the Atlantic Ocean,
and identifies the vessel landing the billfish, the vessel's homeport,
the port of offloading, and the date of offloading. This COE, along
with existing requirements for documentation of landings of domestic
catch contained in Federal fishery management plans provides adequate
documentation to distinguish billfish legitimately in U.S. commerce
from those that are prohibited.
Despite careful management of billfish in the United States, global
billfish populations have declined significantly due to overfishing by
non-U.S. fishing fleets. According to the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, U.S. fisheries represented
approximately 1 percent of the estimated 124,000 metric tons of
billfish captured globally in 2014. The decline in billfish populations
are primarily from retention of billfish caught as bycatch in other
fisheries.
With the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012, Congress recognized the
continued global conservation challenges that billfish populations
continue to face. While it does not explicitly ban the import or export
of billfish into or from the United States, it does prohibit selling
billfish or billfish products as well as having custody, control or
possession of billfish for purposes of selling them or offering them
for sale. This effectively banned commercial trade in billfish, thereby
eliminating demand for imports. The Billfish Conservation Act has
stopped importation of well over 8 million pounds since its enactment.
The Act provides for two exceptions that cover a small amount of
billfish trade, sold mainly in Hawaii and the Pacific Insular Areas.
perspectives on pending bills
With respect to the Billfish Conservation Act amendments (H.R.
4528), we believe the legislation would not advance the conservation of
billfish significantly, and would block a small amount of sustainably
harvested domestic product from entering commerce on the U.S. mainland.
Further, the bill's amendments to the Shark Conservation Act of 2010
(SCA) are unnecessary for the conservation of sharks, including smooth
dogfish. The rule of construction in section 2 of the bill provides
that nothing in the SCA shall be construed to alter the Secretary of
Commerce's authority to manage certain highly migratory species under
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. It is our understanding that this rule of
construction is intended to provide the Secretary authority to over-
ride the exception in the SCA that allows the finning of smooth dogfish
under certain circumstances. As written, however, the rule of
construction does not affect the statutorily-created smooth dogfish
exception, nor does it provide the Secretary any additional authority
that he does not currently retain under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
We cannot support the Shark Fin Sale Elimination Act (H.R. 1456)
because the bill's negative impact on U.S. fishermen would outweigh its
minimal benefit to shark conservation. The United States currently has
effective laws and associated regulations that prevent shark finning
and sustainably manages its fisheries. As written, this bill does not
meet its intent to improve the conservation and management of
domestically harvested sharks. It prohibits the possession and sale of
shark fins. This would hurt U.S. fishermen who currently harvest and
sell sharks and shark fins in a sustainable manner under strict Federal
management. Furthermore, the bill does not significantly curb
international trade in shark fins where the majority of trade in shark
fins occurs.
While we support the intent of reducing the illegal trade of shark
fins in a manner that does not harm our domestic fishermen, we cannot
support the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act (H.R. 5248) in
its current form. In particular, we do not support the proposed
certification program. The breadth of shark products covered in the
legislation (e.g. cosmetics, supplements, footwear, etc.) goes beyond
the jurisdiction of NMFS and the agency could not trace source material
for such highly-processed products. Implementing such a certification
program, even one focused on specific shark species and shark products
of concern, would entail significant costs. In addition, available data
for shark fin imports indicates the U.S. imports a relatively small
amount of shark fins compared to other countries. Therefore, the impact
of the bill on global conservation and trade would be relatively small.
conclusion
NOAA Fisheries appreciates the opportunity to discuss shark and
billfish conservation and management and highlight the importance of
these fisheries to our coastal economies. We look forward to working
with Congress on these issues. I am available to answer any questions
you may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Sablan to Mr. Alan
Risenhoover, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Director,
Office of Sustainable Fisheries
Question 1. In your testimony you said that NOAA opposes H.R. 1456
because the bill would have a negative impact on commercial fisherman
and their need to drive revenue from shark fins and that the
restriction would not have a major impact since there is limited U.S.
trade in shark fins. Can you explain and is NOAA's determination simply
based on revenue numbers?
Answer. Domestically, H.R. 1456 would require fishermen to destroy
the fins of sustainably harvested sharks. The United States has some of
the strongest fishery conservation and management laws and regulations
in the world, including for sharks. Retaining a shark fin while
discarding the shark carcass (shark finning) has been prohibited in the
United States since the enactment in 2000 of the Shark Finning
Prohibition Act. However, it is lawful under the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Shark Finning
Prohibition Act for U.S. fishermen to use all parts of a sustainably
harvested shark for commercial revenue. The fin is one of the most
valuable parts of the shark and it comprises a substantial portion of
shark revenue. For example, commercial landings of the primary shark
species in the Atlantic, other than spiny dogfish, were worth
approximately $2.5 million in 2016, of which approximately 26 percent
came from shark fin sales. Prohibiting fishermen from using the fins of
sustainably harvested sharks would unfairly penalize U.S. fishermen who
already operate under some of the strongest conservation and management
standards in the world. Furthermore, the impact of H.R. 1456 on other
countries' shark fishing and finning practices would be limited because
the United States is a small player in the global trade of shark fins.
Question 2. Is it possible to tell if a shark fin came from a
legally-landed, well-managed, sustainable, non-finned shark once it is
in the market?
Answer. It is possible to determine the legality and sustainability
of a shark fin once it enters the market as long as there is a
sufficient chain of custody for the shark product in trade from the
point of harvest to the point of entry into commerce. NOAA's National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) administers several programs that
collect information regarding the chain of custody for shark products,
including the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP). NMFS can
provide additional information regarding the programs upon request.
Question 3. As you know, shark species are especially vulnerable to
over-exploitation. Sharks are caught and killed, on average, 30 percent
faster than they can reproduce. We know that stock assessments--the
basis for any sustainably managed fishery--are critical in revealing
how a shark species is doing. To effectively manage sharks, stock
assessments would need to be administered regularly for individual
species, correct? Do all of the shark species that can legally be
fished in the United States have stock assessments?
Answer. NMFS supports the management of over 40 shark species and
stocks caught in U.S. state and Federal fisheries. Stock assessments
are fundamental to sustainable fishery management, but they are
resource intensive, and thus are prioritized for stocks with the
greatest need.
Stock assessments of shark species that are primarily caught in
international waters are coordinated via international Regional Fishery
Management Organizations (RFMOs), including the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and the
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). The United
States negotiates with other countries that participate in these RFMOs
to determine which stocks are highest priority for stock assessments.
Currently, ICCAT coordinates stock assessments for three shark stocks
while the WCPFC oversees assessments for five shark stocks. These eight
shark stocks have all been assessed within the last 10 years.
NMFS conducts stock assessments for shark stocks caught primarily
within the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or within the EEZ and
neighboring countries such as Canada and Mexico. NMFS does not have the
capacity to assess all federally managed shark species annually, but
strives to optimize its use of available resources, giving priority to
shark stocks with the greatest fishing importance or conservation need.
Of the 31 shark species that are legally fished and assessed
domestically, 17 have been assessed in the last 10 years. A current
description of completed and planned stock assessments for U.S. managed
sharks and shark complexes is included as a table for reference (Table
1).
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 4. How many stock assessments did NOAA do for sharks
in 2017? How many is NOAA planning to do in 2018?
Answer. In FY2017, NMFS completed two stock assessments of shark
stocks. In FY2018, NMFS has completed six stock assessments of shark
stocks.
Question 5. In 2016, the year with the most recent landings data,
non-dogfish shark landings were valued at less than $2.5 million.
According to the NOAA Commercial landings database, over half of the
landings by value and volume were listed just as ``sharks'' and are not
species specific. Why is that?
Answer. A number of factors can prevent the identification of shark
landings data at the species level. For example, different shark
species may be co-mingled and sold together as a lot. Another factor is
the need to preserve the confidentiality of business information. If
fewer than three fishermen or dealers contribute to a number, we will
roll up the landings data into a higher-level aggregation.
Question 6. Bycatch is another huge threat facing sharks globally.
Why is it that in the NOAA National Bycatch Report, the bycatch data
for sharks is not consistent? For example, in some fisheries, sharks
are counted by individuals and in others by pounds? Why are some
counted at the species level and others are counted in groups? Don't
these inconsistencies make it difficult to have a clear picture of the
rate of shark bycatch in the United States?
Answer. Thanks to its fishery dependent and independent data
collection programs, the United States has robust data on shark
bycatch. However, bycatch data in the U.S. National Bycatch Report can
vary because the various fisheries-dependent monitoring programs around
the country (including observer programs) can report data in different
ways. Differences in data collection and reporting can be attributed to
fishery logistics and other science and management priorities.
For example, shark bycatch typically has been counted as
individuals as opposed to pounds because sharks that are caught as
bycatch are usually released in the water and not brought on the
fishing vessel to minimize any harm to the animal. Despite these
challenges, NMFS continues to work to improve its estimates of shark
bycatch. For instance, Update 3 to the U.S. National Bycatch Report
First Edition, which should be published online by the end of 2018,
includes more consistent bycatch data for sharks due to the publication
of a recent NOAA Technical Memorandum that provided individual-to-
weight conversion factors for sharks and other species captured in
fisheries off the southeastern United States and in the Gulf of Mexico.
NMFS notes that the National Bycatch Report is not a requirement
under the MSA or other law. The National Bycatch Report and its Updates
provide a compilation of bycatch information and national and regional
overviews to document bycatch in fisheries over time. They are not,
however, used for day-to-day management of fisheries.
Question 7. According to NOAA's own commercial fisheries trade
data, in 2017, over $500,000 worth of fins were imported into
California--a state that has a ban. Similarly, over $450,000 worth of
fins were exported out of Texas; over $6,000 exported out of
California; over $14,000 out of New York; and over $40,000 out of
Washington. All of these states have a ban. How is the shark fin trade
avoiding state legal prohibitions?
Answer. NMFS does not enforce state shark fin laws. We cannot speak
to the states' efforts to enforce their laws. NOAA's Office of Law
Enforcement does work with state law enforcement agencies and alerts
them to state violation when they are discovered.
Question 8. What is the status of the alleged shark finning case
that took place in March, 2017 in which wildlife officers found dozens
of dismembered shark fins aboard a Key West shrimp boat? Are there any
other outstanding finning cases under review?
Answer. In this incident, approximately 70 shark fins were detected
onboard a commercial shrimp vessel without corresponding shark
carcasses in violation of Federal shark finning regulations. The
investigation has been completed and the case package was referred to
the NOAA Office of General Counsel Enforcement Section for prosecution
in May 2018 and is still open.
In addition to the May 2017 incident, the NMFS' Office of Law
Enforcement has a small number of other incidents of alleged shark
finning or landing sharks without fins naturally attached under
investigation or review.
Question 9. How many fins does the United States import and export?
Is the data reliable? Why are there discrepancies between what the U.S.
reports and what the United Nation FAO reports? According to the U.N.
FAO, more countries reporting shark exports to the United States than
what NOAA reports? Please explain.
Answer. In 2017, the United States imported 245,718 kilograms
(245.7 metric tons) of shark fins worth $1,132,060 and exported 156,819
kilograms (156.8 metric tons) worth $1,216,074. This number includes
fresh, frozen, preserved, and canned products and is a finer level
estimate than we have had in previous years. The data on foreign trade
is from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Thus, the United States has good
estimates of sharks and shark products imported into the United States,
but it is difficult to estimate the volume of products that transit
through the United States and do not remain here.
When we were first made aware of the discrepancy between the data
of the United States and FAO, we investigated with FAO and found there
was an error in a 2003 figure that the FAO has since corrected. Second,
data contained in the FAO report are from trading partners for an ad
hoc exercise and not from FAO official statistics. These two
methodologies are not comparable. One methodology combines import data
to derive export estimates. The other contains export data reported
directly to the FAO database. The incompatibility of the trading
partners' statistics, in terms of shark fin commodity categories and
descriptions, could be a major factor behind these observed
discrepancies. Given these data complexities, to assess the U.S.'
relative contribution to the global shark fin trade, the United States
compares U.S. reported import of shark fins with other countries' shark
fin import numbers (rather than estimating exports based on imports).
Question 10. Who enforces the anti-finning regulations and how many
agent are engaging in shark fin enforcement? The Trump administration
FY 2019 Budget Request proposed to reduce funding for law enforcement?
How would NOAA adequately perform the fins naturally attached
requirement with a substantially reduced resources?
Answer. NMFS' Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) is the primary agency
responsible for enforcement of regulations which prohibit shark
finning. While none of our law enforcement personnel are exclusively
dedicated to shark fin enforcement, we do prioritize enforcement of
regulations related to protected species such as shark species listed
under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). In the past, OLE's efforts have been
augmented by our state and territorial enforcement partners through our
Cooperative Enforcement Program (CEP).
The Administration's 2019 Budget prioritizes rebuilding the
military and making critical investments in the Nation's security. It
also identifies the savings and efficiencies needed to keep the Nation
on a responsible fiscal path. To prioritize fiscal responsibility and
efficiency, difficult decisions, including the reduction in CEP
funding, needed to be made. NOAA will continue its dedication to
Federal fisheries enforcement, including enforcement of laws related to
shark finning, through use of OLE's Federal agents and officers to
conduct investigations and patrols, technological tools such as Vessel
Monitoring Systems, and outreach and education strategies designed to
increase and enhance voluntary compliance laws and regulations.
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Thank you for your testimony. Mr.
Polston, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN POLSTON, OWNER, KING'S SEAFOOD, PORT ORANGE,
FLORIDA
Mr. Polston. Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, and
members of the Subcommittee, my name is John Polston, and I am
the owner of King's Seafood and several shark fishing vessels
in Port Orange, Florida.
The Shark Trade Elimination Act, H.R. 1456, punishes me and
other law abiding fishermen. It would put the final nail in the
coffin of the domestic shark fishery. Decades of quota cuts
have reduced this fishery to a fraction of what it once was.
Now that shark populations are growing, I would say exploding,
there is some hope that all this sacrifice might be rewarded. I
cannot express how demoralizing it would be if Congress were to
take away our needed shark fin income. We simply cannot afford
to throw away money.
Fishing vessels and dealers all have high fixed and
overhead costs like insurance, fuel, mortgages, maintenance,
labor, and so on. Operating margins in this industry are razor
thin, and cuts in allowable shark landings have all but
eliminated full time shark fishing. Today, most fishermen are
like me, piecing together a living from different fisheries,
sharks, shrimp, snapper, grouper, king mackerel, and others.
All are tightly controlled by NMFS. It is like a house of
cards. You take away one part of it, and the whole thing could
come crashing down. And for many fishermen, the fins count for
up to half the total landed value of their catch. Take that
income source away, and it would cost money to go shark
fishing.
There are two important facts about our industry. One, is
that it has been proven that we can have a sustainable shark
fishery. There are plenty of sharks in the water to fulfill the
ecosystem role and to support a booming shark tourism industry.
The other is that American fishermen oppose shark finning and
unsustainable fishing by other countries. We are hurt by these
cruel and wasteful practices. Our well managed products must
compete with those from unethical and unmanaged fisheries in
the global market.
Shark finning, not to mention shark overfishing, is just
not a problem here. It has been illegal to land shark fins
without the carcass since 1993. It must be landed with their
fins attached, given that the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act
has no impact on the United States other than to make American
fishermen and their communities poorer. It is really just
designed to send a message to foreign nations when these things
occur, but I believe it would make the problem worse because
our sustainable shark products are off the global market, and
they will be replaced by those from countries where finning and
overfishing are occurring. I hope you see how wrong that is.
We all agree that shark finning is cruel and wasteful. The
only real question is how it is best to end it. In my view, the
best approach is to attack it where it exists. King Seafood is
a member of the Southeastern Fisheries Association East Coast
Fishery Section and a contributor to the Southern Shark
Alliance, the SSA. It was formed to oppose a Federal shark fin
ban and to develop the effective alternatives to stop finning
and overfishing.
These groups work with Representatives Webster and Lieu,
the Wildlife Conservation Society, other Members of Congress,
and fishery groups. The result of these discussions is the
Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act, H.R. 5248. This bill
is modeled on successful laws that make the privilege of access
to the U.S. market contingent on foreign fishermen meeting the
same standards as we do to protect sea turtles and marine
mammals.
If nations want to export shark products to America,
including skates and rays, they would have to show they have
effectively ended finning and are actively managing their
fisheries just as we do. As such, this bill makes positive
contribution to shark conservation and recognizes and rewards
the U.S. fishing industry for its conservation sacrifices.
It is a fair and sensible approach. I cannot urge you
strongly enough to support the SSFTA and oppose the fin ban. I
would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Polston follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Polston, Owner, King's Seafood, Port Orange,
Florida on H.R. 5248 and H.R. 1456
My name is John Polston, owner of King's Seafood in Port Orange,
Florida. King's Seafood, with which I have been associated since it was
incorporated in 1988, is a buyer, retailer, and wholesale distributor
of sharks and other fish products to domestic and foreign markets. I
also have ownership interest in 10 fishing vessels, 5 of which actively
participate in the domestic shark fishery. I am a participant in both
the Sustainable Shark Alliance (``SSA'') and the Southeastern Fisheries
Association, both of which support H.R. 5248 and strongly oppose H.R.
1456. My testimony is based on my personal knowledge and deep
involvement with this and other South Atlantic fisheries for over 33
years.
I am honored to come before the Water, Power and Oceans
Subcommittee to testify in support of H.R. 5248, the Sustainable Shark
Fisheries and Trade Act (``SSFTA''), and to personally thank
Congressmen Webster and Lieu for introducing this proactive bill that
levels the playing field for American fishermen. My testimony will also
address the deep concerns I and others in the domestic shark fishery
have with Chairman Royce's well-intentioned, but ultimately harmful,
bill, H.R. 1456, the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act.
Both bills share a common goal--eliminating the cruel, wasteful,
and unsustainable practice of shark finning. Only the SSFTA, however,
creates an incentive for other nations to end shark finning and meet
the same high standards for marine conservation to which the United
States holds its fishermen. This bill recognizes the sacrifices our
fishermen have made, and continue to make, to rebuild domestic shark
populations by leveling the playing field with our foreign competitors.
Under the SSFTA, access to U.S. markets by other nations is contingent
on their adoption of strong anti-finning measures and actively
conserving shark, skate, and ray stocks.
By contrast, the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act punishes me and
others by denying us an important income source--revenue from the sale
of the fins--merely to send a ``message.'' It has no direct impact on
fisheries in other nations. In fact, this bill allows imports of other
shark, skate, and ray products from unsustainable fisheries to
continue. It rewards bad actors by taking sustainable U.S. shark fins
out of the global market, creating a vacuum to be filled by those from
unmanaged and unsustainable fisheries. From a more personal
perspective, this bill punishes me and others in the shark fishery by
taking away an important income source, undoubtedly pushing some small
businesses into unprofitability. It is an insult to American fishermen
who have been required to give so much for decades to create a
sustainable fishery.
In short, the SSFTA improves conservation of vulnerable populations
of elasmobranchs on a global basis, while the Shark Fin Sales
Elimination Act degrades these efforts and penalizes hard-working,
rule-abiding Americans.
I want to emphasize that the American fishing industry is deeply
opposed to the practice of shark finning, or harvesting sharks solely
for their fins and discarding the carcass at sea. It is a wasteful and
potentially cruel practice. It has been outlawed by regulation on the
Atlantic and Gulf coasts, where most shark fishing occurs, since 1993,
and by law since 2000. In 2010, Congress acted to strengthen this
prohibition by requiring that most sharks \1\ be landed with their fins
naturally attached. The ease of enforcement of these regulations, along
with the steep penalties for violating these laws, has led to near
universal compliance, particularly by federally licensed shark
fishermen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The sole exception is for smooth dogfish, a small and abundant
shark harvested off the East Coast. This species is most valuable for
the meat, the quality of which quickly degrades if the fish is not
quickly and fully dressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also operate under what are likely the world's most
precautionary and strict shark conservation rules. In aggregate, total
allowable landings for sharks have been reduced by more than 80 percent
since the fishery's peak in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Catches of
many sharks, including the most commercially important stock,
Sandbars,\2\ are prohibited. Annual catch limits are set on a very
conservative basis, taking into account the life history of these
animals. Frequently, fisheries for very abundant shark stocks close
before annual catch limits are caught to facilitate rebuilding of less
abundant species. Also, the National Marine Fisheries Service
(``NMFS'') closes the fishery when only 80 percent of the catch limit
is harvested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A small research fishery for sandbars is allowed in order to
collect data for the stock assessment. Currently, an assessment for
this species is underway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of rebuilding shark populations, NMFS management has been
undeniably successful. The last published results from the primary
Federal shark survey found the most sharks in its 29-year history.\3\
The most recent survey was recently concluded and we are optimistic
that these trends will continue. Independent research by the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science also confirms the sharply increasing trends
for nearly every category and type of shark.\4\ Our industry accounts
for $20 million export, with Louisiana and Florida leading the way in
terms of landings and permitted fishermen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NMFS, ``2015 Coastal Shark Survey Reveals Shark Populations
Improving off U.S. East Coast,'' https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/
press_release/pr2015/scispot/ss1509/.
\4\ VIMS, ``Study finds preliminary recovery of coastal sharks in
southeast U.S.'' http://www.vims.edu/ newsandevents/topstories/2017/
shark_recovery.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a Floridian, I can also say that the ``shark tourism'' industry
has been thriving alongside our shark fishery. The growth in this
relatively new--and dangerous--tourism sector has not been impacted by
our fishery. Sustainable management ensures there are ample numbers of
sharks in our waters to both be experienced by those who wish to view
them in their natural habitat and to serve their role in the marine
ecosystem.
At the same time, growing shark populations increase the chances
for interactions between sharks and those who come to Florida and other
coastal states to spend time at the beach. Florida, in general, and
Volusia County, in particular, is the world's leading site for
unprovoked shark attacks. Those will certainly increase growing shark
and human populations interact. Even the perception of increasing
numbers of shark attacks can have a negative impact on coastal tourism.
There also has been an increase in interactions between sharks and
recreational and commercial fisheries. ``Bite-offs,'' where sharks take
part or all of a fish off a line, are being increasingly reported. My
vessels and other in commercial hood-and-line fisheries frequently
cannot get bait past large schools of sharks and there have even been
reports of sharks attacking shrimp nets. A well-controlled fishery
plays a role in keeping these predators in check and maintaining some
balance in a system where many stocks upon which sharks prey are also
subject to recreational and commercial fishing.
the bills at issue
As to the bills that are the subject of this hearing, I am joined
in supporting H.R. 5248 by a host of commercial fishing groups. In
addition to those mentioned, this legislation is also endorsed by the
Garden State Seafood Association, North Carolina Fisheries Association,
Louisiana Shrimp Association, Blue Waters Fishermen's Association, and
scores of fishermen and fish houses that rely on the shark fishery, in
whole or part, for their livelihoods. I am attaching a letter
identifying these supporters.
The SSA, Garden State, and Southeastern Fisheries are proud to have
worked with the Wildlife Conservation Society, their partners in the
environmental and zoological communities, and Congressmen Webster and
Lieu to craft a bill that makes an important contribution to the global
conservation of sharks. The SSFTA is modeled on other successful
legislation designed to protect sea turtles in foreign shrimp fisheries
and to ensure foreign fishermen meet the same standards for marine
mammal protection that U.S. fishermen must observe.
In order to minimize the administrative burden on NMFS, the SSFTA
requires nations seeking to export shark products to the United States
to demonstrate that they have enforceable shark finning prohibitions
and science-based shark conservation measures similar to those under
which we work. It expands the definition of ``shark'' to include
likewise vulnerable stocks of other elasmobranchs, specifically skates
and rays. While those animals can be processed at sea, just as here in
the United States, nations would have to show that these stocks are
managed sustainably. Finally, the SSFTA adds skates and rays to NMFS
Seafood Important Monitoring Program to ensure traceability of supply.
(Sharks are already included.)
H.R. 5248's purpose is to ensure that the U.S. market is not
contributing to either shark finning or unsustainable fishing
practices. While the United States is not a major market for shark
products, the SSFTA assures American consumers that any imported shark,
skate, and ray products they consume are sustainably sourced and
cruelty-free.
As to Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act, the fact that the United
States is a small market means that its impact on other nations will be
minimal, if it has any effect at all. For one, we import only a small
amount of fins, some of which are re-imports of processed domestic
fins. Other instances of trade bans having some positive effect on
foreign behavior, such as with ivory, succeeded because the United
States was a fairly substantial market participant. Moreover, under
this bill, nations with uncontrolled fisheries can still export shark
meat and other shark products to the United States. Finally, the small
amount of fins now imported to the United States will simply be
diverted to other nations, filling the void left by removing
sustainably caught American fins from international trade. This is why
a fin ban is likely to have a net negative effect on shark
conservation.
Furthermore, requiring waste of shark fins runs counter to the
positive trend of fully utilizing food and natural resources.
``Reverse'' shark finning--keeping the carcass and discarding the
fins--shares with shark finning the sin of wasting a valuable and
important food source. I believe Congress should encourage full
utilization of the limited, scientifically-determined catch levels of
all marine resources. Our nation is richer if we maximize the value of
each fish we catch. Unfortunately, H.R. 1456 has the opposite effect,
draining economic resources from our struggling coastal communities.
Speaking personally, I can assure you that under current fisheries
management, every dollar counts. Both harvesters and the fish houses
that buy their catch operate under the thinnest of margins and face
high fixed costs for things such as fuel, insurance, mortgages, and
labor. Particularly here in Florida, we piece together a living by
engaging in a variety of fisheries--shrimp, snapper-grouper, sharks and
other highly migratory species, and others. NMFS determines the catch
levels, seasons, and other conditions we operate under. Few people can
make a living focusing on just one fishery. Losing access to even one
fishery or, in this case, a significant revenue source, can tip a small
business from profitability into bankruptcy.
I cannot express how disheartening it would be to me and others in
the commercial fishing industry if Congress were to penalize us by
banning fin sales just to send a message to the world. Our whole
fisheries management system is premised on the idea that sacrifices
deemed necessary to conserve a fish stock today will be rewarded by
increased opportunities to fish in the future. That promise already
seems hollow, as we have seen exploding populations of things such as
sharks and red snapper, but very slow growth in fishing opportunities.
Shark fishermen have sacrificed more than most. Please do not punish
that sacrifice by taking away an important source of our income.
Thank you very much for your time and attention to my testimony. I
am happy to answer any questions members of this Subcommittee may have.
*****
ATTACHMENT
U.S. Shark Fishermen and Dealers Support H.R. 5248, the Sustainable
Shark Fisheries and Trade Act of 2018
As commercial shark fishermen and fish houses participating in
sustainable U.S. shark fisheries we are very pleased that
Representatives Daniel Webster (R-FL) and Ted Lieu (D-CA) have
introduced H.R. 5248, the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act of
2018.
We believe H.R. 5248 or ``SSFTA'' is a meaningful and effective
alternative to harmful legislation proposed by CA Representative Ed
Royce and NJ Senator Cory Booker titled the ``Shark Fin Trade
Elimination Act'' (H.R. 1456/S. 793). Our livelihoods are directly
threatened by H.R. 1456/S. 793 which requires us to waste part of a
natural resource by throwing away fins from our sustainably harvested
sharks without benefiting global shark conservation. The Booker/Royce
bills unfairly punish highly regulated American fishermen by taking
away the income we can receive from fully utilizing our limited shark
harvest.
By contrast, Reps. Webster's and Lieu's bill holds other nations to
the same conservation and management standards we have adopted in our
U.S. fisheries. Under H.R. 5248, any nation seeking to export shark
products to the American market must receive certification from the
Secretary of Commerce that it has an effective ban on the practice of
``shark finning,'' and that it has a similar conservation and
management program for sharks, skates, and rays. The bill also
increases traceability of imported shark products.
While Booker/Royce rewards bad actors in other nations by taking
sustainably sourced U.S. shark fins out of the global market, Webster/
Lieu create incentives for exporting nations to end cruel fishing
practices and establish meaningful shark conservation measures,
including programs to manage populations of skates and rays.
We oppose the practice of shark finning and have long supported the
laws passed by Congress to ensure the practice does not occur in U.S.
shark fisheries. Shark finning--retaining shark fins while discarding
the rest of the carcass at sea--is both cruel and wasteful. Our
industry has been harmed by illegal shark fins that compete unfairly
with our legal, sustainably harvested product. The Sustainable Shark
Fisheries and Trade Act (H.R. 5248) builds on and strengthens these
past efforts.
We also support efforts to maintain a well-managed and sustainable
shark fishery in the U.S. and globally. Successful U.S. management has
resulted in a tremendous growth in domestic shark populations. The last
published federal fishery survey (NOAA) found an astonishing 65 percent
more sharks than the one prior. The index of shark abundance in 2015
was the highest in its 29-year history. As a result of all this, the
National Marine Fisheries Service just increased the retention limit on
large coastal sharks.
This resurgence of sharks was achieved in part on our sacrifices
over the past twenty-plus years, with the industry weathering past
quota reductions of nearly 85 percent to build today's healthy fishery.
The Booker/Royce approach would undermine these years of work by
American fishermen should it ever become law. That is part of the
reason groups like the Sustainable Shark Alliance, Garden State Seafood
Association, North Carolina Fisheries Association, Southeastern
Fisheries Association, Blue Water Fishermen's Association, and
Louisiana Shrimpers Association--represent more than shark fishermen--
also oppose the fin ban and proudly support Representatives Webster's
and Lieu's proactive bill.
We are very pleased to join these organizations in supporting
Congressmen Webster's and Lieu's bill H.R. 5248 and urge others in
Congress to join them in this proactive and conservation-minded
measure. Attached is a fact sheet regarding the domestic shark fishery.
You may contact our representative, Mr. Shaun Gehan, at (202) 412-2508
for more information.
Sincerely,
Safe Harbour Seafood, Bryant Products,
Bon Secour, AL Bayou La Batre, AL
Madeira Beach Seafood, Save On Seafood,
Madeira Beach, FL St. Petersburg, FL
Seafood Atlantic, Greg Abrams Seafood,
Port Canaveral, FL Panama City, FL
AP Bell Seafood, Fishermen's Ice & Bait,
Madeira Beach, FL Madeira Beach, FL
Kings Seafood, Wild Ocean Market Seafood,
Port Orange, FL Titusville, FL
Omni Shrimp Company, Day Boat Seafood,
Madeira Beach, FL Lake Park, FL
Phoenix Fisheries, DSF, Inc.,
Southport, FL Daytona Bch., FL
Hull's Seafood Markets,
Inc., Phillips Seafood,
Ormond Beach, FL Townsend, GA
Ocean Fresh Seafood, Venice Fish and Shrimp,
New Orleans, LA Venice, LA
Southern Seafood Connect'n, Marder Trawling Inc,
Crisfield, MD New Bedford, MA
Seatrade International, Crystal Coast Fisheries,
Topsfield, MA Morehead City, NC
Avon Seafood, Wanchese Fisheries,
Avon, NC Wanchese, NC
O'Neal's Sea Harvest, B & J Seafood,
Wanchese, NC New Bern, NC
Willie R. Etheridge
Seafood, Jeffery's Seafood,
Wanchese, NC Hatteras, NC
Crystal Coast Dayboat
Seafood, Lund's Fisheries,
Morehead Cy, NC Cape May, NJ
Viking Village Seafood, Agger Fish Corp,
Barnegat Light, NJ Brooklyn, NY
Carolina Seafood,
Rutledge Leeland, SC
F/V Angelina F/V Blake F/V Blue Water
F/V Chase F/V Coupe de Grille F/V Fishhawk
F/V Honey Bee F/V Juma F/V Michelle Marie
F/V Miss Brianna F/V Miss Maggie F/V Miss Rita
F/V Rachaelle Nicole F/V Right Stuff F/V Sword Fish
F/V Taurus F/V Tobo F/V Boss Lady
F/V Miss Alexis F/V Miss Jessica F/V J. O'Neal
F/V Reel of Fortune F/V B.C. F/V Bobalou
F/V Butter F/V Sharon G F/V Watersport
F/V Little Clam F/V Windy Gale F/V Logan's Luck
F/V M B F/V Miss Megan F/V Shannon D
F/V Sundog F/V Bout Time F/V Raven
F/V Sarah Brent F/V Miss Kaleigh F/V Miss Madeline
F/V Salvation F/V Wahoo F/V Miss Stevie
F/V Shannon Dun F/V Miss Everett F/V Blue Fin
F/V Body Count F/V Little Jo F/V Gail Mist II
F/V Haley Rose F/V Black Jack F/V No Limit
F/V Toucan F/V Jodie Lynn III F/V Lady Martiza
F/V Out of Hand F/V Islander F/V Top Tuna
F/V Fish Hound F/V Captain Lynn F/V Miss Shell
F/V Lisa Ann F/V Daytona F/V Miss Haley II
F/V Right on Time F/V Crosswinds IV F/V Miss Brenda Louise
F/V Leo B. F/V Endeavor F/V Jean Marie
F/V Miss Ann F/V Capt. Gorman III F/V Denise Ann
F/V Hull's Sea Lover F/V 2nd Wind F/V Pancake
F/V Elizabeth F/V Emily's Weigh F/V Albi
F/V Big Eye F/V Chances R III F/V Christopher Joe
F/V Day Boat III F/V Day Boat One F/V Day Boat Too
F/V Die Trying F/V Dusty Boy F/V Erica Lynn
F/V High Voltage F/V Janice Ann F/V JC 31
F/V Joshua Nicole F/V Kelly Ann F/V Knotty Girl
F/V Lady Linda F/V Miss Jane F/V Miss Sierra
F/V My Girl F/V Osprey F/V Parker
F/V Provider F/V Right On Time F/V Sea Hawk
F/V Shooting Star F/V Standin' Up F/V Stella Maris
F/V Straight Flush F/V Susie Two F/V Swordfin
F/V T&Sea F/V Theresa C F/V Two Can
F/V Two Sons F/V Vicki Ann F/V Virgin Hooker
F/V Vitamin Sea F/V White Water F/V Whitewater II
F/V Yellowfin F/V Dana Christine II F/V Eagle Eye
F/V Eyelander F/V Eagle Eye 2 Tar Baby
F/V Denise Ann
ATTACHMENT
FACTS REGARDING THE DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL SHARK FISHERY
AND OUR CONCERNS WITH THE SHARK FIN TRADE ELIMINATION ACT
(H.R. 1456/S. 793)
The U.S. is a global leader in shark conservation and
management. It is a chief opponent of the wasteful practice
of ``shark finning''--discarding shark meat and landing
only the fins. Finning has been federally prohibited since
1993, while the shark population has been growing since
2000. In 2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service's
shark survey found the most sharks in its 29-year history,
65% more than the prior survey.
The industry opposes finning, but the Shark Fin Trade
Elimination Act also hurts fishermen that are harvesting
sharks the right way. Fins account for 50% of a shark's
landed value. Without income from these, revenue from
sharks would not cover fuel costs and our fishery will
cease. This Act will destroy a successful fishery and harm
small fishing communities.
The government should not deny American people access to
this product or deny fishing communities important income
from a sustainable fishery.
Virtually all fins are exported, overwhelmingly to China.
This trade plays a small, but important role in improving
our balance of trade.
The bills provide no conservation benefit and will likely
harm international shark conservation. Destroying fins is
as wasteful as discarding shark meat. The small portion of
fins taken off the international market will be replaced,
likely by fins from unsustainable and unregulated
fisheries.
Demand for shark fins, culturally important in Asia, will
not abate soon. The U.S. can help foster responsible shark
fishing practices globally through participation in
international forums. Our authority will be weakened if the
U.S. abandons its own model shark fishery and instead
promotes the extreme, wasteful, and uneconomic policy of
fin destruction.
These bills reward bad actors and harm those who play by
the rules. Congress should urge NMFS to finalize its list
of shark finning nations under the High Seas Driftnet
Fishing Moratorium Act and impose an import moratorium on
those that fail to stop the practice. Congress should also
support America's law-abiding shark fishermen and their
communities by ensuring that they can obtain the full value
of their highly limited catch no matter where they live.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Kondon, you
are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF VANCE KONDON, ASSISTANT MANAGER, RAINBOW REEF DIVE
CENTER, KEY LARGO, FLORIDA
Mr. Kondon. Good afternoon, Chairman Lamborn, Ranking
Member Huffman, and members of the Committee. Thank you for
giving me the opportunity to testify before you today on H.R.
1456, the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act.
My name is Vance Kondon, and I am originally from San
Diego, California where I grew up just several blocks from the
ocean where I spent much of my free time surfing, skin diving,
and fishing. After high school, I joined the military and
served our great Nation for 30 years. After retiring from the
Air Force in 2016, I completed my scuba instructor
certification and have since been serving in a management role
and as an instructor at Rainbow Reef Dive Center in Key Largo,
Florida, which is the largest dive operator in the Florida Keys
and one of the busiest dive training centers in the Western
Hemisphere.
Science has proven time and again that sharks play
important roles in ocean ecosystems around the world, but it
may not be as well known that sharks play important roles in
ocean-based tourism economies, including here in the United
States. There have been a number of scientific studies that
show shark watchers spend hundreds of millions of dollars on
shark ecotourism every year around the world, and that number
is growing.
In 2017, an independent study commissioned by Oceana found
that direct expenditures for shark encounters in the diving
industry totaled over $221 million and fueled over 3,700 jobs
in Florida, mine included. I can tell you from firsthand
experience that people in Florida and our customers from around
the world love to see sharks. During the peak summer season, we
will take up to a thousand customers out to Key Largo's reefs
each week, who are coming with an expectation that the reef
life, including sharks, will be in abundance.
Unfortunately, we have to let guests know that we only
occasionally see sharks. One reason for this is because the
dive tourism industry is being threatened by the demand for
shark fins, one of the greatest threats to sharks around the
world. In Key Largo, it has become rare to sight the Caribbean
reef sharks that we used to see more in the past. When we are
really lucky, we see a few hammerhead sharks each year.
Hammerhead sharks have suffered immensely from the fin
trade and currently fetch some of the highest prices for their
fins. Scalloped hammerheads in the Atlantic are considered
overfished and are experiencing overfishing while smooth and
great hammerheads do not have species specific stock
assessments, the basis of any sustainably managed fishery.
While finning is illegal in the United States, it still
occurs. In fact, almost exactly 1 year ago, Florida Fish and
Wildlife officers stopped a Key West shrimp boat that had been
illegally finning in U.S. waters a mere 20 miles north of the
island. Inquiry from Senator Booker's office revealed that
since January 1, 2010, NOAA has investigated 85 incidents
involving alleged shark finning in our waters, 29 of which
brought charges.
I, myself, have seen evidence of this horrible act. Just a
little over a year ago, in one of our deep shipwreck sights in
Key Largo, we were horrified to find several sharks that were
finned and dumped to die in the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary. It is impossible to tell whether a fin has been cut
off of a shark legally or illegally once it has been detached
from the body. It is not impossible that the fins from the
sharks I saw that day may have ended up in a bowl of soup
somewhere here in the United States.
Things get even more complicated when shark fin imports are
brought into the mix. Although the United States has deemed
finning illegal, I was shocked to learn that we are actively
importing fins from countries that do not have the same
protections in place. Miami, a city close in proximity to some
of the dive businesses that are thriving due to sharks, has
been the Number one importer of shark fins from Hong Kong since
2015.
A recent study has shown that fewer than 10 species in Hong
Kong fin trade have sustainably managed fisheries anywhere in
their range, and nearly one-third were considered vulnerable or
endangered by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature. A news report from the South China Morning Post
published just a few days ago reported that Indonesian
authorities intercepted an illegal shipment of 20 metric tons
of shark fin bound for Hong Kong. The fins were labeled as
frozen fish and included hammerhead fins. If they had reached
their destination, it could have been mixed with other fins and
re-exported to the United States.
We cannot continue to participate in this trade that is
decimating shark populations around the world. There is a
simple solution to this problem to end the demand for shark
fins in the United States and to ensure that any fin,
especially if illegally obtained, cannot be sold here.
The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act, H.R. 1456, would do
exactly that. Already, 12 states have banned the sale and trade
of shark fins, and they are not alone. They joined 40 airlines,
20 major shipping companies, and 7 large corporations. Support
for this act is overwhelming--8 in 10 Americans support a fin
ban as do 9 aquariums, multiple recreational fishing interests,
over 150 chefs, 150 scientists, 85 surfers, surf businesses and
publications, 237 Members of the House, and over 500 businesses
and organizations, including mine. The world is moving toward
ending the shark fin trade, and the United States has an
opportunity to be the leader. This opportunity should not be
wasted.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kondon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vance Kondon, Assistant Manager, Rainbow Reef
Dive Center, Key Largo, Florida on H.R. 1456
introduction
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you
for giving me the opportunity to testify before you today on H.R.
1456--the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act.
My name is Vance Kondon, and I am originally from San Diego,
California, where I grew up just several blocks from the ocean, and
where I spent much of my free time surfing, skin diving and fishing. It
was in this time in my youth that I came to love and appreciate the
wonder of the ocean and its inhabitants. After high school, I joined
the military and served our great nation for 30 years, with my final
assignment at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, just a short distance from
the Capital, before retiring just coming up on about 2 years ago.
During my years of service, I had the opportunity to travel and live in
parts of the world where I was able to spend time in the ocean and
pursue training in scuba diving, beginning in 1987 in Guam. I completed
training as a divemaster in 1999 and assisted in training other divers
while stationed in Honduras from 2004 to 2008. After retiring from the
Air Force in 2016, I completed my scuba instructor certification and
have since been serving in a management role and instructor at Rainbow
Reef Dive Center in Key Largo, Florida, which is the largest dive
operator in the Florida Keys and one of the busiest diving training
centers in the Western Hemisphere.
sharks and tourism
Science has proven time and time again that sharks play important
roles in ocean ecosystems around the world. But it may not be as well
known that sharks play important roles in ocean-based tourism
economies, including here in the United States. There have been a
number of scientific studies that show shark-watchers spend hundreds of
millions of dollars on shark ecotourism every year around the world,
and that number is growing.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cisneros-Montemayor, Andres M., Michele Barnes-Mauthe, Dalal
Al-Abdulrazzak, Estrella Navarro-Holm, and U. Rashid Sumaila. ``Global
Economic Value of Shark Ecotourism: Implications for Conservation.''
Oryx 47, no. 3 (July 2013): 381-88. doi:10.1017/S0030605312001718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2017, an independent study commissioned by Oceana found that
direct expenditures for shark encounters in the diving industry totaled
over $221 million and fueled over 3,700 jobs in Florida, mine
included.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://usa.oceana.org/press-releases/new-report-finds-shark-
related-diving-generated-over-221-million-florida-2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These numbers may seem large, but I can tell you from firsthand
experience that people in Florida love to see sharks. Though there is
never truly a slow dive season for us in Key Largo, during the peak
summer season, from the end of May through October, at Rainbow Reef
alone, we will take anywhere from 750 to 1,000 customers out to Key
Largo's reefs each week. Most of those customers want to see the bigger
aquatic life when we take them out: turtles, rays, and most
importantly, sharks. Our guests come from all over the world because
Key Largo has an incredible reputation of being ``The Dive Capital of
the World,'' so they come with an expectation that the reefs and reef
life, including sharks, will be in abundance. Unfortunately, we have to
let guests know that we only occasionally see sharks, and that we'll do
our best to take them to locations where they may see them, because it
is not something that happens as often as we would like.
sharks in trouble
One reason this happens is because the dive tourism industry is
being threatened by the demand for shark fins--one of the greatest
threats to sharks around the world. This demand has driven some
populations of sharks to ever lower numbers, which hurts dive
businesses across the United States.
In Key Largo, we see nurse sharks most often, but not on every dive
trip. Sadly, it has become much more rare to sight the Caribbean reef
sharks that we used to see more of in the past. When we are really
lucky, which is only a few times a year, we see one or two hammerhead
sharks on our reefs. Hammerhead sharks have suffered immensely from the
fin trade and, currently fetch some of the highest prices for their
fins. In the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the average price for a hammerhead
fin is $15.95 per pound. This stands in stark contrast with the meat
from this same shark, which only is worth about $0.25 per pound.\3\
Additionally, scalloped hammerheads in the Atlantic are considered
overfished and are experiencing overfishing, while the smooth and great
hammerheads do not have species-specific stock assessments--the basis
of any sustainably managed fishery.\4\ As dive professionals, it is
hard for us to see shark populations suffer due to the fin trade
because we love to see the sharks alive and swimming in our reefs. This
also means we are not able to share that experience with our guests as
often as we'd like, which would be on every dive trip if it were
possible!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/11/22/2017-
25203/atlantic-highly-migratory-species-2018-atlantic-shark-commercial-
fishing-season.
\4\ https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/population-assessments/
fishery-stock-status-updates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shark finning, the act of slicing the fin off a shark and dumping
the body back into the ocean, is a gruesome result of the demand for
shark fins. While finning is illegal in the United States, it still
occurs. In fact, almost exactly 1 year ago, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission officers stopped a Key West shrimp boat that
had been illegally finning in U.S. waters--a mere 20 miles north of the
island.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/
article142029049.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not the only time this has happened in recent years. An
inquiry from Senator Booker's office revealed that since January 1,
2010, NOAA has investigated 85 incidents involving alleged shark
finning; 26 of those investigations have resulted in charges.
In 2012, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries caught
two men with 11 whole sharks and 2,073 shark fins, taken from another
518 fish. They were ordered to pay a $45,000 fine to NOAA.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2016/02/
fishermen_plead_guilty_after_f.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2017, divers in West Palm Beach encountered dead sharks
missing fins on one of their dives.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcYJRUsR7jw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I, myself, have seen evidence of this horrible act in U.S. waters.
Just last year, on one of our deep wreck sites in Key Largo, we were
horrified to find several sharks that were finned and dumped to die in
the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Unfortunately, we arrived
likely long after the sharks were finned and dumped, as there were no
other boats in the area of the dive site and the sharks were already
deceased.
It is impossible to tell whether a fin has been cut off of a shark
legally or illegally once it is detached from the body. It's not
impossible that the fins from the sharks I saw that day may have ended
up in a bowl of soup served here in the United States.
shark fin imports
Things get even more complicated when shark fin imports are brought
into the mix. The United States has deemed finning illegal due to the
cruel and wasteful nature of the practice. However, I was shocked to
learn that we are actively importing shark fins from countries that do
not have the same protections in place.
Miami, a city close in proximity to the dive businesses that are
thriving due to sharks, is importing shark fins from Hong Kong yearly.
In fact, Miami has been the #1 importer of shark fins from Hong Kong
since 2015.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/webpls/
trade_alldstrct_byproduct.results?qtype=IMP&qyear
from=2010&qyearto=2018&qproduct=SHARK&qsort=DISTRICT&qoutput=TABLE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a problem because a recent study showed that fewer than 10
species in the Hong Kong fin trade have sustainably managed fisheries
anywhere in their range, and nearly one-third were considered
vulnerable or endangered by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Fields, A.T., Fischer, G.A., Shea, S.K., Zhang, H.,
Abercrombie, D.L., Feldheim, K.A., . . . & Chapman, D.D. (2017).
Species composition of the international shark fin trade assessed
through a retail-market survey in Hong Kong. Conservation Biology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We cannot continue to participate in this trade that is decimating
shark populations around the world.
shark fin sales elimination act
There is a simple solution to this problem--to end the demand for
shark fins in the United States, and to ensure that any fin, even if
illegally obtained, cannot be sold here.
The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act (H.R. 1456) would do exactly
that.
Already, 12 states have banned the sale and trade of shark fins and
they are not alone. They join 40 airlines, 20 major shipping companies,
and 7 large corporations. Fifty-one percent of international airlines
now have banned shark fins, based on seat capacity. Worldwide, 17 of
the 19 biggest shipping lines measured by container capacity have
banned shark fins, impacting 71 percent of the global market.\10\
Support for this act is overwhelming--8 in 10 Americans support a fin
ban, as do 9 aquariums, multiple recreational fishing interests, over
150 chefs, 150 scientists, 85 surfers, surf businesses and surf
publications, and over 500 U.S. businesses and organizations, including
mine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/economy/article/2089229/
chinas-biggest-airline-bans-shark-fin-cargo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The world is moving toward ending the shark fin trade, and the
United States has an opportunity to be a leader. This opportunity
should not be wasted.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. Dr. Parsons, you are now recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. GLENN R. PARSONS, PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY AND
DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR BIO-DIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION
RESEARCH, DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI,
OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI
Mr. Parsons. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Subcommittee
members. I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the
many Republican and Democratic legislators supporting the Shark
Fin Sales Elimination Act. It is very gratifying to see the
overwhelming bipartisan support that this legislation enjoys. I
am honored to be given the opportunity to provide my point of
view.
I am Dr. Glenn Parsons, Professor of Biology at the
University of Mississippi and Director of our Biodiversity and
Conservation Biology Research Group. As director, I represent
many scientists who support this legislation.
My credentials for testifying here include millions of
dollars in grant funding and awards for conservation research
from several top conservation organizations in the world, as
well as several government agencies, including the EPA and NOAA
and my conservation work has also been endorsed by two
different governors of Mississippi, one Democratic and one
Republican. However, my most important credential is my 40
years of personal hands-on experiences with sharks.
You see before you a man that has been slapped, slashed,
and bitten by sharks, a scientist that was the first to film
sharks being born, a researcher that has spent long hours in
the laboratory and at sea on board research and commercial
vessels trying to solve the shark bycatch problem, an educator
that has taught hundreds of students the wonders of shark
biology, and an author of many papers and books on sharks. I am
affectionately referred to as Sharkman by my friends and
family, whereas I actually prefer Dr. Sharkman. It is clear
that sharks are an important part of my psyche and career.
Distinguished Committee members, there are those that will
argue that this bill will have an insignificant effect on shark
conservation. When the United States sets the example, other
countries will likely follow suit in exactly the same way that
U.S. states and various businesses have banned the fin trade.
For example, a recent article by the South China Post noted
that shark fin imports to Hong Kong have been cut by half since
2007, owing to shipping bans and tighter international
regulations. They say it will be a loss of income to U.S.
fishers. I am sympathetic to the plight of commercial fishers.
I have worked closely with the commercial industry for years,
however, this bill does not stop commercial shark fishing. Over
70 percent of the value of the shark fishery will still be
retained. Therefore, I ask you, would it inspire you to support
this legislation by describing the feeling of wonder that
scientists such as myself, divers, surfers, tourists, aquarium
goers, and others receive from working with and observing this
public natural resource.
Would it inspire you to describe the important role sharks
play in ocean ecosystems as keystone species and their amazing
sensory abilities. These are animals that can detect the
faintest electric fields, a sensory modality that we cannot
even begin to appreciate. Can I kindle in you a sense of
outrage to tell you that I have personally witnessed declines
in the populations of sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. Unless we
make changes, we will likely see the extinctions of many
charismatic organisms, sharks included, in the near future.
NOAA's latest status of stocks update lists the number of
shark stocks that do not even have stock assessments. These
include silky sharks, tiger sharks, smooth and great
hammerheads, and many more. These sharks I just listed are
among the most popular in the fin trade. Could I appeal to your
sense of right and wrong by describing shark finning, the cruel
and wasteful removal of a shark's fin while the body is
discarded, that is going on even as we speak, how those tainted
fins end up in U.S. markets, and how some of those fins are
from threatened or endangered shark species speeding them
toward extinction.
A final few comments. The foundations of the field of
conservation biology began with the religious idea of man as a
faithful steward of creation. Many of the religions of the
world believe there is a connection between the natural and
spiritual world. Extinction breaks that connection and
diminishes the earth.
Extinction of an organism is like discovering ancient text
written in a language that we cannot yet decipher and then
destroying them all. Who knows what mysteries would have been
solved, what questions could have been answered by the words
written there?
So, I ask you--will we look back and say we should have
been better stewards? This is our moment to send a message to
the world that the United States will no longer participate in
the shark fin trade. I hope that we will not miss our moment.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Parsons follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Glenn R. Parsons, Professor of Biology and
Director of the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation Research;
Department of Biology; The University of Mississippi on H.R. 1456
introduction
Thank you Chairman Lamborn and Subcommittee members. First, I would
like to express my deep appreciation to the many Republican and
Democratic legislators for supporting the Shark Fin Sales Elimination
Act (H.R. 1456). It is very gratifying to see the bipartisan support
that this legislation has enjoyed. I am honored and excited to be given
the opportunity to provide my point of view. In this testimony, I hope
to convey to you a sense of how important this legislation is to me
personally and, no doubt, to many of your constituents.
My name is Glenn Parsons, a Professor of Biology at the University
of Mississippi, where I teach, among other things, Conservation Biology
and The Biology of Sharks. I am also Director of the University of
Mississippi Center for Biodiversity and Conservation Biology. As
director, I represent some 30 scientists who are committed to
investigating means to help maintain the biodiversity of the planet,
and all of whom support the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act.
brief credentials
Regarding my academic credentials: my undergraduate degree is from
the University of Alabama, Birmingham, my master's degree is from the
University of South Alabama, and my doctoral degree is from the
University of South Florida, School of Marine Science. I have been
recognized and received awards for my marine and freshwater
conservation research by the World Wildlife Fund, the Rolex
Corporation, the Walton Foundation for Marine Research, the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, two different governors of Mississippi
(one a Democrat and the other a Republican), the National Marine
Fisheries Service, The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Mississippi
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and various other organizations.
I have directed to completion 18 master's and doctoral graduate
students, many of them shark biologists. I have studied sharks for the
past 40 years, published over 100 scientific papers, reports, books and
popular articles on sharks and other fishes, and received millions of
dollars of grant funds to investigate shark and fish biology.
research efforts
Approximately 15 years ago, my research focus turned to the problem
of bycatch in commercial and recreational fisheries. Bycatch refers to
the unintended, unwanted capture of non-target species. An example of
this is the non-target sharks captured during commercial tuna fishing.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of those sharks do not survive the
stress of capture. Bycatch is an enormous problem in many fisheries
around the world, and new technology to reduce or eliminate bycatch is
sorely needed. As a matter of fact, I received an award from the World
Wildlife Fund for my work on bycatch. I have worked very closely with
the National Marine Fisheries Service and with many members of the
commercial fishing industry in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic to
address the bycatch issue. Recently, we received research funding to
investigate novel methods to allow sharks to escape after being hooked
by fishers and to help sharks survive the rigors of capture. This work
on shark bycatch has been some of the most rewarding and perhaps the
most important of my professional career!
sharks: a personal view
When I was invited to submit testimony in support of this
legislation, I asked myself ``What are my credentials for doing this?''
My credentials for delivering this testimony are not my degrees, titles
and scientific accomplishments. Not the classes I teach, the graduate
students of shark biology I have directed, nor the amounts of grant
money and awards I have received. My most important credential is my 40
years of personal experiences with sharks.
I have been slapped, slashed, and bitten by sharks. I've assisted
with shark birth and was the first to document sharks being born on
film. I have walked sharks around in shallow, tropical water for hours,
trying to help them recover from capture stress. I have spent long
hours in the laboratory, and countless hours at sea, investigating
methods that might help sharks to survive the stress of capture. I have
taught many students the wonders of shark biology. I have even written
and recorded a song about sharks. For what it is worth, my friends and
family affectionately refer to me as ``Sharkman.'' To say sharks occupy
an important place in my psyche is clearly an understatement.
sharks as keystone species, shark fisheries
Sharks likewise occupy an important place in oceanic ecosystems. As
a top predator, they play an important role in regulating the
populations of their prey species. Reducing or eliminating these
``keystone species'' may result in unpredictable, deleterious, and
potentially irreversible changes in marine community structure. A
``cascade'' of effects caused by declining large shark populations has
already been scientifically documented. The decline in shark
populations has been the result primarily of commercial and
recreational fisheries and the demand for the most prized parts of
their bodies--the fins.
In general, shark species are terrible candidates for supporting a
fishery. Consider their biology: female sharks produce relatively few
``pups,'' some may require many years to mature, and some have a long
life span that is necessary to produce the number of offspring to
maintain their populations against natural rates of attrition.
Superimpose the added burden of many millions of sharks removed from
the oceans by fishing and you have a recipe for disaster:
70 to 100 million sharks killed by commercial and
recreational fishers each year, and some estimates have
been as high as 270 million.
Shark populations reduced by 50 to 90 percent over the
last 10 years.
Troubling declines in the ``great'' species of sharks in
the world's oceans.
Sixty-eight of the approximate 500 species of sharks
listed by the IUCN are Vulnerable, Endangered, or
Critically Endangered.
Sixty species listed as Data Deficient.
Cascading ecosystem effects due to shark removal.
A 2013 study in the journal Marine Policy found that sharks
continue to be captured at rates that far exceed their ability to
replace themselves. This paints a very disturbing picture for a fishery
and for attempts to manage that fishery. Management is possible for
some of the smaller species, but for large species, carefully collected
biological data is required, a difficult task in the face of limited
management personnel and limited resources. Despite herculean efforts
on the part of Federal and state managers, we still lack critical data
necessary for management of the vast majority of shark species.
Compiling shark data for population modeling is difficult and
complicated by the fact that different populations of the same shark
species could have very different management needs depending on where
they're located. Mortality rates (and other biological data) estimated
for the southern populations of a particular shark species may not be
the same as in northern populations of the exact same species. This
begs the question, how many shark populations are there in the world?
We have no idea.
The message is clear; our understanding of shark population
dynamics for most species is rudimentary at best and non-existent at
worst, making the idea of a sustainable fishery for most shark species
farcical at this point in time. To exemplify the above problem, when I
first became involved in shark research in the late 1970s, there were
only two reasonably sound estimates of shark natural mortality. Fast
forward to 2018, over 40 years later, and there are maybe 5 species
(out of 500!) whose natural mortality has been estimated with some
reliability. It's taken over 40 years and we don't have much more
information than we did when we started--and this is only one example
of the lack of data for many shark stocks both in the United States and
abroad.
sharks and the devastating fin trade
The demand for shark fins is one of the main reasons for declines
in shark populations around the world. Every year, up to 73 million
sharks end up in the global fin trade. The demand for these fins fuels
shark finning--the act of slicing the fins off a shark and dumping its
body back at sea where it will drown, bleed to death, or be eaten alive
by other fish. This shark fin trade is devastating. New studies have
revealed that 91.3 percent of the fins in the global fin trade are from
unsustainable sources, and fewer than 10 species in the Hong Kong fin
trade have sustainably managed fisheries anywhere in their range.
The United States has stated that shark finning is abhorrent and
against the law, yet we still import fins from countries that are
actively finning, thereby creating economic incentives for the act to
continue. Fins entering the United States have come from countries that
have no regulations against finning, and those fins could have quite
possibly been removed in a manner that is illegal in U.S. waters. Once
a fin is in the United States, it is nearly impossible to tell if it
came from an illegal or legal source.
To help make sure that no fins from finned sharks are being sold
within their borders, 12 states (Hawaii, Oregon, Washington,
California, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Massachusetts,
Texas, Rhode Island, and Nevada) and all three Pacific territories have
banned the sale and trade of shark fins.
In addition to states taking action, private companies are also
refusing to ship or sell shark fin products, including Amazon, GrubHub,
many hotels and major airlines, Hong Kong Disneyland and multiple
shipping companies. Over 51 percent of international airlines, by seat
capacity, have now banned shark fins. Worldwide, 17 of the 19 biggest
shipping lines measured by container capacity have banned shark fins,
impacting 71 percent of the global market. However, as companies and
states close the door to the shark fin trade, other doors remain open,
and the market shifts accordingly.
For example, after California and Illinois enacted their bans,
shark fin trade activity in the United States shifted primarily to
Texas. Now that Texas has implemented its own shark fin trade ban, the
trade in shark fins has begun to move to Georgia. The United States is
engaging in a game of whack-a-mole, as the shark fin trade shifts in
response to a growing patchwork of fin trade bans. Additionally, even
states that have bans, like California, are still importing fins
because of enforcement issues with interstate commerce.
With previous legislation, the U.S. Congress has made its stance
clear on the cruel and wasteful practice of shark finning. And yet,
fins from finned sharks, even likely including fins from sharks that
are threatened or endangered, are being bought and sold in the United
States. Additionally, previous laws did not address the main problem:
too many sharks are being killed, and one of the main factors for this
is the demand for their fins--whether they are finned or taken to shore
with their fins naturally attached. But this is a solvable problem. A
national ban like the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act (H.R. 1456) would
solve many of these issues. To be clear, H.R. 1456 does not prohibit
shark fishing, it merely prohibits the sale and trade of the shark's
fins.
sharks as living treasures
The frequency at which sharks appear in literature, film, and
television attests to their popularity among vast numbers of people in
the United States. It seems that folks have an almost unlimited
capacity for anything shark-related. Go to any public aquarium and you
will see patrons standing in rapt attention, absolutely captivated by
the power and grace of sharks as they pass before them. I can describe
the feeling of fascination that myself and many of your constituents
receive from being in wild places, experiencing sharks in their natural
habitat, and feeling that I am, at least for a time, connected to the
natural world. The sensory biology of sharks, and the fact that they
are capable of detecting the faintest electric fields, a sensory
modality that we as humans cannot begin to appreciate, is awe-
inspiring. Not only are sharks valuable in an aesthetic sense, they
represent a treasure-trove of valuable biological information. For
example, recent findings indicate that compounds discovered in sharks
have great potential as pharmaceuticals to treat various human
diseases. The drug discoveries that shark biology is presently
providing will no doubt alleviate much human suffering.
conclusions
We are losing wild places in the world and the species that inhabit
them at an alarming rate. The species remaining are compressed into
smaller and smaller areas, a serious problem called habitat
fragmentation. Unless we start being smarter about how we treat the
environment and the organisms found there, most biologists predict that
we will see many extinctions in the very near future. While I have
always been skeptical of gloom-and-doom predictions, I have seen the
numbers and they do not look good. Habitat fragmentation and loss of
biodiversity are the two biggest problems faced by conservation
biologists today.
I have personally witnessed declines in populations of large sharks
in the Gulf of Mexico. It is clear that a major factor driving shark
population declines is the demand for shark fin soup. The fear among
many scientists is that we will soon lose many of the largest shark
species to extinction. Extinction is permanent. You do not get a do-
over with extinction.
Finally, the foundations of the field of conservation biology began
with the religious idea of man as a faithful steward of creation. Many
of the religions of the world believe there is a connection between the
natural and the spiritual world. Extinction breaks that connection and
diminishes the earth. A short quote from my book ``Sharks, Skates and
Rays of the Gulf of Mexico'':
``Extinction of an organism is like discovering ancient texts
written in a language that we cannot yet decipher, and then
destroying them all. Who knows what mysteries would have been
solved, what questions could have been answered by the words
written there?''
Will we look back on this day and regret that we should have been
better stewards? This is our moment to send a message to the world that
the United States will no longer participate in the trade in shark
fins. I hope that we will not miss our moment.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Glenn R. Parsons, Professor,
The University of Mississippi
Questions Submitted by Rep. Barragan
Question 1. A study by the University of Miami has found that shark
fins contain high concentrations of BMAA, a neurotoxin linked to
neurodegenerative diseases in humans, including Alzheimer's and Lou
Gehrig's disease (ALS), and suggests that consumption of shark fin soup
may pose a significant health risk for degenerative brain diseases.
1a. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration and EPA recommend
that women who might become pregnant, women who are pregnant, nursing
mothers, and young children should not eat shark because it contains
high levels of mercury.
1b. Given this information, do you think shark fin and meat
consumption is wise?
Answer. Long-lived marine animals, such as many shark species, may
potentially bio-accumulate toxins. Bio-accumulation refers to the fact
that over time, very small quantities of toxins that may be normally
found in the sharks' prey, will concentrate in the flesh of the
predator. This can become a significant problem when animals live to be
50, 60, 70 years old or more. Each year that passes results in
additional toxin accumulating in the flesh. When we consume the flesh
of these long-lived animals, we may be putting ourselves at significant
health risk.
The situation with BMAA is an interesting one. BMAA is found
naturally in many plants and animals. One of the first indications of a
toxic effect was discovered on the island of Guam. An unusually large
percentage of people on Guam were afflicted with ALS-parkinsonism at a
rate that was 50 to 100 times greater than the rest of the world. A
particularly popular dish for the Gumanian people were large bats
called Flying Foxes. Consumption of these bats was infrequent prior to
the introduction of firearms following World War II. Afterwards,
islanders were able to harvest bats with great efficiency. The
appearance of ALS-parkinsonism in the population closely followed the
increased consumption of Flying Foxes. The bats were shown to have bio-
accumulated BMAA to very high levels and every time Guamanians feasted
on bats they dosed themselves with the toxin. The connection between
neurological disease and BMAA was bolstered when brain tissues of
Guamanians that died of ALS were found to have high levels of the toxin
and bats found in museum specimens from that time period had incredibly
high levels of the toxin in their tissues. Additionally, BMAA has been
detected in the brain tissues of North American patients who died of
Alzheimers.
BMAA has recently been identified in shark flesh and fins. The
compound may pose a health risk in and of itself. However, sharks are
also known to bio-accumulate mercury and this creates an additional
health hazard. The important question, that we cannot as yet answer, is
how do these two compounds interact in the human body when they are
consumed. Both BMAA and methyl mercury may cause neurological damage
leading to Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig and Parkinsons. The recommended
limits on consumption of shark flesh set forth by the FDA and EPA
specifically reference the high mercury content. As it turns out, the
two toxins may have a synergistic effect. A synergism occurs when the
effects of two factors combine together to create an effect greater
than the sum of their individual effects. It is like drinking a cup of
hot coffee or eating a habanero pepper. They are both hot. But if you
consume the two of them together, it may feel much, much hotter. Their
individual effects may work together synergistically, to have a much
larger total effect. This is the concern regarding BMAA and mercury in
shark flesh and fins. If they act synergistically, there may be an
elevated risk for neurological damage in those consuming the flesh and
fins.
I apologize for a long-winded answer to a simple question: I
certainly agree with the FDA and EPA limits on consumption. It is
possible that healthy adults can consume shark flesh with no problems.
However, I personally do not consume the flesh (and certainly not the
fins) and would not recommend it to others. It is not worth the risk in
my opinion.
Question 2. Why can't we just ban imported shark fins?
Answer. My understanding of the issue with a simple ban on imported
fins concerns World Trade Organization principles of non-discrimination
in trade. WTO member countries cannot treat imported products
differently than domestic products and countries cannot discriminate
between their trading partners. If either of these principles are
violated, a country could sue the United States before a WTO tribunal.
That country could also retaliate against the United States by raising
the prices of certain exports, and U.S. consumers could end up paying
for the violation.
A parallel situation involved the U.S. attempt to prohibit the
import of shrimp originating from countries that did not require Turtle
Excluder Devices (TEDs) in their shrimp trawls. TEDs obviously were
(and are today) required in the United States to prevent the capture
and subsequent death, of protected sea turtles in shrimp trawls.
However, the ban on imported shrimp did not survive WTO scrutiny. To
achieve WTO compliance, the United States modified the regulation,
negotiated international agreements, and provided technical assistance
with TEDs to any government that requested it. This took years and cost
taxpayers significant amounts of money to defend 10 Federal court cases
and 4 WTO panels.
H.R. 1456, The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act of 2017, avoids all
of the troubles that would result from attempting to ban imported shark
fins. H.R. 1546, unlike H.R. 5248, is simple, has few moving parts,
directly addresses the problem of shark finning, and will clearly
achieve what it says it will achieve.
Question 3. Where is the majority of the shark fin trade located?
Answer. The majority of the global shark fin trade was historically
located in Hong Kong. While Hong Kong remains an important center of
the fin trade, recently the shark fin trade has shifted to Guangzho, a
city north of Hong Kong.
In this regard, it is important to note that shark fin imports to
Hong Kong have been reduced by 50 percent since 2007 largely due to
shipping bans and tighter international regulations. The World Wildlife
Fund stated that the declining market for shark fins in mainland China
is ``promising'' and an indicator that environmental campaigns,
including mounting pressure on shipping companies to stop carrying the
fins, as well as improved monitoring of shipping documents, were paying
off.
The above observations provide additional support for H.R. 1456 and
suggest that the bill will place additional pressure on individuals,
companies, and governments stop the trade in shark fins.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Sablan
Question 1. How easy is it to get new technologies that are proven
to reduce shark bycatch implemented in U.S. fisheries?
Question 2. Is there a process for getting these new technologies
implemented once they are proven?
Answer. My experience with implementing new bycatch technologies in
U.S. fisheries is that it is a very long-term undertaking. Clearly, the
first step is to conduct the research needed to verify that the new
technology or change in fishing method will accomplish a reduction in
bycatch. That can be the lengthiest step. The research must be thorough
and may require years of study to complete. Unfortunately, ideas that
sound great on paper often do not work in actual application. Various
methods have been tried but, to my knowledge, none has been
particularly successful.
Through work in my lab at The University of Mississippi, I have
developed a new type of leader that has been shown, in preliminary
testing, to reduce shark bycatch by 86 percent. Funded by the National
Marine Fisheries Service, through the National Bycatch Reduction
Program, the new leader, called the entangling leader, encourages
sharks to ``bite off' the line after the hook has been taken. The
leader has loops of line that entangle in the sharks teeth (but not in
typical fish teeth), the teeth cut the line, and the shark swims away
unharmed. While we only have limited field-testing, the initial results
were promising. However, we do not know if the leader will result in a
reduction in target fish (tuna/swordfish) catch. Additionally, the
leader design will necessitate a change in the manner in which
commercial fishers deploy their gear.
I do not have a good understanding of the administrative
machinations required to make changes to fishing policies. In
discussions with my colleagues, introducing or requiring new technology
in a particular fishery would be different depending upon the
circumstances. For example, if the species in question is endangered
(like sea turtles), the responsibility for requiring the new technology
(for example TEDs) would fall under the Endangered Species Act. In the
case of weak hook requirements in U.S. fisheries, that rule change came
about through the NOAA, NMFS Office of Highly Migratory Species. A
change, for instance, involving bycatch reduction in the shrimp trawl
fishery, might go through one of Fisheries Management Councils (i.e.
Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council). To an outsider looking in
it appears far too complicated to me.
Question 3. In order to be considered a sustainable fishery, is it
important for fisheries to minimize its bycatch, especially for sharks?
Answer. Bycatch, the incidental capture of non-targeted species, is
the most pressing problem faced by fisheries managers today. All
fisheries around the world suffer from some form of bycatch. Some are
very ``clean'' fisheries with little bycatch. Others, like various
longline fisheries (miles of line with many hooks) have significant
amounts of bycatch including sea turtles, birds, marine mammals and
elasmobranchs (sharks, skates, rays).
Maintaining healthy shark populations is very much dependent upon
the survival of older individuals (sub-adults and adults). Many shark
species are particularly sensitive to reductions in numbers of the
mature and maturing members of the population. Unfortunately, these
individuals are the targets of most fisheries and are often the
individuals taken as bycatch. Information from a report by the Pew
Charitable Trust on shark bycatch in tuna fisheries underscores the
bycatch problem:
-- In the 1980s and 1990s it was estimated that 300,000 metric
tons of sharks, nearly a third of the global total, were
the result of unregulated bycatch.
-- Annual average of more than 20,000 tons of dead blue sharks are
discarded in the North Atlantic tuna fishery alone.
-- In pelagic longlines, sharks often make up more than a quarter
of the total catch (target and bycatch).
Clearly, attempts to manage a fishery become considerably more
difficult when unregulated removal of individuals from the population
occurs due to bycatch in other fisheries. All indications are that
shark bycatch is exceedingly high and, for some fisheries, the
estimates seem to be fairly accurate. However, for many fisheries we
have either a very poor estimate of bycatch or none at all.
The bottom line: successfully managing any shark fishery requires
reliable values on the catch of sharks taken in the direct fishery and
reliable values of sharks taken as bycatch in other fisheries.
One additional point I would like to make that is germane to the
above discussion. As long as shark fins command such a high price
($500/pound, perhaps more?) there will be an issue with unregulated
take and shark finning by outlaw fishers around the world. Some shark
species are very sensitive to declines in their populations. Take for
example, the Dusky Shark, that was seriously over-fished to the point
where it will require 100 years(!) to rebuild stocks to 50 percent of
its original size. I am unconvinced that species, like the Dusky shark
and others with similar population characteristics, could ever be
managed to make the fishery both economically viable and sustainable.
Question 4. Can the United States do more to minimize shark bycatch
in its fisheries?
Answer. Quoting the Pew Charitable Trust report from 2010 mentioned
above: ``the problem of bycatch has been largely ignored, and no
meaningful or effective action has been taken to adequately address the
issue.''
Some recommendations for reducing shark bycatch:
1. Require a change from high tensile strength monofilament line
(the line typically used by longline fishers in the tuna/
swordfish fishery in the United States) or wire leader to
high tensile strength ``Spectra''. One of the aspects of my
research on shark bycatch was to examine the differences in
monofilament versus Spectra fishing line. The idea was that
if we can identify a line that encourages shark ``bite
offs,'' but still retains the target species (tuna/
swordfish), then this line could be used to allow sharks to
more easily escape after taking the hook. We found that
when 300 pound tensile strength Spectra is placed under
load and subjected to a blade (similar to a sharks tooth)
the line failed at a rate 500,000 times greater than
monofilament. Spectra has very good tensile strength but
when compromised by a shark's tooth, it fails very rapidly.
In my report regarding that research submitted to the
National Marine Fisheries Service I stated that ``if
commercial fishers made the simple change from high tensile
strength monofilament to spectra there would be many
additional shark ``bite-offs'' and shark bycatch would be
reduced.
If you would like to see a demonstration of the above described
effect, visit my Youtube video https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=ybul0pCqqho. Please note that I stated in the video
that the line was 300 kg tensile strength but it was
actually 300 pound tensile strength.
2. Further develop the entangling leader. It is possible that the
entangling leader (mentioned above) might be developed to
reduce shark bycatch. The leader's design encourages bite-
offs and the fact that it employs spectra fishing line
increases its effectiveness.
Note: Some of the following are not issues in U.S. fisheries but
are needed in shark fisheries worldwide.
3. Ban wire leaders in pelagic longlines. This is similar to the
above recommendation from my research. However, wire
leaders are used in some longline fisheries and they retain
sharks very effectively.
4. Require circle hooks. Circle hooks will eliminate bycatch but the
survival rate of sharks released after capture is much
higher than that of sharks captured on ``J'' hooks. Circle
hooks are less likely to result in sharks being hooked in
the gut or throat and thus enjoy greater survivorship after
capture.
5. Change bait type. There is evidence that suggests that sharks are
more likely to be captured on squid as opposed to fish
bait. Eliminate squid as bait to reduce shark bycatch.
6. Require TEDs in trawl fisheries. Turtle excluder devices in
bottom trawls effectively reduce sea turtle capture but
also significantly reduces the capture of many sharks.
7. Invest in additional research to develop new bycatch reduction
methods and to further investigate those that show promise.
Question 5. In what way would you say the United States is lacking
most in its management of shark fisheries?
Answer.
1. More basic research is needed. Despite Herculean effort on the
part of the National Marine Fisheries Service (they are not
magicians!), we still lack vital basic information
regarding most shark species. For wise management,
fecundity, age at maturity, longevity, and rates of natural
mortality (and fishing mortality) are required for any
fishery. Since sharks are typically poor candidates for
supporting a fishery, the above values become critically
important. An extremely valuable piece of information for
managing a fishery is the population's rate of natural
mortality, i.e. how many individuals in the population die
each year. Clearly, if we plan on harvesting a portion of
that population, knowing how many die from natural causes
is important. In the absence of that information, we run
the risk of inadvertently reducing the population to levels
from which it may not be able to recover (extinction then
becomes a possibility). When I began studying shark back in
the late 1970s we had one maybe two estimates of natural
mortality for sharks (there are some 500 species of
sharks). Fast-forward 40 years to today and discussions
with my colleagues/friends who study shark population
dynamics revealed that we have maybe 5 to 10 natural
mortality estimates. Additionally, the consensus is that
none of them are reliable estimates!! That is not a very
good track record after 40 years.
2. Stop managing groups of sharks instead of individual species. At
present we lump species together and create management
plans for groups of shark species. We need to do the basic
biological research, gather the needed information, and
establish management plans for individual shark species and
stocks.
3. Conduct stock assessments on a more regular basis. The revelation
that only two (perhaps only one) stock assessment was
conducted last year for U.S. shark stocks suggests that
more effort in this area is needed.
4. Do not allow retention of shark species that are at risk. I will
assume that U.S. fishers do not retain at-risk species but
there is the very real possibility that these species are
still being retained due to misidentification. This would
of course require:
5. Better education of fishers regarding identification of at-risk
species.
6. Obtain better estimates of bycatch. See the discussion above.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. Dr. Hueter, you are now recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. HUETER, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
SHARK RESEARCH, MOTE MARINE LABORATORY, SARASOTA, FLORIDA
Mr. Hueter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon. My
name is Dr. Bob Hueter, and I am a senior scientist at Mote
Marine Laboratory, an independent and non-profit marine science
institution based in Sarasota, Florida with a 63-year history
of world class research on sharks. I am Director of Mote Center
for Shark Research, which was actually established by the U.S.
Congress in 1991 in recognition of Mote's leadership in shark
research and conservation. My statements today represent both
my own professional findings and the official position of Mote
Marine Laboratory.
My career studying sharks extends over more than 40 years,
and my service on many advisory committees is detailed in my
written testimony and resume. These include 21 years on NOAA's
advisory panel for highly migratory species, the sharks, tunas,
and swordfish. I am also a past president of the American
Elasmobranch Society, the world's largest professional
organization of experts studying sharks and rays. I have
studied more than 100 species of sharks in the lab and at sea,
have swam with many species in the wild, have tagged more than
10,000 of the animals. This work has resulted in more than 200
scientific publications. It is fair to say that I really love
sharks.
My personal journey as a shark conservationist began in
1988 when I first learned of the previously unknown practice we
now call shark finning. I brought this horrendous practice to
the attention of the major media at that time beginning a 30-
year career as an advocate for science-based shark conservation
in state, Federal and international arenas. I have appeared
many times on CNN, Fox News, the Discovery Channel, and other
forums to spread the word on the importance of sharks and the
need to conserve them.
Sharks and rays have been depleted worldwide through
overfishing. That is the bad news. The good news is that after
25 years of dedicated work by scientists, conservationists,
NOAA, state agencies, and the fishing industry, U.S. shark
fisheries have become some of the best managed in the world.
And many of our shark fisheries today are healthy or rebounding
from past over exploitation.
Eighteen U.S. shark and ray fisheries are identified as
bright spots of sustainable fishing. Clearly, the United States
is doing something right with respect to shark conservation and
responsible fisheries management, but for a number of other
nations things are not so good.
Global shark fisheries are conservatively valued at about a
billion dollars. The meat is a major source of protein in some
nations and shark fins are used in shark fin soup, a culinary
delicacy in Asian cultures. None of these uses are in
themselves unethical as long as the animals from which they
came were fished sustainably. That has been the problem.
Unsustainable fishing, as well as finning.
It is vital that we understand the distinction between
shark finning and the shark fin trade. Finning is the act of
cutting off a shark's fins and discarding the rest of the
animal, often alive, at sea. It is done through a total
disregard for the future of the resource or for humane
treatment of the animals and is fueled by economic greed.
On the other hand, taking fins from sharks landed onshore
in regulated, legal, and sustainable fisheries is not shark
finning. It provides a legal commodity for trade that
encourages the full use of every shark, rather than throwing
part of the resource away. Finning is banned in the United
States and does not occur here, except rarely by lawbreakers
subject to Federal and state prosecution. It has also been
banned by at least 40 other countries and some regional fishery
management organizations. So, how can the United States
incentivize other nations to replicate our success while
continuing to promote rule-following fishing and science-based
management here at home?
H.R. 5248, the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act,
introduced by Representatives Webster and Lieu provides a
bipartisan, sensible solution. The Act would require that shark
and ray products imported in the United States be permitted
only from foreign fisheries certified as having and enforcing
management and conservation policies comparable to the United
States. Nothing from finned sharks would be permitted.
We have done an analysis of the effect of H.R. 1456, the
Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act, and although the people, the
proponents of this Act need to be congratulated for getting our
conversation to this point, we found that it actually would
punish the people who are doing things right, the American
fishers who are fishing legally and sustainably, and
potentially reward nations who are doing things wrong and
causing the actual declines in shark and ray populations, and
we don't want that.
For these various reasons, I, and my institution Mote
Marine Laboratory, support the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and
Trade Act, H.R. 5248.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hueter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert E. Hueter, Ph.D., Director, Center for
Shark Research, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida on H.R. 5248
and H.R. 1456
introduction
My name is Dr. Robert Hueter and I am a Senior Scientist at Mote
Marine Laboratory, an independent, non-profit research and education
institution based in Sarasota, Florida. Over its 63-year history, Mote
has grown from a one-room laboratory to a world-class marine research
and science education enterprise that now has five campuses stretching
from Sarasota Bay to the Florida Keys, 24 research programs, 200 staff,
35 Ph.D.-level researchers, 1,658 volunteers and more than 11,000
members. Our research has evolved from a primary focus on sharks to now
conducting diverse studies of our oceans, with an emphasis on
conservation, sustainable use and environmental health of marine and
coastal biodiversity, habitats and resources. We also have significant
education, public outreach and public policy programs that are
integrated with our research.
I am the Director of Mote's Center for Shark Research, which was
established by the U.S. Congress in 1991, in recognition of Mote's
leadership in research and conservation of sharks and their relatives,
the skates and rays (hereafter simply called the sharks and rays). My
statements here represent both my own professional findings and the
official position of Mote Marine Laboratory.
For 27 years, Mote's Center for Shark Research has worked as a
completely independent research entity to provide NOAA much of the
information the agency requires to understand and sustainably manage
sharks as a marine resource. My personal experience with shark
fisheries spans more than 40 years, including fisheries research on
sharks of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea and Pacific
Ocean. For the past 21 years, I have served as one of only four
academic members of NOAA'S Advisory Panel for Highly Migratory Species
(sharks, tunas, swordfish, billfish), and have served on the Shark
Specialist Group of the United Nations' International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) for about 20 years. I also am a Past-
President and currently serve on the Board of Directors of the American
Elasmobranch Society (AES), the largest professional organization in
the world comprising scientists, students, and other experts studying
sharks and rays, collectively known as the elasmobranch fishes.
My experience as a shark conservationist began in 1988, when I was
made aware of the previously unknown practice we now call ``shark
finning.'' I brought this wasteful and inhumane practice to the
attention of the major media, beginning a 30-year career as an advocate
for science-based shark conservation. For decades I have translated
scientific discoveries to inform public policy that benefits shark
populations and the communities and nations who value sharks as a
marine resource. In 1991, I presented my data and concerns about an
expanding, unregulated U.S. shark fishery to the Florida Marine
Fisheries Commission, which took my recommendations and enacted the
first management plan for sharks in Florida state waters. Florida has
been a state leader in shark conservation ever since.
I then championed shark research and science-based fisheries
management and conservation on the Federal level beginning in 1993, by
organizing an international conference that drew 150 scientists, policy
makers, fishers and other stakeholders. At that meeting held at Mote,
NOAA acted on this group's incredible momentum and announced its first
Federal Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) for sharks. Since then I have
remained actively engaged as a shark scientist and conservationist on
many domestic fronts, including giving testimony to the House
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans in 1999, as
Congress worked to close loopholes in Federal anti-finning laws.
Knowing that many sharks migrate between the United States and
other nations, I also have led efforts to improve shark fisheries
sustainability and conservation measures abroad, particularly in Mexico
and Cuba. One of our most exciting successes has been Cuba's National
Plan of Action (NPOA) for sharks and rays, released in 2015. I
participated in the plan's development, drawing upon my years of
collaborative research with Cuban scientists in their home waters. I
knew then, and know now, that conservation and management of sharks and
rays must become more consistent internationally. Simply managing these
stocks for sustainability in U.S. waters doesn't work, because these
animals do not recognize political boundaries.
The good news is that after 25 years of dedicated work by shark
researchers, conservationists, NOAA and various state agencies, and the
fishing industry, U.S. shark fisheries have become some of the best
managed in the world, and many of our shark fisheries are healthy or
rebounding from past over-exploitation. A 2017 paper by two renowned
experts in global shark fisheries (attached) identified 18 U.S. shark
and ray fisheries as being ``bright spots'' of sustainable fishing.
This comprises about two-thirds of all the sustainable shark and ray
fisheries in the world. Clearly, the United States is doing something
right with respect to shark conservation and responsible fisheries
management. How can the United States incentivize other nations to
replicate our success, while continuing to encourage rule-following
fishers and promote science-based management at home?
I am here today to answer that question. I deeply thank the members
and staff of the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans for this
opportunity.
scope of the problem
Last month, H.R. 5248, the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade
Act, was introduced in the U.S. House. It utilizes a science-based
approach to discourage overfishing and unsustainable trade of sharks
and rays around the world and disincentivizes shark finning by foreign
nations.
Why is this necessary?
Of the more than 1,250 species of sharks and rays in the world's
oceans today, as many as one-quarter are estimated to be threatened
with extinction. The conservation status of nearly half is poorly
known. These fishes are particularly vulnerable to over-exploitation--
most grow slowly, mature late and produce few young. Overfishing,
through targeted fisheries and incidental bycatch, is the primary
threat to sharks and their relatives, which are harvested for their
meat, fins, oil, cartilage and other products. Shark and ray meat is a
major source of protein in some nations, and shark fins are used to
make shark fin soup, a culinary delicacy in many Asian cultures. None
of these uses of shark and ray products are in themselves unethical, as
long as the animals from which they came were fished sustainably. That
has been the problem--unsustainable fishing mortality of sharks--in
addition to the cruelty and wastefulness of shark finning.
It is important to understand the distinction between shark finning
and the shark fin trade: finning is the act of cutting off a shark's
fins and discarding the rest of the animal, often still alive, at sea.
Without its fins, sharks will slowly die, as the fins do not grow back.
It is a practice fueled by total disregard for the future of the
resource, any consideration for humane treatment of the animals, and
economic greed. On the other hand, taking fins from sharks landed
onshore in regulated, legal and sustainable fisheries is not shark
``finning.'' It provides a legal commodity for trade that encourages
the full utilization of every shark, rather than throwing part of the
resource away. Full utilization of landed sharks and rays is consistent
with guidelines in the International Plan of Action (IPOA) of the Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Finning is banned in the United
States and does not occur in our domestic fisheries, except rarely by
lawbreakers subject to Federal and state prosecution. It also has been
banned by at least 40 other countries to date, as well as by regional
fishery management organizations such as ICCAT, the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.
Losing the sharks and rays from the marine environment would have
dire consequences for marine ecology and the balance of life in the
sea. Research has shown that removal of sharks from ocean communities
such as coral reefs creates a ``trophic cascade'' of ecological effects
down to the lowest levels of the food web, and can lead to the general
degradation of the entire community. Losing sharks and rays also would
lead to the loss of income and quality of life for fishing communities
and seafood consumers, threatening food security in some developing
nations that depend on these fishes as important sources of protein for
human consumption. According to a recent, comprehensive FAO report by
economist Felix Dent and shark specialist Dr. Shelley Clarke, global
shark fisheries are conservatively valued at about $1 billion, with
much of these fisheries under-reported. In 2011, total trade in shark
products was valued at $438.6 million for the fins and $379.8 million
for the meat. These figures apply only to international trade and do
not include domestic use of shark products, which drives much of the
global consumption for the around 2 million metric tons of sharks
caught each year. The value of the shark tourism industry, which
includes activities such as diving with sharks, is also estimated to be
around $314 million annually.
Because of the scope and complexity of shark and ray fisheries
around the world, even our best efforts to manage these fishes in
domestic waters cannot guarantee similar protections abroad. We can,
however, create incentives for other nations to adopt standards of
shark fishing similar to our own. This past January, the United States
implemented the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) to end imports
into the United States of shark products from illegal, unreported and
unregulated (IUU) fisheries, but the third U--unsustainable--is missing
from these regulations, representing a critical loophole. For instance,
a foreign shark fishery could be legalized and reported but deficient
in law enforcement or scientific monitoring, leading to the same result
of shark depletion by overfishing as in IUU fisheries. SIMP also does
not currently include ray products in its monitoring program.
a science-based policy that benefits both sharks and people
H.R. 5248, the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act introduced
by Reps. Webster and Lieu, with the co-sponsorship of Reps. Posey,
Jones, Clay, Soto and Bilirakis, provides a bipartisan, sensible
solution to the need for U.S. domestic action in global shark and ray
conservation. The Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act would
require that shark and ray parts and products imported into the United
States be permitted only from countries certified by NOAA as having in
place and enforcing management and conservation policies for these
species comparable to the United States, including science-based
measures to prevent overfishing and provide for recovery of shark and
ray stocks. Prohibitions on shark finning comparable to the U.S. ban
also would be required.
The predecessor bill, H.R. 1456, the Shark Fin Sales Elimination
Act of 2017, sought to ban all shark fin trade within the United
States, including fins obtained legally and sustainably by American
fishers permitted in U.S. shark fisheries. This earlier bill catalyzed
an important and productive public conversation about the threats to
sharks worldwide in directed and bycatch fisheries. The proponents of
H.R. 1456 are to be congratulated for their dedicated work on this
issue and for moving the conversation toward finding real solutions for
shark conservation. The bill did not cover threats to rays and focused
solely on shark fins, not all shark products. In a peer-reviewed paper
published late last year (attached), shark expert Dr. David Shiffman
and I analyzed the consequences of a Federal domestic fin ban as
proposed by H.R. 1456. We found this approach would fall short of
providing the type of U.S. leadership that is needed for effective
shark conservation around the world.
H.R. 5248, the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act, builds
upon the progress made by H.R. 1456, by broadening protection for both
sharks and rays, and also including restrictions on the trade of all
shark and ray products, not just the fins. The bill creates incentives
for change in fisheries management by nations seeking to export shark
or ray products to the United States, rather than placing burdensome
and unnecessary penalties on law-abiding American fishers.
Passage of the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act by
Congress would help ensure that shark and ray products in U.S. markets
are from fisheries managed under similar high standards that U.S.
fisheries are already held to--a positive for the U.S. fishing
industry. It also will give the U.S. Government leverage in working
with other nations to establish an international system to conserve
shark and ray populations, by rewarding sustainable fisheries
management through permitted trade--a big win for the conservation of
these vulnerable species.
Most importantly, the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act
gives the American public a sensible answer to a reasonable question
they often ask: How can we as U.S. citizens contribute to the cause of
global shark conservation? We tell our fellow citizens to support
international efforts to rein in IUU shark fisheries. We tell them to
help with the effort to get all fishing nations to ban the practice of
finning. We ask them to support the work of shark conservation NGOs and
the research of shark scientists. But they want to know how they can
promote U.S. legislation that will advance the cause of global shark
conservation. H.R. 5248, the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act,
will give the American people an effective tool to say, ``No longer
will we allow the import and consumption of unsustainably fished shark
and ray products on American soil. Our participation as consumers in
this practice ends now.'' The bill does this without punishing American
fishers who are conducting legal and sustainable shark fishing,
providing a model of responsible management and conservation for the
rest of the world.
support for h.r. 5248
As a leading shark scientist as well as a proactive advocate for
shark conservation for the past 30 years, I support the Sustainable
Shark Fisheries and Trade Act. It identifies the source of the problem,
incentivizes foreign fisheries to adopt U.S. standards of
sustainability, and rewards U.S. fishers for the gains that have been
made in domestic shark fisheries management. Many of my fellow
scientists have joined me in supporting H.R. 5248. The Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS) is submitting a scientists' letter of
support for H.R. 5248 that includes approximately 60 (as of this
writing) of the world's leading experts in shark science and fisheries.
These signatories are all active marine science professionals with
Ph.D. or Master's degrees. Included in the list are 12 Past-Presidents
of the American Elasmobranch Society. These 12 scientists represent the
best and brightest leaders in shark research and conservation over the
past 25 years.
recommendations to congress
In my capacity as an expert scientist specializing in the study and
conservation of sharks and rays, and on behalf of Mote Marine
Laboratory, I recommend that Congress take the following measures:
Pass the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act, H.R.
5248, to significantly benefit shark and ray conservation
globally and law-abiding fishers domestically.
Provide the support to NOAA needed to carry out the
provisions of H.R. 5248, continue the collection of
research data to monitor and manage our shark and ray
fisheries, and assist other nations with implementing
science-based management of their shark and ray fisheries.
Increase the Federal penalties for shark finning, which
the Florida state legislature has recently done to punish
lawbreaking shark fishers and fin dealers.
Assist in the education of the public about the real
problems sharks and rays face, and empower American
citizens to support effective measures for shark and ray
conservation, in the United States and abroad.
*****
The following documents were submitted as supplements to Mr. Hueter's
testimony. These documents are part of the hearing record and are being
retained in the Committee's official files:
--``A United States shark fin ban would undermine sustainable shark
fisheries,'' by D.S. Shiffman and R.E. Hueter, Marine
Policy 85 (2017) 138-140.
--``Bright spots of sustainable shark fishing,'' by C.A.
Simpfendorfer and N.K. Dulvy, Current Biology 27, R97-R98,
February 6, 2017.
______
Supplemental Testimony from Robert E. Hueter, Ph.D., Director, Center
for Shark Research, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida on H.R.
5248 and H.R. 1456
MOTE Marine Laboratory & Aquarium,
Sarasota, Florida
April 23, 2018
Hon. Don Beyer,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Beyer:
It was a pleasure to testify before the House Subcommittee on
Water, Power and Oceans on the shark issue last Tuesday. I truly
appreciated your consideration and probing questions and respect your
opinions on this important topic in marine conservation and your desire
to understand more about the facts. I do, however, feel that some of
the information that has been passed to you on this topic is slanted
and just plain wrong. Please consider the following:
The statement that 73 million sharks are finned each year
is absolutely false. Once again, ``finning'' is being
confused with legitimate, sustainable shark fishing. The
reference to 73 million sharks arises from a careful study
of the Hong Kong fin market by renowned fin trade expert
Dr. Shelley Clarke about ten years ago. Her estimates were
that the fins of approx. 38 million sharks--with 73 million
being the highest estimate in her confidence interval--
passed through the Hong Kong market every year. Never mind
that her numerical estimate was half of what is being
constantly quoted, and the fin trade has actually declined
in the past decade since Dr. Clarke did her study. The most
important fact is that these fins are not all from
``finned'' sharks. As I explained in my testimony, finning
is not the same as taking the fins from sharks landed
onshore by non-finning fishermen. A huge portion of those
38 million sharks were harvested without finning, where the
nations doing the fishing were utilizing the whole animal.
Most developing nations do not fin sharks, as they need the
meat protein for human consumption. But they do send their
fins to the Hong Kong market so their fishermen can realize
revenue from the fins. There is nothing wrong with this.
The proper way to express this, then, is that Dr. Clarke
estimated that ``the fins of approx. 38 million sharks pass
through the Hong Kong market every year,'' back when she
did her study. Not that 38 million, or 73 million, or 100
million (as I've often heard) sharks are finned every year.
The difference is extremely important.
Shark finning is not legal in the United States. It has
been federally prohibited for nearly 20 years, and in some
states like Florida even longer than that. Any insinuation
that finning is commonly occurring in U.S. waters is a
deliberate attempt to misguide people. U.S. commercial
shark fishermen despise the practice and take matters into
their own hands if they hear of one of their fellow
fishermen doing this. Those lawbreakers are prosecuted. As
I stated in my written testimony, I recommend the penalties
for finning in U.S. waters be increased substantially, to
ensure that this is taken very seriously. But let's get it
straight: Finning is not a problem within the U.S. The
problem exists with other nations operating primarily on
the high seas. American fishermen should not be punished
for the sins of foreign fishermen.
Any analogy between the shark fin situation and elephant
ivory is without merit. First, elephants are almost never
killed for their meat, whereas tens of millions of sharks
are fished for their meat as well as their fins. Most
importantly, the U.S. is only a 1% player in the shark fin
market, whereas we were the major consumers of elephant
ivory before it was banned in the U.S. Thus our banning of
ivory collapsed that industry, but a similar ban on shark
fins won't have nearly the same kind of direct impact on
world trade. And finally, consider that too many elephants
are still being killed for their ivory, by poachers, so
it's not as if the ivory ban fixed the problem. In fact it
drove the practice underground and we've lost any kind of
accounting of how many elephants are being killed. We don't
want to do that with the shark fishing industry.
Traceability of the origin of fins is possible, we just
haven't committed to doing it yet. That is something the
Webster-Lieu bill will address, and it's clear that NOAA is
eager to discuss modifications to the bill that would best
allow for that. A proposal is under review by NOAA to study
the fin industry and develop a business model whereby all
U.S.-landed fins are tagged and fully traceable and
trackable to their source. If that project moves forward,
that will allow us to tell whether or not shark fins were
``made in the U.S.A.''
It is absolutely reasonable to be totally against finning
but not against the trade and use of the fins, and still be
a shark conservationist. I don't think a single person in
the hearing chamber last Tuesday was for finning--that is
not the issue. The issue is how we keep out the fins from
finned sharks without penalizing the fishermen who are not
finning. H.R. 4258 accomplishes that objective, H.R. 1456
does not.
The fact is that many, I daresay most, of the proponents
of the domestic fin ban are actually committed to
eliminating all shark fishing in the U.S., sustainable or
not. This is where conservationism crosses the line over to
preservationism. These groups see the domestic fin ban as
the easiest and cheapest way to end the U.S. commercial
shark fishery. And that it will do, because without the
revenue for the fins, that fishery becomes untenable,
except perhaps for the dogfish fishery in the northeast
U.S.--which, by the way, has an exception and actually
allows removal of dogfish fins at sea. The conservation
groups who are pushing for the adoption of H.R. 1456 should
stop being disingenuous with the public and state that
their ultimate goal is the elimination of all fishing for
sharks, period. These factions have no faith in the
American system of fisheries management to achieve
sustainability in our shark fisheries. As a fellow shark
conservationist, I do not share this opinion of our
institutions with them.
As noted at the hearing, 12 states have banned the trade
of shark fins: Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington,
Illinois, Delaware, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Texas, Rhode Island and Nevada. What do these 12 states
have in common? None had a commercial shark fishery of any
size--except Massachusetts, which made sure it got the
exception for its dogfish, its major shark fishery. I note
that your state of Virginia has not banned shark fins--is
that because Virginia has a commercial fishery for sharks?
Let's be honest, the banning by the 12 states was
completely symbolic and did not affect its citizens, except
the Asian cultures living in those states. That will not be
the same for states such as Florida, North Carolina and
Louisiana, where much of the legal shark fishery is based.
As for the effect on Asian cultures, this brings up another
question: Is it the American way to take away an ethnic
group's right to consume a product if that product is safe
and has been produced legally, ethically and sustainably?
Finally, less than 10 of the approximately 150
``scientists'' who signed on to the Oceana letter of
support for H.R. 1456 are actually scientists with leading
expertise in sharks or shark fisheries. In contrast, all 62
of the Ph.D. and Master's-level scientists who signed on to
the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) letter of support
for H.R. 5248 are recognized, active professional shark
researchers, experts in the field of sharks and shark
fisheries. The WCS letter signatories include 12 Past-
Presidents of the American Elasmobranch Society, the
world's largest professional organization of shark
scientists. Which letter's group is better informed on this
issue? Clearly it's the group who signed the WCS letter.
Congressman Beyer, I welcome the opportunity to discuss these
points with you and your staff at your convenience. I myself feel
largely responsible for the difficulties in this debate, because I was
one of the very first scientists to begin this public conversation on
the vital need to conserve sharks, 30 years ago. I have worked
tirelessly since then to bring the science of sharks to the public and
to policymakers. And I've been hugely successful--now, I feel, almost
too successful, because the pendulum has swung unnecessarily from no
conservation, past a new movement in shark conservation, over now to
preservationism of sharks. I'd like to see reason and the facts stay
within this debate as we bring this discussion back into balance.
Thank you for your consideration of my views and I would be happy
to provide further information on this matter at your request.
Best regards,
Robert E. Hueter, Ph.D.,
Senior Scientist and Director, Center for Shark Research.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Robert Hueter, Director of
the Center for Shark Research, Mote Marine Laboratory
Question Submitted by Rep. Lamborn
Question 1. Supporters of H.R. 1456 have argued that such a ban on
shark fin sales would send a message to other countries. What message
do you think this ban would send?
Answer. The supporters of H.R. 1456 are hoping the message the
United States will send to other nations with a domestic fin ban is
that shark fins should no longer be tolerated as a consumable product.
This U.S. leadership, they hope, would end the global fin market,
eliminate all shark finning, and recover shark populations worldwide.
Analogies are made to past U.S. leadership in the elephant ivory trade
and in commercial whaling. But as explained in Dr. David Shiffman's and
my 2017 peer-reviewed paper in the journal Marine Policy,\1\ this
approach is flawed and will not work, for several reasons. Unlike in
the case of elephant ivory where the United States was the world's
major consumer, we are only a 1 percent player in the world shark fin
market, and thus our withdrawal from that market will not have the same
type of direct effect on world trade of fins as happened with the ivory
trade. In fact, it's reasonable to conclude that the small market share
of shark fins that U.S. fishers currently supply will be taken up by
nations fishing sharks unsustainably, probably even finning the sharks.
Recall that U.S. fishers do not fin their sharks--that is, they do not
remove the fins and discard the rest of the animals at sea, because
American fishers are required to land all their sharks with the fins
still ``naturally attached'' (with the exception of the northeast
dogfish fishery, which is allowed to remove the fins at sea to begin
processing the meat and fins on the fishing boat). So the consequences
of this action will be to punish the fishers doing it right--U.S. shark
fisheries--and reward the foreign fisheries doing it wrong. That is a
terrible message to send the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Shiffman, D. and R. Hueter. 2017. A United States shark fin ban
would undermine sustainable shark fisheries. Marine Policy 85:138-140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, our position at the international negotiating table
where shark conservation issues are discussed will be compromised if we
withdraw from the fin market. The message we will be carrying to that
forum is, no matter what other nations do to create sustainability in
their shark fisheries, it will never be enough to allow them to harvest
the fins, in our view. This loss of leverage will backfire for U.S.
attempts to advance shark conservation around the world. In addition,
consider today's realities with elephants and whales: elephants are
still being poached as the ivory trade has been driven underground,
meaning we can no longer track this commodity through world trade
routes, and elephants are still declining. And whales are still being
hunted commercially by those nations who do not share our
preservationist beliefs about marine mammals. Along these lines, a
domestic fin ban also sends a message to Asian cultures that even if
they are using the entire shark, even if the sharks are not being
finned and the level of fishing for them is sustainable, their use of
fins to make soup is unethical. This creates a clash of cultural
values, both internationally and domestically, and our moral position
will be difficult to defend.
Finally, by focusing our legislative efforts solely on the fin
trade in the United States, we send a message to American citizens that
we are solving the worldwide problem in shark depletion by banning the
fins here. Conservation groups then declare victory to their
supporters, Congress moves on to other issues, and the U.S. public
thinks the problem has been solved. Nothing could be further from the
truth, as sharks will continue to be caught by other nations for their
meat and fins and suffer unsustainable levels of bycatch mortality in
foreign fisheries. This is where H.R. 5248 represents an evolution of
thinking in how to address the issue, by not simply focusing on the
fins and also including the rays, which are in as serious trouble as
the sharks worldwide.
Therefore, in my view the message we will be sending the world if
we implement a nationwide, domestic ban of the shark fin trade is this:
The United States does not believe in sustainable fishing for sharks,
we do not subscribe to the full use doctrine for marine resources as
laid out by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United
Nations, we condemn Asian cultures for their consumption of shark fins
even from sustainable shark fisheries, and we are okay with damaging
our own domestic fisheries to construct a purely symbolic but misguided
and ineffective message for shark conservation.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Sablan
Question 1. Do you believe that the United States does an adequate
job at conducting regular stock assessments for shark species in U.S.
waters?
Answer. Stock assessments, the quantitative analysis of the status
of a fish stock, are complicated and costly procedures. The average
national cost of each stock assessment by NOAA has been estimated to be
approximately $1.7 million.\1\ Factors limiting the number of stock
assessments that can be conducted include adequate funding, adequate
staffing, and adequate data. For sharks, data was a major problem when
species identification was poorly done and a number of species were
lumped into broad categories, which was not conducive to conducting
species-specific stock assessments. This is less of a problem today
with the evolution of data collection from shark fisheries and the
commitment of Federal and state management to shark conservation.
However, adequate fisheries-dependent and fisheries-independent data
can still be problematic, although a number of new quantitative
approaches have emerged that allow assessments for data-poor cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Merrick, R. and R. Methot. 2016. NOAA's cost of fish stock
assessments. https://www. npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/CM/2016/
102016/NOAA_FisheriesCostofStockAssessments. pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Federal level, NOAA conducts an average of perhaps one or
two stock assessments for sharks each year. Given the number of shark
species being managed (23 authorized species for commercial fishing, 19
prohibited species, 42 total species in the Atlantic and Gulf
commercial shark fishery), this pace of assessments has a hard time
keeping up with the needs for effective management. Priority of stock
assessments has been placed on critical species such as sandbar and
dusky sharks undergoing rebuilding, as well as important species to
commercial and recreational fisheries such as the blacktip shark and
several small coastal species. For pelagic sharks, ICCAT has recently
assessed the shortfin mako in the Atlantic. But some species such as
the great hammerhead have been inadequately assessed, raising the level
of concern for these sharks. Stock assessments must be repeated on a
regular basis, furthermore, to monitor changes in stock status.
Ideally, all shark stocks should be assessed at least every 5 years,
but this goal is probably impractical.
The challenge for NOAA is balancing the cost of these stock
assessments with the value of the shark fishery. On a pure economic
level, it is difficult to reconcile the relatively low value of U.S.
shark fisheries with the relatively high cost of stock assessments. But
on a conservation and environmental level, these stock assessments are
critical to understanding the status of sharks in U.S. waters. NOAA has
dedicated a large portion of its budget to increasing the pace of stock
assessments for all federally managed fisheries, including sharks, and
we conduct more assessments of sharks than any other nation. This has
helped make us the leader in shark conservation and management that we
are today.
Question 2. Do you think the United States should prohibit the
fishing of additional shark species? If so, which species should be
prohibited?
Answer. Placing species on the prohibited list should only be done
with data-based justification. At present there are 19 species of
sharks on the prohibited list for commercial fishing and 21 species
prohibited for recreational fishing. The two sharks that concern me and
are not on the completely prohibited list are the oceanic whitetip
shark and the hammerheads (a complex of three species). These sharks
are prohibited to be landed by boats possessing pelagic fishing gear or
other pelagic fishes (such as tunas and swordfish), but in my view,
complete prohibition of retention of these sharks is called for. The
oceanic whitetip shark is a relatively clear-cut case, in my opinion,
of a severely depleted species, now listed as Threatened under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act (ESA), which should always be released. The
problem with the hammerheads is their post-release survivorship can be
very poor, especially with the great hammerhead because of its
physiological sensitivity to struggling while on fishing gear. Thus
releases of that shark species might not provide as much benefit as
hoped. In this case, other measures might be needed to minimize bycatch
in addition to requiring all caught animals be released. Note that the
state of Florida has made hammerheads a prohibited species group in
state waters.
Question 3. In what way would you say the United States is lacking
most in its management of shark fisheries?
Answer. At one time not too long ago, there were almost no
regulations on shark fishing in the United States. Now, after 25 years
of dedicated work by scientists, conservationists, NOAA, state
agencies, and the fishing industry, U.S. shark fisheries have become
some of the best managed in the world, and many of our shark fisheries
today are healthy or rebounding from past over-exploitation. Eighteen
U.S. shark and ray fisheries have been identified as ``bright spots''
of sustainable fishing by independent international experts.\2\
Clearly, the United States is doing something right with respect to
shark conservation and responsible fisheries management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Simpfendorfer, C.A. and N.K. Dulvy. 2017. Bright spots of
sustainable shark fishing. Current Biology 27:R97-R98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even so, improvements can be made to U.S. shark fisheries
management, to make it more visionary. Management tends to be reactive
and crisis-responding, rather than proactive with incentives to move
the fishery toward 100 percent sustainability. Defined targets for
stock size, other than ``not overfished,'' are often lacking. I have
advocated that we direct the fishery away from some of the more
vulnerable large coastal species and toward targeting the faster-
growing, high-yield species like the blacktip shark, which exists as
healthy stocks in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf. This recommendation for
more proactive management has largely fallen on deaf ears, with
managers choosing to follow the lead of the fishery and then reactively
deal with the problems that crop up. This does not have to be the case,
but is symptomatic of U.S. fisheries management in general. With more
proactive management in collaboration with the commercial and
recreational fishing sectors, research and stock assessments could be
better focused on target and bycatch species, and the fisheries could
become even more economically viable for long-term sustainability.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
I want to thank the entire panel for being here today and
for giving us your helpful testimony.
We will now move into questions on H.R. 1456 only. We have
two additional bills up for consideration, and I would ask
people to reserve their questions on those two bills after each
of those later two bills have been introduced by the bill
sponsors.
I would like to remind Members that Committee Rule 3(d)
imposes a 5-minute limit on questions. I will begin with myself
and then recognize the Ranking Member, but before I do that I
would ask unanimous consent that we receive into the record
five letters in opposition to H.R. 1456. Hearing no objection,
so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Florida wildlife officials won't support federal shark fin ban
POLITICO Florida
Bruce Ritchie
July 10, 2017
https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2017/07/10/florida-
wildlife-officials-wont-support-federal-shark-fin-ban-113289
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In May, more than 100 Florida dive shops sent a letter to the
state's congressional delegation
asking it to support a ban on the shark fin trade.
State wildlife officials said Monday they are not supporting federal
legislation that would ban the trade of shark fins.
Shark fins are valuable in Asian countries for a soup that is believed
to increase sexual potency. Environmental groups support eliminating
the trade to prevent shark finning, the illegal practice of cutting off
fins and leaving sharks to die. Shark fins can be sold legally along
with other shark meat.
In May, more than 100 Florida dive shops sent a letter to the state's
congressional delegation asking it to support a ban on the shark fin
trade. H.R. 1456, which has eight Florida co-sponsors, would prohibit
the possession or sale of shark fins.
But state officials told the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission meeting in Orlando on Monday they don't support the bill
because of the impact it would have on commercial fisherman and because
shark finning is illegal now.
``We don't believe it will improve the sustainability of the shark
fishery,'' Brian McManus, the commission's representative in
Washington, said of the federal legislation.
In the recent state legislative session, S.B. 884 would have
established a similar ban in state law.
Facing opposition from commercial fishermen, the bill was watered down
by the Legislature to only increase fines for illegal shark finning.
The bill was signed into law by Gov. Rick Scott on May 23.
Robert Hueter of Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota told the commission
to listen to its staff and not support a ban on the trade. He said a
ban would not affect the international market in countries that do not
promote sustainable shark fishing.
``In short, we'll be punishing the good guys and rewarding the bad
ones,'' he said.
But Lora Snyder with the Oceana environmental group said shark fins
still are being imported into Florida from countries, such as China,
without finning bans.
And she said tourists spend $221 million a year on diving trips in
Florida to see sharks and that a survey showed 88 percent of Floridians
support a ban on the trade. She said 12 states have adopted bans on the
shark fin trade.
And she compared the issue to the U.S. ban on ivory typically harvested
through elephant poaching.
``In the United States we said no more ivory,'' Snyder said. ``That's
what we want to see done [with shark fins) here in the United States as
well.''
Commissioner Ron Bergeron said Florida represents only 1 percent of the
global shark fin trade. He also said he was taught ``to use every
part'' of the animals and fish he killed.
``To discard the fins onshore just seems like a waste to me,'' Bergeron
said. ``It impacts our fishermen. I really don't think it [shark
finning] will stop.''
Commissioner Robert A. Spottswood questioned why the state allows shark
fins to be imported from countries that haven't banned finning. Agency
executive director Nick Wiley said the responsibility for regulating
imports may fall on the federal government rather than the state.
``This is definitely something we could look into,'' said Jessica
McCawley, director of the agency's Division of Marine Fisheries
Management.
Florida co-sponsors of H.R. 1456 are Republicans Carlos Curbelo, Vern
Buchanan, Matt Gaetz and Ted Yoho and Democrats Charlie Crist, Ted
Deutch, Darren Soto and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
______
Mote Marine Laboratory & Aquarium,
Sarasota, Florida
April 21, 2017
Hon. Dan Webster,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Webster:
I am writing to express my opposition to H.R. 1456, the ``Shark Fin
Sales Elimination Act of 2017,'' which has been referred to the House
Natural Resources Committee, on which you serve. I am a senior
scientist at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida. Mote is an
independent, not-for-profit research and education organization
dedicated to science-based marine conservation. Mote's international
reputation in shark expertise goes back more than 60 years to our
laboratory's founding in 1955, by Dr. Eugenie Clark, our famous ``Shark
Lady.''
As the Director of Mote's Center for Shark Research, which was
established by the U.S. Congress in 1991 as the nation's designated
research center for studies of sharks, I have more than 40 years of
experience with the issues addressed by H.R. 1456. This includes
scientific research, advising federal and state resource agencies,
collaborating with commercial and recreational fishing industries,
conservation education, and domestic and international policy work. I
have been a leading, outspoken advocate for shark conservation
worldwide, often appearing in national and international media to
convey the message of the value, importance and vulnerability of
sharks.
There is no question that in many parts of the world, sharks have
been severely depleted through overfishing. Credible studies of shark
fishery landings over the past ten years estimate that on the order of
100 million individual sharks were caught and killed in world fisheries
each year. Most of this fishing pressure is no doubt unsustainable and
urgent action is needed to decrease shark mortality. Many of these
sharks have been ``finned'' at sea, that is, their fins were cut off
for the sharkfin soup trade and the rest of the animal, dead or alive,
was discarded. This is an inhumane, wasteful and reprehensible practice
that should be declared illegal worldwide.
Within the U.S., however, things are different. Federal management
of the U.S. shark fishery has been in place since 1993, and state
management of shark fishing in Florida has been in place since 1992.
Today we have one of the most effective systems in the world for shark
fisheries management and conservation. Commercial shark fishermen with
federal and state permits rely on the sale of the fins, in addition to
the meat and other products, to support their industry. The fins these
American fishermen are selling come from legally caught, sustainably
managed sharks.
They are not from ``finned'' sharks--that practice is already
illegal in this country. To prevent finning, all sharks must be landed
with fins still attached. Anti-finning laws are in place, both
federally and in a number of coastal states including Florida, and if a
commercial fisherman is caught finning at sea, he is guilty of a crime
and is prosecuted. In fact in Florida right now, a bill is working its
way through the state legislature that will dramatically increase the
penalties for anyone caught finning sharks.
H.R. 1456 is not about ending finning, therefore, but instead will
cause the demise of a legal domestic industry (which is active and
present in Florida) that is showing the rest of the world how to
utilize sharks in a responsible, sustainable way. This bill will do
nothing to effectively combat the practice of finning on the high seas
and in other countries, where the real problem lies, and it will not
significantly reduce mortality of the sharks killed in global fisheries
every year. This is because the U.S. supply of shark fins to Asia, the
major consumer of fins, comprises less than 3% of the global total.
Shutting down the U.S. supply, therefore, will have no real impact on
this market. In fact, by prohibiting American commercial fishermen from
participating in the legal shark fin trade, H.R. 1456 actually creates
more market share for those countries not practicing legal and
sustainable shark fishing. It will therefore punish the good people--
American fishermen--and reward the bad people, the foreign fleets
practicing finning and illegal, unreported and/or unsustainable (IUU)
fishing. This effect will be particularly hard-felt in Florida, where
we have about 120 commercial boats with directed shark permits and 130
boats with incidental shark permits, plus 30 licensed dealers for shark
products. That is a significant number of jobs and impact for the
Florida economy that H.R. 1456 will eliminate.
So although it is well-intentioned to benefit the cause of shark
conservation, H.R. 1456 will be ineffective in making a dent in the
global problem of shark overfishing and will, instead, create
unnecessary hardship back at home. Please understand, I believe the
conservation of sharks is of paramount importance to the health of our
oceans and the economies of our coastal states and fisheries. I also
recognize that federal and state bills such as H.R. 1456 are promoted
by well-meaning individuals and organizations who think they are doing
the right thing for shark conservation. Unfortunately these actions
ignore the details, are at best symbolic, and are at worst
counterproductive. They are a distraction from the real need to certify
imports of seafood products into the U.S. and forge international
agreements to end overfishing of sharks worldwide.
Some think that if we Americans make a sacrifice and outlaw the
consumption of shark fins here, it will motivate other countries to do
the same. The problem with this approach is we are dealing with both a
fundamental cultural difference as well as a trade imbalance. An
analogy is often made between shark fins and elephant ivory. When the
sale of ivory was prohibited in the U.S., it supposedly ended the
practice of taking ivory from elephants in Africa, so why shouldn't
this work with shark fins? The problem is this is a false analogy,
because it fails to take into account that for ivory, the U.S. was the
major consumer. That is not the case for shark fins and so a domestic
ban here does little to impact global demand and consumption. And this
example also ignores the fact that elephant poaching continues in
Africa, where the ban has actually driven that trade underground where
it cannot be documented and regulated. We don't want the same
unintended consequences to happen with the shark fin trade.
What can we do instead on the domestic front to effectively advance
the cause of shark conservation? First, we can increase the penalties
for fishermen caught finning in U.S. waters, as Florida is now doing
for its state waters. Next, the federal government should get serious
about certifying fishing nations as either compliant or non-compliant
with the standards set in the Shark Conservation Act of 2010. Imports
of shark products from the non-compliant nations should then be
prohibited, using GATT standards of environmental sustainability.
Finally, we should incentivize our own American fishermen to supply the
demand for shark fins in the Asian communities of our cities in the
U.S. This is a common sense approach that would punish the bad guys and
reward American fishermen for complying with heavy regulation and doing
the right thing. I believe this is the best example we can set for the
rest of the world on this issue.
Thank you for your consideration of my views. I am happy to answer
any questions or provide any additional information you may require.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Hueter, Ph.D.,
Associate Vice President for Research,
Directorate of Marine Biology and Conservation
Perry W. Gilbert Chair in Shark Research
Director of the Center for Shark Research
______
STATE OF LOUISIANA,
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
July 7, 2017
Mr. Acy Cooper, President
Louisiana Shrimp Association
P.O. Box 1088
Grand Isle, Louisiana 70358
Re: Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act of 2017, S. 793 , H.R. 1456
Acy:
As requested by you on June 7, 2017, the department has reviewed
the text of Senate bill 793 and House Resolution 1456, also known as
the ``Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act of 2017'' and the ``Shark Fin
Sales Elimination Act of 2017,'' respectively. The bills, in their
current form, would place unnecessary economic burdens on Louisiana
shark fishermen. As long as responsible management is in place, which
is currently the case for sharks in the Gulf of Mexico, there is no
need for this legislation.
The purpose of these bills as stated by the authors is to ``curtail
the act of `finning' sharks while reducing the U.S. contribution to the
global shark fin market.'' The practice of shark finning is already
illegal in the United States and Louisiana and has been since the
2000s. All sharks landed in Louisiana must have their fins naturally
attached until landed. Once a shark is landed in Louisiana, these fins
may then be removed and processed separately.
Information available on NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service
commercial statistics website shows that in 2015, 17,059 kilograms
(37,530 pounds) of shark fins were exported from the United States to
other countries while 24,016 kilograms (52,835 pounds) of shark fins
were imported from other countries. The total estimated global shark
fin trade, was an estimated 17,500 metric tons (according to a 2015
F.A.O. report on the state of the global market for shark products).
These U.S. total imports and exports amount to less than 1% of shark
fins traded globally. This bill will likely have little impact on the
global trade in shark fins, especially the illegal trade of shark fins.
The majority of shark fin exports do not move through the United
States. The majority of fins exported from the United States, in the
past, moved through California to the Hong Kong Market. However, since
the California ban on shark fins in 2015, the shark fin trade now
mainly flows through Mexico and Canada in North America. These bills
will do little to reduce global trade or curtail illegal practices on
the high seas, but will economically impact responsible U.S. fishermen.
Data for 2016 were not yet available.
Sharks are indeed a vital part of the marine ecosystem, however
those sharks harvested in the United States, along with their fins, are
sustainably harvested in accordance with regulations and quotas
established by the NOAA Fisheries Highly Migratory Species Division and
the State of Louisiana. By eliminating a domestic market for legally
harvested fins, this legislation will only have adverse impacts on
Louisiana fishermen who legally harvest sharks and their fins as well
as the coastal fishing communities where they live. These bills will
create unnecessary regulatory waste of legally harvested shark parts by
not allowing fishermen to sell fins from a legally harvestable shark
species. These bills ban one part, the most valuable part, of an
otherwise legally harvestable animal creating a situation in which an
entire fishery would effectively be shut down. They will either not
affect global shark fin markets, or at worst, will encourage further
development of unregulated harvest to replace the regulated U.S.
landings.
The shark fishery is an important winter fishery in Louisiana as it
provides a critical seasonal source of income to a number of commercial
fishermen until other fisheries open later in the year.
Possible alternative measures to allow the legal shark fishery of
the U.S. to continue to harvest and sell legally obtained fins while
working to reduce illegal finning practices:
1) Legislation mandating tracking and traceability of legally
harvested fins as opposed to an outright ban.
2) Provide for tracking and traceability measures of imported and
exported fins to determine legal origin of those fins
originating from or entering into the U.S.
3) Prohibit the importation or exportation of shark fins that can' t
be verified to have come from legally landed sharks.
If you have any further questions regarding this issue, please feel
free to contact Jason Adriance at [email protected] or at
504.284.2032.
Sincerely,
Jack Montoucet,
Secretary.
______
The Shark Scientists Opposed to a U.S. Ban on the Shark Fin Trade
NewsDeeply
Sophie Yeo
September 26, 2017
https://www.newsdeeply.com/oceans/articles/2017/09/26/the-shark-
scientists-opposed-to-a-u-s-ban-on-the-shark-fin-trade
The United States Congress is considering legislation to impose a
national ban on the shark fin trade in a rare bipartisan move to stop
the slaughter of a top ocean predator whose body parts are used to make
soup.
Conservationists are cheering, right?
Not quite.
Some scientists argue such a law is a misguided effort that could set
shark conservation back decades. Banning all trade in shark fins would
damage sustainable shark fisheries in the U.S., create unnecessary
waste and have little impact on the global market for shark fins, say
marine biologists David Shiffman of Simon Fraser University in British
Columbia and Robert Hueter, a senior scientist at the Mote Marine
Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida. The two shark specialists outlined
their views in a paper published recently in the journal Marine Policy.
``Many environmental activists want a solution that can fit on a bumper
sticker, when really it's a complicated, worldwide trade involving many
different types of species in over 100 countries, and the solution is
going to be complicated,'' said Shiffman.
Shark finning--the practice of removing the fins of a living shark and
discarding the body at sea--is already banned in the U.S. But fishers
can still legally catch a certain quota of sharks and sell both the
meat and the fins.
A 2013 study estimated that humans kill as many as 100 million sharks
each year.
The bill pending in the Senate, called the Shark Fin Trade Elimination
Act of 2017, would prohibit the sale of shark fins across the U.S.,
with violators facing a fine of up to $100,000. A companion bill is
also progressing through the House of Representatives.
A similar bill died in Congress last year. But this time, its
supporters are optimistic. They have two years to pass the legislation
and have gained the support of Democrats and Republicans, including
Arizona Republican John McCain.
Supporters say that a ban would hurt the global market for shark fins
and contribute to the decline in the industry worldwide.
But the number of fins that the U.S. imports each year is tiny,
according to Shiffman and Hueter.
At just 0.2 percent of the global trade, a ban would barely make a dent
in the global market. Some of these imports come from sustainable
fisheries abroad, they say, while others are imports of sustainably
caught U.S. fins that have been exported for processing.
``The U.S. is a relatively small contributor to the global shark fin
trade,'' says Shiffman. ``Removing our fins from the market is not
going to have an impact on the global market directly, in terms of the
numbers of sharks killed.''
In fact, a ban could have the opposite effect, Shiffman and Hueter
write in their paper, by causing a rise in shark mortality. Shark meat
sales bring in around $3.3 million each year in the U.S., while shark
fins are valued at around $1 million.
Supporters of the ban have suggested that the legislation could
indirectly target the global trade, causing the price of shark meat to
fall by removing the most valuable part. That could prompt fishers to
switch to other species.
But Shiffman and Hueter write that a ban could easily have the opposite
effect: forcing fishers to catch more sharks to make up the financial
shortfall from the loss of fin sales.
They also say the legislation could also hamper efforts to create
sustainable fisheries around the world by eliminating a model of
successful management and compromising U.S. efforts to persuade other
countries to follow its lead.
The space left by the U.S. could end up being filled by countries that
practice inhumane and unsustainable shark fishing practices, according
to Shiffman and Hueter.
Ultimately, they note, a shark fin ban fails to tackle the main threat
facing sharks: overfishing. While the global trade in shark fins is
declining, the trade in shark meat is rising. According to the most
recent reliable figures from the United Nations, the trade in shark
fins declined by around 18 percent between 2003 and 2011, while the
trade in shark meat increased by 42 percent during that time.
``Shark fin soup is not the enemy,'' Hueter said. ``The enemy is
overfishing and killing too many sharks, and this ban will not in
itself directly reduce the numbers of sharks that are killed every year
by fishermen.''
He and Shiffman say they would support some form of amended
legislation, such as a sustainability certification program for shark
fin imports.
But other scientists believe the only option for shark conservation is
an outright ban on the shark fin trade.
Steve Palumbi, professor of biology at Stanford University, says one
problem is that a legal market for fins could allow smuggled imports
from unregulated fisheries. ``This danger to sharks everywhere would be
so that a few U.S. fishermen would reap the benefit of taking large
fins from sharks killed on swordfish lines.''
Neil Hammerschlag, a research assistant professor and shark expert at
the University of Miami, emphasized that given the conservation
challenges facing sharks, doing something was still better than doing
nothing.
``It might have a cascading effect to other nations that want to do the
same thing,'' he said. ``You have to be the first person in the pond to
drop a pebble if you want to see a ripple effect. This could be a Band-
Aid solution until shark populations are recovered.''
______
Participants in the Sustainable and Conservatively-Managed
U.S. Commercial Shark Fishery Respectfully Urge Congress to Oppose
the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act, S. 793 & H.R. 1456
We are commercial shark fishermen and fish houses that deal in
sharks. As such, we are directly impacted by the Shark Fin Trade
Elimination Act (``SFTEA''), S. 793 & H.R. 1456, introduced in the
Senate and House by Senator Booker and Representative Royce,
respectively. We strongly urge you to oppose SFTEA, which will destroy
U.S. jobs and harm coastal economies while providing no environment
benefits.
SFTEA requires fishermen to discard a valuable food product, the
shark fin. It deprives hardworking fishermen of income and struggling
fishing communities of much needed economic activity. It would have a
small but negative impact on the United States' balance of trade with
China. Perhaps worse of all, it would mean more sharks are caught in an
unsustainable way.
To be clear, SFTEA would spell the end to virtually all legal and
sustainable commercial shark fishing in the United States. On average,
roughly half the value of an adult coastal shark is in its fins.
Accounting for fuel, bait, crew, and equipment costs incurred in a
fishing trip, loss of fin revenue would make directed shark fishing
unprofitable. This fishery contributes a significant--and for some of
us, the overwhelming majority--of our income. Given that fishermen face
significant fixed costs, such as vessel mortgages and insurance, these
bills threaten our continued ability to maintain our businesses and
provide for our families.
We oppose the practice of shark finning. The industry supported
Congress' past efforts to end the practice here and abroad. Shark
finning wastes healthful protein that can feed a hungry world.
Moreover, our industry has been harmed by illegal shark fins that
compete unfairly with our legal product. Ironically, banning trade in
domestic shark fins only opens the international market for more
unsustainably harvested shark fins from nations unbound by U.S. law.
To be clear, the only beneficiaries of these bills will be the
unregulated international fleets engaging in the very practice these
bills seek to end. While the amount of fins the U.S. exports are
relatively minor, recently on the order of three percent, that share of
the market will go to fishermen in other countries for whom shark
finning provides a cost advantage.
We also support efforts to maintain a well-managed and sustainable
shark fishery in the U.S. and globally. While we believe some sharks'
abundance justifies higher catch quotas, there is no dispute that U.S.
management has resulted in a tremendous growth in domestic shark
populations. Last year's survey found an astonishing 65 percent more
sharks than the one prior. The index of shark abundance in 2015 was the
highest in its 29-year history. As a result, the National Marine
Fisheries Service just increased the retention limit on large coastal
sharks.
This resurgence of sharks was built on our sacrifices over the past
twenty-plus years. Those of us that remain in business have weathered
quota reductions of more than fifty percent. That has meant many lean
years. All that sacrifice will be for naught, however, should S. 3095
and H.R. 5584 become law.
These bills are inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. Its primary objective is to maximize
food production, economic returns, and recreational opportunities in a
manner consistent with maintaining healthy marine resources and
environments. The United States has demonstrated that it is possible to
conduct a responsible and profitable shark fishery, one that serves as
a model for other nations. Mandating waste of a valuable and renewable
marine product, as does the SFTEA, is not consistent with our
management principles. It is also not consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act to render a sustainable fishery uneconomic. There is no
reason to expect other nations would follow this wasteful example.
SFTEA is of concern to all commercial fishermen. If Congress were
to eliminate a responsible fishery without regard to science,
economics, management principles, or practical effect to satisfy narrow
special interest groups, all fisheries are at risk. That is part of the
reason groups like the Sustainable Shark Alliance, Garden State Seafood
Association, North Carolina Fisheries Association, Southeastern
Fisheries Association, Blue Water Fishermen's Association, and
Louisiana Shrimpers Association--represent more than shark fishermen--
also oppose these bills.
Attached is brief fact sheet on the domestic shark fishery that
details these and other concerns we have with the Act. We are happy to
answer any questions you have or provide any further information you
may find helpful. You may contact our representative, Mr. Shaun Gehan,
at (202) 412-2508 for more information.
Sincerely,
Safe Harbour Seafood, Bryant Products,
Bon Secour, AL Bayou La Batre, AL
Madeira Beach Seafood, Save On Seafood,
Madeira Beach, FL St. Petersburg, FL
Seafood Atlantic, Greg Abrams Seafood,
Port Canaveral, FL Panama City, FL
AP Bell Seafood, Fishermen's Ice & Bait,
Madeira Beach, FL Madeira Beach, FL
Kings Seafood, Wild Ocean Market Seafood,
Port Orange, FL Titusville, FL
Omni Shrimp Company, Day Boat Seafood,
Madeira Beach, FL Lake Park, FL
Phoenix Fisheries, DSF, Inc.,
Southport, FL Daytona Bch., FL
Hull's Seafood Markets,
Inc., Phillips Seafood,
Ormond Beach, FL Townsend, GA
Ocean Fresh Seafood, Venice Fish and Shrimp,
New Orleans, LA Venice, LA
Southern Seafood Connect'n, Crystal Coast Fisheries,
Crisfield, MD Morehead City, NC
Avon Seafood, Wanchese Fisheries,
Avon, NC Wanchese, NC
O'Neal's Sea Harvest, Jeffery's Seafood,
Wanchese, NC Hatteras, NC
B & J Seafood, Willie R. Etheridge Seafood,
New Bern, NC Wanchese, NC
Crystal Coast Dayboat
Seafood, Viking Village Seafood,
Morehead Cy, NC Barnegat Light, NJ
Carolina Seafood,
Rutledge Leeland, SC
F/V Angelina F/V Blake F/V Blue Water
F/V Chase F/V Coupe de Grille F/V Fishhawk
F/V Honey Bee F/V Juma F/V Michelle Marie
F/V Miss Brianna F/V Miss Maggie F/V Miss Rita
F/V Rachaelle Nicole F/V Right Stuff F/V Sword Fish
F/V Taurus F/V Tobo F/V Boss Lady
F/V Miss Alexis F/V Miss Jessica F/V J. O'Neal
F/V Reel of Fortune F/V B.C. F/V Bobalou
F/V Butter F/V Sharon G F/V Watersport
F/V Little Clam F/V Windy Gale F/V Logan's Luck
F/V M B F/V Miss Megan F/V Shannon D
F/V Sundog F/V Bout Time F/V Raven
F/V Sarah Brent F/V Miss Kaleigh F/V Miss Madeline
F/V Salvation F/V Wahoo F/V Miss Stevie
F/V Shannon Dun F/V Miss Everett F/V Blue Fin
F/V Body Count F/V Little Jo F/V Gail Mist II
F/V Haley Rose F/V Black Jack F/V No Limit
F/V Toucan F/V Jodie Lynn III F/V Lady Martiza
F/V Out of Hand F/V Islander F/V Top Tuna
F/V Fish Hound F/V Captain Lynn F/V Miss Shell
F/V Lisa Ann F/V Daytona F/V Miss Haley II
F/V Right on Time F/V Crosswinds IV F/V Miss Brenda Louise
F/V Leo B. F/V Endeavor F/V Jean Marie
F/V Miss Ann F/V Capt. Gorman III F/V Denise Ann
F/V Hull's Sea Lover F/V 2nd Wind F/V Pancake
F/V Elizabeth F/V Emily's Weigh F/V Albi
F/V Big Eye F/V Chances R III F/V Christopher Joe
F/V Day Boat III F/V Day Boat One F/V Day Boat Too
F/V Die Trying F/V Dusty Boy F/V Erica Lynn
F/V High Voltage F/V Janice Ann F/V JC 31
F/V Joshua Nicole F/V Kelly Ann F/V Knotty Girl
F/V Lady Linda F/V Miss Jane F/V Miss Sierra
F/V My Girl F/V Osprey F/V Parker
F/V Provider F/V Right On Time F/V Sea Hawk
F/V Shooting Star F/V Standin' Up F/V Stella Maris
F/V Straight Flush F/V Susie Two F/V Swordfin
F/V T&Sea F/V Theresa C F/V Two Can
F/V Two Sons F/V Vicki Ann F/V Virgin Hooker
F/V Vitamin Sea F/V White Water F/V Whitewater II
F/V Yellowfin F/V Dana Christine II F/V Eagle Eye
F/V Eyelander F/V Eagle Eye 2
ATTACHMENT
FACTS REGARDING THE DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL SHARK FISHERY AND THE SHARK FIN
TRADE ELIMINATION ACT
The U.S. is a global leader in conservation and management
of sharks, and chief opponent of the wasteful practice of
``shark finning''--discarding shark meat and landing only
the fins. Finning has been federally prohibited since 1993,
while the shark population has been growing since 2000. In
2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service's shark survey
found the most in its 29-year history, 65% more than the
prior survey.
The industry opposes finning, but the Shark Fin Trade
Elimination Act goes too far. Fins account for 50% of a
shark's landed value. Without income from these, revenue
from sharks would not cover fuel costs and our fishery will
cease. This Act will destroy a successful fishery and harm
small fishing communities.
The government should not deny American people access to
this healthful product or fishing communities important
income from a sustainable fishery.
Virtually all fins are exported, overwhelmingly to China.
This trade plays a small, but important role in improving
our balance of trade.
The bills provide no conservation benefit and will likely
harm international shark conservation. Destruction of fins
is equally as wasteful as discarding shark meat. Moreover,
the small portion of fins taken off the international
market will be replaced, likely by fins from unsustainable
and unregulated fisheries where finning provides a cost
advantage.
Demand for shark fins, culturally important in Asia, will
not abate soon. The U.S. can help foster responsible shark
fishing practices globally through participation in
international forums. Our authority will be weakened if the
U.S. abandons its own model shark fishery and instead
promotes the extreme, wasteful, and uneconomic policy of
fin destruction.
Analogies to trade bans on ivory and rhino horns are
misplaced:
o Unlike these large land animals, sharks are
more protected by their marine habitat and highly migratory
behavior. Shark fishing can be conducted sustainably.
o Also, unlike ivory, the U.S. is not a major
market for fins. Its absence from the marketplace will do
nothing to effect demand.
o These bans have been far from successful.
Trade has been forced underground where it cannot be regulated.
The shark fin trade is even less amenable to policing as sharks
occur globally in all oceans and seas.
o Most importantly, unlike rhinos and
elephants, sharks are fully utilized for food, as well as for
their skin, cartilage, livers, teeth, and jaws, providing
multiple economic benefits. They are a renewable resource for a
hungry world.
These bills reward bad actors and harm those who play by the rules.
Congress should urge NMFS to finalize its list of shark finning nations
under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Act and impose an
import moratorium on those that fail to stop the practice.
Congress should also support America's law-abiding shark fishermen and
their communities by ensuring that they can obtain the full value of
their highly limited catch no matter where they live.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Dr. Risenhoover, you stated in your testimony
that NOAA, ``cannot support H.R. 1456 because the bill's
negative impact on U.S. fishermen would outweigh its minimal
benefit to shark conservation.'' Can you expand more fully what
you mean by that?
Mr. Risenhoover. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We see what
a number of folks have raised here as an issue in that the
United States has very strong shark conservation and management
programs in place. The bill, by not allowing them to use the
fin as part of their revenue stream would hurt the domestic
fishermen.
Alternatively, that the United States is not a major player
in the shark fin trade around the world, and that by ending the
trade of shark fins or fins transited through the United States
would not have a major impact on those other nations elsewhere
where the fin trade would go either perhaps around the United
States or any deficit of fins would be filled by illegal
harvest elsewhere.
So, our bottom line is we have strong measures in place,
and we believe the fishermen are following those, and that they
should be allowed to continue their current businesses.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you. And I am going to break my
little rule that I just said a minute ago because unavoidably I
have to address the next bill. So, I guess it is a free-for-all
for everybody, and I will be the first to do that.
My understanding, Mr. Risenhoover, is that Mr. Webster's
bill was modeled on existing traceability and the shrimp import
certification programs. Can you expand on NOAA's concern with
this bill as drafted?
Mr. Risenhoover. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is based
broadly on the shrimp import trade where we do look at other
countries to see if they have similar programs in place for the
conservation of sea turtles during the shrimp trade, so that is
a very narrowly focused program. The legislation under
consideration here, H.R. 5248, has a very broad definition of
both shark products and the certification process that would
ensue.
We believe that that would be very difficult for us to
implement, and, again, we all have the same intent here of
ending the illegal trade of shark fins, but we need the program
that is implementable and something we can do to make sure that
works, and we would be happy to work with Mr. Webster and the
Committee on that legislation.
Mr. Lamborn. Could you amplify on what can be done to
reconcile the two bills to create a final product that NOAA
would be able to support that addresses the concerns of
unsustainable foreign shark finning?
Mr. Risenhoover. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know that
I can hypothesize on that right now. Again, I think the intent
of both of the shark bills is to end the shark finning and the
illegal trade. So, we all agree on what the goal is. It is how
do we get there, and I think we need to work on that a little
bit more.
Somewhere between banning it so that domestic fishermen
cannot sell their fins and a more complex system that may not
be effective or implementable, and we would be happy to work
with the Committee on that.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you.
Dr. Hueter, before my time elapses, I would like to send a
question your way. Can you describe the health of shark species
globally compared to the health of these same shark species in
U.S. waters and under U.S. management?
Mr. Heuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is very
complicated. We are dealing with 1,250 different species of
animals between the sharks and the rays. It depends on where
you look. In some of the places, especially in the Pacific and
Indian Oceans, sharks have been very, very heavily overfished,
and we have seen declines greater than 50 percent, even
approaching higher numbers than that.
In the United States, when you look back at before
management started in this country, we did have very serious
declines of greater than 75 percent in a lot of our stocks. But
because of the last 25 years of concerted effort to reverse
that and because of a great reduction in our shark fishing
fleet in the United States to get it into a sustainable state,
we are seeing the return of many of these stocks way beyond
just simple sustainability. It goes as far as things like great
white sharks even increasing in numbers off the U.S. coast at
this point.
So, by and large, here the stocks are healthy, are getting
healthy and healthier than the rest of the world, and it is
these foreign, especially the high seas fleets, that we really
have to focus our attention on.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you very much. I now recognize the
Ranking Member for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huffman. I was going to allow Ms. Bordallo to be
recognized.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Representative Bordallo, you are now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased
that the Subcommittee is hearing testimony on H.R. 1456, which
is the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act, sponsored by
Congressman Royce who testified earlier.
I also want to acknowledge the bill's Democratic co-lead,
Congressman Sablan, who is in his district as we meet today and
unable to join us. He was also the bill's sponsor in the 114th
Congress.
For decades, Congress worked to enact laws against shark
finning, but was frustrated by lawsuits and many court
decisions. After years of legal uncertainty, the Shark
Conservation Act, which I sponsored in the House, was signed
into law in January 2011. The Shark Conservation Act
definitively banned the brutal practice of shark finning in all
U.S. waters and the possession abroad of illegally taken shark
fins at sea.
My Shark Conservation Act also provided for improved shark
conservation, better NOAA fisheries enforcement, and economic
incentives for our Nation's trading partners to conserve
sharks, including the ability to restrict imports from bad
actor countries.
Currently, 12 U.S. states and three territories have
enacted laws against shark finning and sales of illegally
sharked fins, including Guam and the Northern Marianas. H.R.
1456 closes the last legal loophole making it illegal under
Federal law to sell, import, or possess shark fins on U.S. soil
across all jurisdictions.
H.R. 4528, sponsored by our fellow Committee member,
Congressman Soto, amends my Shark Conservation Act to clarify
further that NOAA shall enforce Federal regulations against
shark finning for all shark species, including the smooth
dogfish.
The science is very clear. We are facing a startling
decline in shark species and populations worldwide. Sharks are
among the planet's oldest life forms, having outlived the
dinosaurs and even predating them by millions of years. But
sharks may not last much longer if we do not take action now.
According to the International Union for Conservation of
Nature, the IUCN, more than half of shark species are facing
extinction. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will take action
to stave off the preventable loss of our sharks, and I do have
some questions here. My first is for Director Risenhoover. Can
you speak to why the United States continues to import shark
fins from countries that do not have regulations against shark
finning?
Mr. Risenhoover. Thank you. And the answer to that is there
is no prohibition right now. I do think H.R. 1456 would create
such a certification process that is similar to other broader
certification processes we have. The concern we have with it is
the broad scope of those products we would have to trace and
the complexity of doing so.
Ms. Bordallo. My second part of this question is how can
the U.S. leadership prompt other countries to crack down on
harmful shark finning, particularly Hong Kong and mainland
China where it is a delicacy to eat shark fin soup?
Mr. Risenhoover. Thank you for that. Let me summarize a
couple other things the government is doing, and NOAA fisheries
in particular, to address shark finning and shark conservation
management around the country. We recently implemented a
seafood import monitoring program that will help us trace
products coming into the United States to make sure they were
harvested in their country of origin properly.
Sharks are one of the few species included in that at this
time. We also work under some other legislation where we can
certify other countries positively or negatively for their
trade associated with sharks.
And finally, we work with a number of regional fishery
management organizations around the world in an effort to get
them to improve their shark management, and most importantly,
have all sharks landed with their fins naturally attached.
So, I believe we have a number of efforts ongoing in the
international arena to meet this goal.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have just one
quick question, if you would allow it.
OK. I have a question for Professor Parsons. Professor, I
am alarmed by the large discrepancy in shark fin import-export
data collected by NOAA versus the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization, FAO. Can you please speak to this,
where can we come by more up-to-date data.
Mr. Parsons. Trade is not actually my area. I am more of a
scientist, but I am aware of the fact that there is a large
discrepancy between the number of fins that are recorded
imported into this country versus the number that are reported
exported to the country. My understanding of it is that there
are different labeling requirements, and, again, I have to say
that I am not actually a trade expert.
Ms. Bordallo. Is there anybody on the panel that could
further elaborate on that? Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Risenhoover. Yes, just quickly, I think he raises some
issues about some of the compatibility of data. Some of the
estimates I understand may have since been corrected, so we
would be happy to provide the Committee with a written
statement that goes beyond my personal knowledge of how those
differences may be highlighted and hopefully at some point
resolved.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, and, Mr.
Chairman, I am sure you would like that report.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you. Please provide that to the
Committee.
And I am glad as an aside there haven't been any lawyer
jokes yet, although I am tempted. Mr. Webster you are now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Polston, Dr. Parsons
said that H.R. 1456 would not impact the ability to fish. Do
you feel the same way?
Mr. Polston. Absolutely not. If you can't go out and
harvest what you need when you are shark fishing, it is
necessary to have the shark fin with the meat to make it to
where it is economically feasible to do it. There is no way you
can do it, just like I had stated before, without being able to
sell the fin, and you can't get the meat price of the shark to
go up high enough to sustain it. So, it is economically not
feasible. No, sir, I do not agree.
Mr. Webster. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Representative Beyer, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Thank you
all very much for being here.
Mr. Polston, to follow up, you talked about how H.R. 1456,
Congressman Royce's bill, would punish fishermen, and you
talked about reverse finning where you would basically use the
whole fish and throw away the fins. But in Mr. Parsons' memo,
he talks about the 12 states, as Ms. Bordallo talked about the
3 Pacific territories, Amazon, Grubhub, 51 percent of
international airlines, 17 of the 19 biggest shipping firms.
Where do you have to sell the fins in the United States if
state after state after state is banning the purchase and the
use of these fins?
Mr. Polston. Where do we sell them, you said?
Mr. Beyer. Yes.
Mr. Polston. I sell mine in the state of Florida.
Mr. Beyer. So, you are finding an ever-shrinking U.S.
market for them as the states are banning shark fins?
Mr. Polston. Yes.
Mr. Beyer. I think that perhaps suggests something.
Mr. Hueter, it says banned by 40 countries. Who are the
offenders? I mean, in whales it used to be Norway and Japan.
Who are the countries that are out there, the fisheries that
are finning these sharks?
Mr. Hueter. Primarily, we are talking about fisheries on
the high seas, and a lot of the countries we are talking about
may have a finning ban but they are not enforcing it, which is
just as bad.
But when we look at what H.R. 5248 would affect in terms of
certifying nations, we are looking at countries like Taiwan,
China, Mexico, even Canada, some of these countries do have
shark conservation measures, but not all of them enforce it
properly. So, I think it is important.
Mr. Beyer. Because it is happening on the high seas?
Mr. Hueter. Because it is happening on the high seas, that
is correct. Even our neighbor Mexico, which has a huge
artisanal fleet for shark fishing, has some measures in place,
but enforcement is a problem in Mexico. That is a conversation
that we will need to have with them once H.R. 5248 is passed.
Mr. Beyer. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Risenhoover, you said that NOAA has effective laws. How
do you reconcile your claim that it has effective laws if 73
million plus sharks were finned last year?
Mr. Risenhoover. Congressman, we have effective domestic
laws. I believe that number and the number of sharks, the 73
million killed a year, is globally, so our domestic laws are
very effective and control the harvest of sharks in a
sustainable manner.
Mr. Beyer. Also, a number of the testimonies have talked
about that the U.S. market for the consumption of shark fins is
relatively small.
How do you counter Chairman Royce's assertion that when
America leads, the world pays attention and the world follows?
Why do you suggest that that is not true with respect to shark
fins, when it was arguably true with respect to almost
everything else?
Mr. Risenhoover. Congressman, thank you.
I believe the United States is leading in shark
conservation and management. Under the Magnuson Act, we have a
very strict requirement that we have annual catch limits that
prevent the overfishing of sharks on an annual basis.
And as we have heard testimony today, we see that sharks
are increasing in numbers. We still have a few that are subject
to overfishing and some that are overfished, but we have very
robust management programs in place to rebuild those shark
populations.
Mr. Beyer. Let me restate it. Don't you think it would be
an incredibly powerful symbol to the other countries of the
world if the United States actually banned shark fins--the
sale, importation, consumption of? And do you see any other way
to get the many other countries of the world to begin to ban
this practice without U.S. leadership?
Mr. Risenhoover. The United States has banned shark
finning, that act of cutting off the fins and dumping the
carcass over the side. We have already taken that step.
We have, as I mentioned, these robust domestic programs.
And we are working in the international arena with other
nations to improve their shark management programs and track
the trade of the sharks that they harvest.
Mr. Beyer. Also, if we don't do H.R. 1456, I understand it
is now legal in the United States, in at least 38 states, to
import and to consume shark fins. Again, without that, aren't
we sending a very mixed message to the rest of the world, that
we have banned shark finning but it is OK for other nations to
shark fin and then sell them to us?
Mr. Risenhoover. I don't believe there is a high level of
shark fin consumption in the United States. Some of those fins
are likely just trans-shipped through the United States to
other destinations.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but thank you very
much.
Mr. Lamborn. Representative LaMalfa, you are now recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is certainly a sticky issue to sort out here, because,
as a sportsman, when you hunt, when you fish, when you harvest,
you are taught to respect, and when you respect nature, you use
the whole animal. So, as Mr. Beyer mentioned, the term
``reverse finning,'' it is hard for me to make much sense of
that, when you are throwing that away. And you get into the
whole issue of trophy hunting, African animals, whatever you
might have.
If you are taking the animal, it sure seems like you should
be using the whole thing. I was very strongly opposed to the
action of finning when we had legislation in California back in
the day on AB 376, which I joined in on because I just found
that abhorrent, finning a shark and throwing the rest of it
away.
So, I guess it begs the bigger question, should we shark
fish at all? As these folks on the panel have mentioned, the
primary value of fishing the shark is heavily weighted toward
the value of the fin, not necessarily the rest of it. And I am
not here to say, oh, we should ban that. I should say, what do
we find is the ultimate compromise in this? I like what I am
hearing in Mr. Webster's bill. I also was, early on, looking at
Mr. Royce's bill as a possible solution.
Would you just comment on that a little more? I am really
torn on this. Three ways to go: You reverse fin; you don't fish
sharks at all; or you find a way somewhere down the middle to
have legally harvested, permitted, under a type of sustainable
amount of fish that can be taken, and you use the whole thing.
So, how about Mr. Risenhoover and Mr. Polston, please both
comment on that. And maybe Mr. Hueter too.
Mr. Risenhoover. Right. Thank you, Representative.
I think you have hit on the exact issue here, that
everybody agrees shark finning--that is, discarding the
carcass--is something we do not support.
Per my testimony and per the Agency's position, ours is
that we are sustainably managing our sharks, and, as part of
that sustainable management program, deriving revenue from the
fins is acceptable.
Mr. LaMalfa. I would not look at the deriving-revenue issue
as the paramount purpose. I mean, yes, of course, the fishing
industry is revenue-oriented. But are we doing the right thing
across the board here with the shark fishing we are talking
about and then the uses of the fin in the proper, permitted
situation?
Mr. Polston. I think so, because by the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, we are supposed to catch all fisheries at the maximum
sustainable yield. And as long as we are not exceeding the
maximum sustainable yield of the shark fisheries and we are not
finning and we are using all the animal, I don't see where
anything is being done wrong, I mean, where that is different
than any other fishery. Why would you stop shark fishing when
no other fishery is being talked about?
Mr. LaMalfa. Then the concept here is that, by banning the
entire use of fin at all, it sends the message to the other
countries that are doing it wrong how to--I guess I have a hard
time deciding that our action is going to make China or
somebody else follow what we do. I mean, the importation is
something we can certainly control, but their own use, how do
you really stop that?
Mr. Risenhoover. Again, I think that is the question--do we
need to focus on limiting our domestic harvesting
opportunities? Or I would suggest that we focus on some of
these other international items I mentioned where we are
working with other countries to improve their shark management
and conservation so that we don't have this illegal fin-driven
trade around the country.
Mr. LaMalfa. All right. Again, for the panelists--yes, sir,
please.
Mr. Hueter. Yes, thank you.
You asked the question, should we be fishing for sharks,
and it depends, of course, on the species, it depends on which
nation.
In the United States, for example, we have more than 20
species of sharks that are prohibited to be fished for, so
those are clearly species and stocks that we should not be
fishing on. On the other hand, we have, as I mentioned in my
remarks, 18 shark and ray fisheries that have been
independently judged by an international group of experts to be
fully sustainable.
So, we have to separate out the domestic situation, where
we have a sustainable fishery, where the fishermen are
reporting their catch, they are not finning, and they are
legally fishing and landing this catch. And we don't want them
to throw part of that resource away if they are certified to do
that.
The other point I would like to make is this idea of
sending a message. That worked with elephants because the
United States was the major consumer of elephant ivory, so when
we shut it down, that put the brakes on the whole industry.
In the case of shark fins, we are, like, a 1-percent
consumer in global trade. It is not going to change China at
all. And, in fact, that little 1 percent will probably be taken
up by a country that is actually finning sharks. So, it is
punishing our fishermen by not allowing them to sell the fins
and rewarding----
Mr. LaMalfa. I am going to have to wrap up super fast, sir.
Thank you.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. We will have to wrap this up.
Mr. LaMalfa. I would invite anybody on the panel or others
listening who are part of this, if you wish, to submit
arguments directly to my office on this. I am still wide open
on the question here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
Mr. Lamborn. OK.
We now recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes for
questions he might have.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think if anyone doubts that American leadership on this
issue does not have an effect on the rest of the world,
including China, just look at what the Chinese airlines are
doing in response to the leadership that we have started
through our states and here in the United States.
But we are having a debate because, once shark fins are out
into the stream of commerce, I think everybody agrees that you
can't tell the ones that have been sustainably caught from the
ones that have been horrifically finned. It is just not
possible; you can't unscramble the eggs.
And that is why so many conservation leaders and
organizations and advocates who have worked on elephant ivory
and these other examples of illegal trade have concluded, that
you have to confront the trade, the possession and trade of the
fins. That is what the states have done. That is what the bill
before us is proposing to do.
But I am hearing an argument from some of our witnesses and
from, disappointingly, our own leader at NOAA that, because
American shark fisheries are sustainable--I am hearing words
like ``sharks populations are increasing.'' Mr. Risenhoover,
you have pronounced the American shark fisheries sustainable.
We are patting ourselves on the back, and there is this sense
of great confidence that we are doing everything right on shark
management here in the United States, and so, therefore, we
should not punish this, we should nevertheless allow a
continuation of this trade, even though most experts agree that
that is going to hurt shark conservation globally.
I want to challenge the premise of some of the things that
I am hearing here.
So, Mr. Risenhoover, I am told that over 60 percent of
shark stocks listed in the NMFS status of stocks do not even
have stock assessments. Is that correct?
Mr. Risenhoover. I am not familiar with the exact number,
but I know that a large portion of them do not have stock----
Mr. Huffman. And yet you have pronounced this a sustainable
fishery, and you have said shark populations are increasing.
How many stock assessments did NOAA do for shark species
last year?
Mr. Risenhoover. I believe it would be on the order of two.
I can get you the exact number of that. We do a couple
assessments a year.
Mr. Huffman. We had a witness from NOAA before us a few
days ago about the Trump administration budget, which seeks to
slash funding for things like surveys and stock assessments.
We know that the shark fishery landings are a tiny
fraction, way less than 1 percent, of the commercial landings
from all our fisheries in the United States. So, it is hard to
believe that this dwindling pool of money your agency will have
to do surveys and stock assessments is going to be prioritized
for shark populations going forward.
In other words, it is only going to get worse, when it
comes to the grossly inadequate visibility we have on shark
populations. Wouldn't you agree?
Mr. Risenhoover. I would say, Representative, that we will
do as much as we can with the budget we receive from Congress.
Mr. Huffman. That is inspiring testimony.
I am also troubled by the data that you do have. In 2016,
the year with the most recent landings data, non-dogfish shark
landings were valued at less than $2.5 million. So, it is a
tiny fraction. Over half of those landings by value and volume
were just listed as sharks, with no species. Isn't that
correct?
Mr. Risenhoover. That is correct.
Mr. Huffman. That doesn't tell you much in terms of whether
a given species of shark is, as you have so confidently
proclaimed, increasing, for example.
And how about bycatch data? I am told that at some
fisheries sharks are counted by individuals, at others they are
counted by pounds, some are counted at the species level,
others are counted in groups. Can you say that we have a clear
picture on the rate of shark bycatch in the United States?
Mr. Risenhoover. That would depend, Congressman, on the
fishery involved and the information we get. But we do have
good data in some areas, less so in others.
Mr. Huffman. And then I guess the other question I have for
you, Mr. Risenhoover, is we have these states that have enacted
bans on the shark fin trade, and yet we keep getting
information that suggests that shark fins continue to be
imported and exported from those states.
What are NOAA and other Federal agencies doing to
coordinate with these states to try to make sure that that does
not happen?
Mr. Risenhoover. As you know, Congressman, we have an
enforcement arm within NOAA. I am sure they are working with
Customs to look at those. And anytime we see an incident of
what may be an illegal import or an import into an area that is
not approved, we would look into that.
Mr. Huffman. I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
And, without any objection, I would like to introduce into
the record a report from NOAA dated September 8, 2015, on the
shark populations off the U.S. East Coast.
With no objection, so ordered.
We have now finished our consideration of H.R. 1456. We
will now move into discussion on our second and third bills of
the day, H.R. 5248 and H.R. 4528, by Representative Soto.
You all are welcome to stay, if you able to, to answer
questions. I know some of you came prepared for the first bill,
so you are free to go now if you needed to, but if you want to
stay and answer questions that might come your way on the next
two bills, please feel free to stay.
We will first recognize the sponsor of H.R. 5248, who is
also the Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee, Representative
Webster, for a statement on his bill.
Mr. Webster, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DANIEL WEBSTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
H.R. 5248, the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act,
seeks to balance the concerns we have just heard about shark
finning with a recognition that the United States is a world
leader in sustainable shark fishing.
While I fully support all efforts to stop the horrific
practice of shark finning, I have some questions about whether
this is a serious issue in U.S. waters and, therefore, whether
the heavy-handed approach of the previous bill is warranted.
Some fishermen, incidentally, land sharks in efforts to
fish for other species. The United States is a small player in
the overall market for the trade of shark fins. I believe we
can do more good by incentivizing other countries to follow our
sustainable management practices rather than by just
withdrawing from the market altogether, which would hurt
worldwide shark conservation. We would have no leverage if we
did that.
My legislation, which will soon have a Senate companion
sponsored by Senator Rubio, will leverage access to the U.S.
market by requiring foreign nations and foreign fisheries to
follow our sustainable fisheries regulations.
The bill creates an import certification program modeled
after the existing shrimp import certification program. It
would require NOAA to assess a nation's fisheries laws and
regulations for sharks, skates, and rays and certify whether
that nation's shark products are harvested using scientific-
based and sustainable resource management.
Conservation and humane fishing regulations co-exist in
U.S. fisheries. This bill would incentivize our trade partners
to do the same.
We developed this legislation in consultation with NOAA,
fishing industry stakeholders, and environmental groups. I want
to thank all those who helped provide input on this
legislation, and the Chair for holding this hearing, and
bipartisan co-sponsors on H.R. 5248.
Thank you, also, to the witnesses that have come today.
I would like to enter into the record, Mr. Chairman, a set
of communications from Representative Walter Jones, who
couldn't be here today, along with several environmental groups
and other stakeholders. If you could enter that into the
record.
Mr. Lamborn. Seeing no objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
April 17, 2018
Dear Member of Congress:
As professional marine scientists, many with expertise in the
biology and fisheries of sharks and their relatives the skates and
rays, we write in support of H.R. 5248, the Sustainable Shark Fisheries
and Trade Act of 2018. This legislation promotes responsible, science-
based shark, skate, and ray fishery management around the world without
economically harming U.S. law-abiding fishermen. It will help ensure
that any products from these animals that enter U.S. markets are
sourced only from countries where shark and ray fisheries are subject
to comparable management measures as for U.S. shark, skate, and ray
fisheries.
The more than 1,250 species of sharks and their relatives play
important ecological roles in the many marine and freshwater habitats
where they occur. Some species are also culturally and economically
important. Yet 24 percent of chondrichthyan species are estimated to be
threatened with extinction, according to the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), making them one of the most threatened
groups of animals on the planet. Overfishing--to feed the global demand
for meat, fins, oil, gills, and other products--is the primary driver
of these declines. Globally, many tens of millions of sharks and rays
are caught and killed each year in directed fisheries or as incidental
catch.
The U.S. has become a global leader in shark fishery management and
conservation. Over the past 25 years, many of us have worked with the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the fishing industry, conservation
groups, and the public to raise awareness about the impact global
fishing is having on these vulnerable species, and have pushed for
science-based management. In accordance with strong regulatory
standards under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the U.S. commercial fishing
industry, to their credit, has adopted critical management measures for
many shark and ray fisheries. This includes a domestic ban on the
practice of shark finning (removing the fin and dumping the carcass),
the implementation of catch quotas and other fishery regulations since
the 1990s, and leadership in promoting similar measures in
international fisheries fora. Recreational fisheries are also subject
to management, and catch-and-release of sharks is becoming more common
among anglers. As a result of this and effective rebuilding plans, the
U.S. has some of the most sustainable shark fisheries in the world.
We are now seeing the benefits of these efforts, as some depleted
shark populations in U.S. waters begin to rebuild. This provides
evidence that fisheries, at least for some species, can be sustainable
if carefully managed. The Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act of
2018 will require that any import of shark, skate, and ray products
into U.S. markets be sourced from a country that has been certified to
have shark, skate, and ray management and conservation measures
comparable to those in the U.S., including science-based measures to
prevent overfishing and comparable prohibitions on shark finning. In
addition to promoting sustainable fishery management by other fishing
countries, this bill would also help level the playing field in
international markets for U.S. fishermen, who have already taken the
necessary steps to support responsible domestic shark, skate, and ray
fisheries.
Although it is not the largest importer of shark products, the U.S.
is a major shark and skate fishing and exporting country and therefore
can lead in both modeling and promoting sustainable shark fisheries
management and responsible trade for these species. Continuing to
exercise this leadership can help to reverse the declining trend in
many shark, skate, and ray populations around the world. We heartily
endorse the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act of 2018 and
strongly urge its prompt passage by Congress.
Sincerely,
A. Peter Klimley, PhD Alejo Fabian Bonifacio, PhD
Brendan Talwar, MS/MA Bryan R. Franks, PhD
Carl Luer, PhD Cathy Walsh, PhD
Charles Bangley, PhD Claudio Campagna, PhD
Daniel C. Abel, PhD Daniel Huber, PhD
David Kerstetter, PhD David Shiffman, PhD
Demian Chapman, PhD Drew Cronin, PhD
Elizabeth Alter, PhD Eric B. Hovland, MS/MA
Florencia Cerutti, PhD Francesco Ferretti, PhD
Gene S. Helfmanb, PhD George H. Burgess, MS/MA
Gregor M. Cailliet, PhD Harold L. Pratt, Jr., MS/MA
Howard Rosenbaum, PhD Isabel Marques da Silva, PhD
Ivy Baremore, MS/MA J. Marcus Drymon, PhD
Jake LaBelle, MS/MA Jeffrey C. Carrier, PhD
John A. Musick, PhD John F. Morrissey, PhD
John Tyminski, MS/MA John Waldman, PhD
Joshua Stewart, MS/MA Juan Martin Cuevas, PhD
Kara Yopak, PhD Katherine Holmes, MS/MA
Kevin Feldheim, PhD Lara Ferry, PhD
Linda Planthof, MS/MA Maria Laura Ballesteros, PhD
Mariano Sironi, PhD Melinda Rekdahl, PhD
Merry Camhi, PhD Michael B. Bennett, PhD
Michael R. Heithaus, PhD Mikki Mccomb-Kobza, PhD
Neil Hammerschlag, PhD Philip Motta, PhD
Rebeka Merson, PhD Renato Hajenius Ache Freitas, PhD
Rob Moir, PhD Robert E. Hueter, PhD
Robert Nowicki, PhD Sabine Wintner, MS/MA
Salome Buglass, MS/MA Samuel H. Gruber, PhD
Simon J. Pierce, PhD Steven Kessel, PhD
Susan Lieberman, PhD Valentina Di Santo, PhD
Valeria Falabella, MS/MA Yannis Papastamatiou, PhD
______
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
March 13, 2018
Dear Member of Congress:
We write in support of the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade
Act of 2018. The U.S. already has strong laws and regulations governing
the management of commercially traded shark, skate and ray fisheries.
This legislation would help promote the sustainable management of shark
fisheries globally by ensuring that all shark, ray and skate products
entering U.S. markets come from fisheries with comparable conservation
and management practices. This approach serves a valuable dual
purpose--improving the global management of these fisheries while
leveling the playing field for U.S. commercial fishermen.
There are more than 1,250 species of cartilaginous fishes--sharks
and their relatives, which include skates and rays--and while the
conservation status of nearly half these species is poorly known, one-
quarter are estimated to be threatened with extinction. As species that
grow slowly, mature late, and have few young, they are particularly
vulnerable to overexploitation. Overfishing is the primary threat to
many of these species.
Although a large number of shark, skate, and ray species are
struggling, evidence suggests that with effective fishery management,
many species can be sustainably fished and commercially traded while
maintaining healthy populations. Markets for shark fins and meat are
important drivers of fisheries for these products, and other products
like liver oil, cartilage, and skin are also valued and traded for,
forming the basis of livelihoods for people and communities both in the
U.S. and around the world.
We support the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act's approach
of requiring that shark, skate and ray products imported to the U.S.
come from fisheries managed under strong standards, similar to those
already required by U.S. law. This includes science-based management of
related fisheries that prevents overfishing and rebuilds overfished
stocks. By holding imported products to the same standards as U.S.
fisheries, the U.S. can promote sustainable shark, skate and ray
fisheries globally while also supporting the market for well-managed
U.S. fisheries. I urge you to support this legislation.
As a significant shark, ray and skate fishing and trading country
and a global leader in the conservation of these species, the U.S. has
an important role to play in promoting sustainable shark, skate and ray
fishery management in the U.S. and abroad. We endorse the Sustainable
Shark Fisheries and Trade Act of 2018 and urge its prompt passage by
Congress.
______
Prepared Testimony of the Wildlife Conservation Society
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
Subcommittee, WCS is grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony
in support of H.R. 5248, the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act
(SSFTA).
Founded in 1895 by Theodore Roosevelt and other conservationists,
WCS saves wildlife and wild places worldwide through science,
conservation action, education, and inspiring people to value nature.
To achieve our mission, WCS, based at the Bronx Zoo, harnesses the
power of its Global Conservation Program in nearly 60 nations and in
all the world's oceans, the New York Aquarium in Brooklyn, and its four
other wildlife parks in New York City, visited by more than 4 million
people annually. WCS combines this expertise in the field, zoos, and
aquarium to achieve its conservation mission.
As part of its work on marine conservation, WCS works to conserve
sharks, rays, and skates through field research, marine protected areas
establishment and management, threat mitigation, the promotion of
effective fisheries management and trade policies, capacity-building,
local community engagement, international policy, and public education.
WCS has been directly engaged in domestic and international shark
conservation and fishery management since the late 1990s. Past and
current staff scientists actively participated in U.S. and
international shark fishery stock assessments and authored seminal
studies on the shark fin trade,\1\ fisheries, and conservation
status.\2\ They have served on the IUCN Shark Specialist Group since
1993, as Past President of the American Elasmobranch Society, organized
international conferences on sharks, and successfully promoted shark
listings under CITES, the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna. WCS was a strong proponent
of the Shark Finning Prohibition Act (2000), and worked to ensure that
sharks were included in recent seafood traceability regulations that
took effect January 1, 2018.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Shelley C. Clarke et al., Letter, Global Estimates of Shark
Catches Using Trade Records from Commercial Markets, 9 Ecology Letters
1115-1126 (2006).
\2\ Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries & Conservation
(Merry D. Camhi, Ellen K. Pikitch & Elizabeth A. Babcock eds., 2008);
The Conservation Status of Pelagic Sharks and Rays: Report of the IUCN
Shark Specialist Group, Pelagic Shark Red List Workshop (Merry D. Camhi
et al., eds. 2009), available at http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/
ssg_pelagic_report_ final.pdf.
\3\ 50 C.F.R. Sec. 300.324.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, WCS supports marine programs in 23 countries around the
world and undertakes shark field research and policy initiatives in
Argentina, Indonesia, Myanmar, Madagascar, Gabon, Bangladesh, and
Belize, among others. In these locations, we work on all aspects of
shark conservation, collecting data to better understand shark
fisheries and populations, and then working closely with scientists,
governments and local communities to put in place and enforce laws and
regulations that will protect or sustainably manage their sharks and
rays and secure these species' survival as part of healthy, productive
oceans.
In 2010, WCS established the New York Seascape Program based at our
New York Aquarium that works to address local conservation of the
region's forty species of sharks, skates, and rays. Aquarium scientists
have also been tagging and conducting health assessments on sand tiger,
blue, shortfin mako, white sharks, and other species in New York waters
to improve our understanding of shark movements, migrations, and
habitat needs.
This June, WCS is poised to open a new state-of-the-art exhibit at
our New York Aquarium on Coney Island dedicated to celebrating the
biology, ecology, and diversity of sharks and rays, and inspiring their
conservation locally and globally. Ocean Wonders: Sharks!, with 57,000
sq. feet of new exhibits and over 100 species, will introduce New York
City to some of its most remarkable residents, inspiring visitors to
join us in protecting the local waters that are so crucial to wildlife
and humans alike.
There are more than 1,250 species of elasmobranchs--sharks, skates,
and rays. These cartilaginous fish play important ecological roles in
the freshwater and marine habitats in which they occur, and many
species are culturally and economically important to the countries
where they range.\4\ Many species are highly migratory, moving within
and between domestic EEZs and international waters, which complicates
effective management of their fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan
Fishes (Sarah K. Fowler et al., eds., 2005), available at https://
portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2005-029.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global shark and ray fisheries have expanded greatly over the past
50 years and their products are among the most valuable seafood
commodities in trade. Based on official statistics, global trade in
parts and products is approaching $1 billion in value.\5\ These
statistics are widely believed to under-report actual levels. In 2011,
total global trade in shark parts and products was valued at $438.6
million in fins and $379.8 million in meat.\6\ The value of the shark
tourism industry is also estimated to be around $314 million
annually.\7\ Major shark fishing countries beyond the U.S. include
Indonesia, India, Spain, Taiwan ROC, Mexico, and Argentina.\8\ The U.S.
imports shark, skate and ray parts and products from a variety of
countries, including New Zealand, Canada, China including Hong Kong,
and Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Nicholas K. Dulvy et al., Challenges and Priorities in
Shark and Ray Conservation, 23 Current Biology R565, R566 (2017).
\6\ Id.
\7\ Id.
\8\ Id. at tbl. S3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the conservation status of nearly half of these species is
poorly known, one-quarter are estimated to be threatened with
extinction.\9\ As a group, cartilaginous fishes are biologically
vulnerable to overexploitation because they grow slowly, mature late,
and produce few young. For example, manta rays only give birth to a
live pup every 2 or 3 years, and female North Pacific spiny dogfish can
take 35 years to reach sexual maturity.\10\ Because of these common
characteristics, overfishing is the primary threat to these species.
This is exacerbated by the fact that, across the world's oceans, many
shark, ray, and skate fisheries are subject to very little management,
and generally not managed for sustainability. As a result, they are
among the most threatened vertebrates on the planet.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Nicholas K. Dulvy et al., Extinction Risk and Conservation of
the World's Sharks and Rays, eLife 2014;3:e00590 DOI: 10.7554/
eLife.00590 (2014).
\10\ J.S. Bigman et al., Squalus suckleyi, The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2016:e.T195488A2382480 (2016), available at http://
www.iucnredlist.org/details/195488/0; COSEWIC Assessment and Status
Report on the North Pacific Spiny Dogfish Squalus suckleyi in Canada
(2011), available at https://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/
cosewic/sr_aiguillat_commun_nor_pac_spiny_dogfish_0912_e.pdf.
\11\ Dulvy et al., supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a common misconception that the demand for one shark
product--shark fins--is the only driver of overfishing of sharks and
rays. While demand for shark fins in U.S. and Asian markets is
certainly a large part of the economic value of the global shark trade,
demand for meat, such as in Europe and South Korea, grew by 42 percent
(by volume) between 2000 and 2011,\12\ and demands for liver and oils
for pharmaceuticals, cartilage, leather, and other products are also
significant. It is also important to note that among the most valuable
so-called ``shark'' fins are those that are actually from rays, such as
sawfishes and guitarfishes.\13\ In fact, skates and rays are being
fished more heavily and, as a group, are more threatened than sharks,
yet their fisheries are less managed. Sharks, rays, and skates are
often caught as bycatch in fisheries targeting other species, such as
tunas and swordfish, but this mortality is often poorly recorded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Felix Dent & Shelley Clarke, State of the Global Market for
Shark Products, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 590.
Rome, FAO (2015).
\13\ Dulvy et al., supra note 9; Dent & Clarke, supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although many shark, skate, and ray populations are significantly
depleted, evidence suggests that with effective fishery management,
some species can be sustainably fished and commercially traded. Current
U.S. law provides a strong framework for improved conservation
worldwide, including requirements for science-based management of these
fisheries to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. A
recent scientific analysis of global shark catches identified several
U.S. shark fisheries as meeting that study's criteria for biological
sustainability and science-based management.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Colin A. Simpfendorfer & Nicholas K. Dulvy, Bright Spots of
Sustainable Shark Fishing, 27 Current Biology R83-R102 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing that science-based management of sharks can result in
sustainable fisheries for some species, and that globally appropriate
management for these species is absent or lacking, WCS worked with
Representatives Webster and Lieu and partners in the commercial fishing
industry, with zoos and aquariums, and members of the scientific
community to draft the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act, which
sets U.S. fisheries laws and regulations as a standard for other shark-
fishing nations.
The bill would require a nation seeking to export shark, ray, and
skate products to the U.S. to receive certification from NOAA
determining that it has management and conservation policies in place
for these species comparable to those in the U.S., including science-
based management to prevent overfishing. Those comparable conservation
policies must also include a prohibition on practice of shark finning,
which has been prohibited in the U.S. since 2000. This would be a
substantial improvement in the standards by which many nations
currently operate their shark fisheries. And by holding imports of all
shark, skate, and ray products to the same standards that U.S. domestic
fisheries already meet, this bill would help keep products from
unmanaged or poorly managed fisheries out of U.S. markets, leveling the
playing field for U.S. fisheries that already do meet these
requirements. The bill contains a clause that ensures that this
legislation does not preempt federal or state laws with additional or
more stringent requirements, including bans on the trade of shark fins
that have been enacted in several U.S. states. This legislation would
also build on the existing U.S. Seafood Import Monitoring Program,
which established traceability requirements for certain seafood
products entering U.S. commerce, including sharks, to also include rays
and skates.
WCS has built a broad coalition in support of the bill. We're
joined in the environmental community by groups like the International
Fund for Animal Welfare; in the zoo and aquarium community by the
Association of Zoos and Aquariums, including the National Aquarium,
Shedd Aquarium, and more than 40 member institutions; and in the
scientific community by Mote Marine Laboratory, OCEARCH, and more than
60 scientists, most of whom have an expertise on shark, skate, and ray
biology and fisheries, and support stronger international conservation
measures for these vulnerable species.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to provide testimony in
support of this legislation. WCS urges the Committee to mark up and
pass this bipartisan legislation.
______
Mr. Webster. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Webster follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
H.R. 5248, the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act, seeks to
balance the concerns we've just heard about shark finning with a
recognition that the United States is a world leader in sustainable
shark fishing.
While I fully support all efforts to stop the horrific practice of
shark finning, I have some questions about whether this is a serious
issue in U.S. waters, and therefore, whether the heavy-handed approach
of the previous bill is warranted.
While some fishermen set out to intentionally catch sharks, others
land them incidentally to their efforts to fish for other species.
I am concerned that Mr. Royce's bill will have unintended, but
detrimental effects on Florida fishermen.
Though the United States is a small player in the overall market
for the trade of shark fins, I believe we can do more good by
incentivizing other countries to follow our sustainable management
practices than by withdrawing from the market altogether, which would
hurt worldwide shark conservation and U.S. fishermen.
My legislation, which will soon have a Senate companion sponsored
by Senator Rubio, will leverage access to the U.S. market by requiring
foreign nations and foreign fisheries to follow our sustainable
fisheries regulations.
The bill creates an import certification program modeled on the
existing shrimp import certification program.
It would require NOAA to assess a nation's fisheries laws and
regulations for sharks, skates and rays and certify whether that
nation's shark products are harvested using science-based and
sustainable resource management.
Conservation and humane fishing regulations co-exist in U.S.
fisheries; this bill would incentivize our trading partners to do the
same.
We developed this legislation in consultation with NOAA, fishing
industry stakeholders, and environmental groups.
I want to thank all those who helped provide input on this
legislation, I'd like to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing
and I'd like to thank Representative Lieu and the other co-sponsors of
H.R. 5248.
Thank you to all the witnesses for coming today and for your
flexibility with the scheduling issues that we've encountered.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Representative Soto, you are now recognized for 5 minutes
on H.R. 4528.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DARREN SOTO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman Lamborn and Ranking Member
Huffman, for holding this hearing today. I appreciate you
giving me the opportunity to present H.R. 4528, which makes
technical amendments to two marine fish conservation statutes,
the Shark Conservation Act of 2010 and the Billfish
Conservation Act of 2012.
The bill clarifies under the Shark Conservation Act of 2010
that there is no language in the Act that alters existing
authority of the Secretary of Commerce to manage Atlantic
highly migratory species under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, such
as sharks. It also cleans up language in the SCA by removing an
expired offset.
The main goal of this fix is to ensure protection against
shark finning, much like the other bills that you have here
today. And I applaud you for hosting this hearing.
H.R. 4528 will also fix agency confusion with NOAA to allow
rulemaking to go forward for the Atlantic smooth dogfish, a
type of shark.
The second major part of H.R. 4528 amends the Billfish
Conservation Act of 2012. It clarifies that the exemption for
marlin and billfish fishing in Hawaii and Pacific Insular
Areas, which is a tradition there, can only be sold locally.
More specifically, it clarifies these fish cannot be sold to
the other 49 states. This strikes a balance between preserving
traditional cultural fishing in these areas and the overall
intent to prevent large-scale commercial fishing of these
billfish.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Department is supportive of
it, as are various sports fishermen groups and various boating
groups.
I wanted to welcome three Floridians that we have here
today: Dr. Hueter, Mr. Polston, and Mr. Kondon. I have the
honor of representing central Florida up here. And I also
applaud my colleague from Florida, Congressman Webster, for his
work on this issue as well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Soto follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Darren Soto, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida
Thank you Chairman Lamborn and Ranking Member Huffman for holding
this hearing today. H.R. 4528 makes technical amendments to two marine
fish conservation statutes, the Shark Conservation Act of 2010 and the
Billfish Conservation Act of 2012.
The bill clarifies under the Shark Conservation Act (SCA) of 2010
that there is no language in the Act that alters existing authority of
the Secretary of Commerce to manage Atlantic highly migratory species
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. It also cleans up language in the SCA
by removing an expired offset.
The main goal of this fix is to ensure protection against shark
finning.
H.R. 4528 will fix agency confusion with NOAA to allow rulemaking
to go forward for the Atlantic smooth dogfish (a type of shark).
The second major part of H.R. 4528 amends the Billfish Conservation
Act (BCA) of 2012. It clarifies that the exemption for Marlin and
Billfish fishing in Hawaii and Pacific Insular Areas (as is tradition)
can only be sold locally. More specifically, it clarifies these fish
cannot be sold to the other 49 states.
This strikes a balance between preserving traditional cultural
fishing in these areas and the overall intent to prevent large scale
commercial fishing of these billfish.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife, the Sports Fisherman, and various
boating groups support this bill.
Again, thank you for holding this hearing.
______
Mr. Soto. I wanted to ask a question to you all briefly.
Mr. Kondon, how important is the preservation of sharks and
billfish to your role in providing scuba opportunities?
Mr. Kondon. Thank you, sir.
As far as the scuba diving community is concerned,
obviously, it is critical to us.
We are down in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary,
so every dive trip that we go out on, we are seeing nature in
its present state. We don't do anything to entice anything. It
is just purely what we are fortunate enough to see when we go
out on the reefs in the Florida Keys.
The overwhelming majority of our customers that come to us
are asking about seeing the bigger fish life. They want to see
sharks. And, unfortunately, we don't see near the sharks that
we would love to be able to see out there. It is very rare that
we do see sharks. But the customers still come. They want to
get out on the reefs, and they want to spend time on those
reefs and learn about them.
The divers that we train very often have concerns about
sharks, just because of what they have seen and heard in the
media and movies and such, that then when they get out there
and if they do have the opportunity to actually see a shark in
nature, to see their eyes just open wide in awe. They are just
blown away, and they are hooked, and they become
conservationists almost instantly and want to protect the reefs
and want to protect sharks.
So, it is very important to us down in the Keys,
especially, because without those sharks we do lose various
things that the sharks provide to the ecosystem there--removing
ill or other weak animals. And, of course, it all just
interacts together with the reefs, the sharks, and all the fish
together.
We need those sharks to sustain that and, obviously, to
keep us definitely gainfully employed as dive instructors, dive
guides, or dive captains. There are nearly 3,800 jobs out there
impacted that Oceana was able to show in their most recent
report.
Mr. Soto. Thank you.
Dr. Hueter, how is our shark population doing on the East
Coast in general?
Mr. Hueter. Thank you, Congressman. And, by the way, thank
you for your leadership as a Floridian for marine conservation.
We really appreciate it.
Again, some of the stocks still need to be rebuilt, but we
have species such as the blacktip shark, which you can see
often in video during the wintertime in numbers of tens of
thousands massing off the east coast of Florida very close to
the beaches. This is a stock that is a faster-growing species
that has come back and is very fishable, is very sustainable.
So, it depends on which shark you are talking about. There
are many different species. And some are able to bounce back;
others cannot so readily do so.
Mr. Soto. I yield back.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you.
I would also like to introduce, with unanimous consent, two
articles from the news media highlighting NOAA's enforcement of
current shark finning laws.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
A United States shark fin ban would undermine sustainable shark
fisheries
Marine Policy 85 (2017) 138-140
D.S. Shiffman, R.E. Hueter
The United States Congress is currently considering a nationwide
ban on buying or selling shark fins [1], which are consumed as part of
shark fin soup, a traditional Asian delicacy. Such a nationwide ban
would build on a movement that began in a few states including
California, New York, and Texas, and now includes a total of 12 states.
These state-level shark fin bans are not identical, as some include
exceptions for certain shark species, which demonstrates an
inconsistency of anti-fin trade arguments. While the proposed federal,
nationwide ban's stated goal of conserving threatened shark populations
is laudable and necessary, such a policy is misguided because it would
A) undermine decades of progress made toward ensuring sustainable shark
fisheries in the United States and around the world, B) likely have a
negligible direct effect on global shark mortality, and C) contribute
to the misconception that demand for shark fin soup is the only threat
facing shark populations worldwide.
Sharks are some of the most threatened (i.e., assessed as
Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered by the IUCN Red List)
vertebrates on Earth [2], and their population declines have been
almost entirely driven by overfishing (including targeted catch and
bycatch, and including but not limited to fishing associated with the
shark fin trade) [3]. Solutions to this problem have been broadly
categorized into those aiming for sustainable exploitation and those
that ban exploitation and sale entirely, such as bans on the sale of
shark fins [4]. Some conservation advocates argue these blanket bans
may be appropriate when sustainable fishing and trade are impossible,
such as in nations with inadequate fisheries management or enforcement
resources, though it is worth noting that a nation with inadequate
resources to enforce fisheries regulations likely has inadequate
resources to enforce a ban. In nations such as the United States,
however, sustainable shark fisheries are not only possible and largely
currently in place [5], but are preferred as a strategy by 90% of 102
surveyed members of scientific research societies focusing on sharks
and rays when compared with a total ban on the sale of shark products
[6].
The debate surrounding shark fishing and the shark fin trade is
complex and easily misunderstood. Key terms are often misused, adding
to confusion and putting the focus for reform on less effective policy
solutions. Under United States law, the term ``shark finning'' refers
exclusively to removing the fins of a shark and discarding that shark's
carcass at sea. If a shark's carcass is landed (i.e., brought back to
port) with fins still attached, that shark has not been finned under
United States law, even if that shark's fins are later removed and
sold. Shark finning is inhumane, wasteful and makes it difficult for
fisheries managers to identify the species of sharks being landed [7],
and for these reasons shark finning has been illegal in United States
waters since the 1990s [8]. Unfortunately, ``shark finning'' is
frequently misused as a synonym for shark fishing, or even for the
trade in shark fins taken from sharks caught primarily for their meat.
The United States ranks among the top ten shark fishing nations in
the world [9], and these fisheries are comparatively well managed [10]
with several identified as sustainable by consumer seafood guides (Fig.
1). This management includes catch quotas based on scientific estimates
of population status for some species, closed areas and closed seasons,
and stricter protections for more threatened species [4]. Of 16 global
shark fisheries identified as biologically sustainable and well
managed, 9 involve United States shark fishermen, accounting for 76.4%
of total landings from these 16 fisheries [5]. According to 2014 data
from the National Marine Fisheries Service [11], the total value of
shark meat sales is approximately $3.3 million USD, while the total
value of shark fin sales is approximately $1 million USD. The proposed
fin ban would therefore eliminate about 23% of the ex-vessel value of
legally caught sharks, causing economic harm to rule-following
fishermen and undermining decades of progress toward sustainable shark
fisheries management in the United States.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsFig. 1. United States shark fisheries that have been identified
as sustainable by NOAA FishWatch (``smart seafood choice''), the Marine
Stewardship Council (``certified''), or Seafood Watch (``best choice''
or ``good alternative'').
The United States has played a leadership role in promoting
sustainable shark fisheries around the world, but a domestic ban on the
sales of shark fins could seriously compromise the United States
position at the international negotiating table. A ban on the trade of
shark parts from a sustainable fishery would not only eliminate a model
of successful management from the global marketplace, but would also
remove an important incentive for other nations to adopt that model. A
nationwide ban on buying or selling fins would tell international
trading partners that the United States will not support their shark
conservation efforts regardless of future improvements to their
fisheries sustainability.
Furthermore, banning the sale of shark fins in the United States
would likely not result in a significant direct reduction in global
shark mortality, because the United States exports approximately one
percent of all the shark fins traded globally, and imports an even
smaller percentage of the global fin trade [10]. Therefore, even if the
shark fin trade in the United States were completely eliminated, the
direct impact on reducing global shark mortality would likely be
insignificant. In addition, the elimination of United States-supplied
fins in world markets would open the door to increased market share for
IUU (illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing) nations not
practicing sustainable shark fishing, including those that have not yet
prohibited finning.
It has been argued that a fin ban would indirectly reduce shark
mortality by reducing the value of shark fisheries and causing
fishermen to switch their target species. However, this argument does
not consider the effects of increased post-release mortality of shark
discards, and it also ignores the probability that a reduced value per
shark may also cause fishermen to simply catch more sharks to obtain
the same income as prior to a ban (in fisheries where the quotas are
unfilled) [4]. In any case, the conservation objectives of a shark fin
ban in the United States are questionable, as the reduction of fishing
mortality associated with a non-overfished stock that is not
experiencing overfishing is not normally considered a conservation
priority.
Moreover, banning the sale of shark fins would not make it illegal
to continue to catch and kill sharks in the United States. It would
only regulate how the parts of dead sharks can be used. Forcing
fishermen to discard fins from sharks caught in sustainably managed
fisheries would contribute to wastefulness in fisheries and undermine
the ``full use'' doctrine that is a component of the U.N. FAO
International Plan of Action for Sharks [12], without reducing shark
mortality. Additionally, while the United States does import some shark
fins, the total quantity is only approximately 0.2% of the global trade
in shark fins [10]. These few imports include fins from nations where
finning is already banned, as well as fins legally taken by United
States fishermen, exported overseas for processing, and imported back
into the United States as dried shark fin product. Imports of fins of
many species whose populations have significantly declined are already
regulated under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species (CITES) [4].
The global trade in shark fins has been declining (total world
imports and exports combined were worth approximately $300 million USD
in 2011, an 18% decline in trade volume from 2003 to 2011), whereas the
global trade in shark meat--which would not be directly affected by a
ban on selling fins--has been rising (total world imports and exports
combined were worth approximately $550 million USD in 2011, a 42%
increase vs. 2000) [10]. A policy that focuses only on shark fins
ignores a key component of the problem and risks diverting scarce
management and enforcement resources away from the heart of the issue.
A focus on fins also oversimplifies the threats facing sharks, which
can reduce political support for sustainable management [13]. Such a
focus also targets Asia (where fins are primarily consumed, but not
where meat is primarily consumed), leading to potentially problematic
cultural clashes that have already been the focus of lawsuits against
state-level shark fin trade bans in the United States [4].
Halting the population declines of shark species of conservation
concern are an important global conservation policy priority [2,14-16].
However, we conclude that banning the trade in fins from sharks legally
caught in well-managed, sustainable fisheries in the United States will
not improve or stop poorly managed fisheries in other nations. By
making a commercially valuable and sustainable product illegal, a
United States shark fin ban would likely not significantly and directly
reduce shark mortality and would ignore the growing global trade in
shark meat. Instead of a domestic ban on the shark fin trade, the
United States Congress should support more effective policies that
encourage progress toward making all shark fisheries sustainable in the
United States and around the world.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the following experts who
provided helpful feedback on this manuscript: Sonja Fordham of Shark
Advocates International, Russell Hudson of Directed Sustainable
Fisheries Inc., Dr. Jenny McCune, Dr. Sally Otto, Riley Pollom, Dr.
Jeremy Pittman, and Dr. Colin Simpfendorfer. We would also like to
thank two anonymous referees whose suggested changes helped to improve
this manuscript.
References
[1] S. 793/H.R. 1456, The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act of,
accessible , 2017.
[2] N.K. Dulvy, S.L. Fowler, J.A. Musick, R.D. Cavanagh, P.M. Kyne,
L.R. Harrison, J.K. Carlson, L.N.K. Davidson, S.V. Fordham, M.P.
Francis, C.M. Pollock, C.A. Simpfendorfer, G.H. Burgess, K.E.
Carpenter, L.J.V. Compagno, D.A. Ebert, C. Gibson, M.R. Heupel, S.R.
Livingstone, J.S. Sanciango, J.D. Stevens, S. Valenti, W.T. White,
Extinction risk and conservation of the world's sharks and rays, eLife
3 (2014) e00590.
[3] L.N.K. Davidson, M.A. Krawchuk, N.K. Dulvy, Why have global
shark and ray landings declined: improved management or overfishing?
Fish Fish 17 (2016) 438-458.
[4] D.S. Shiffman, N. Hammerschlag, Shark conservation and
management: a review and primer for non-specialists, Anim. Cons. 9
(2016) 401-412.
[5] C.A. Simpfendorfer, N.K. Dulvy, Bright spots of sustainable
shark fishing, Curr. Biol. 27 (2017) R97-R98.
[6] D.S. Shiffman, N. Hammerschlag, Preferred conservation policies
of shark researchers, Cons. Biol. 30 (2016) 805-815.
[7] A. Lawrence, Collaborations for conservation, in: E.J. Techera,
N. Klein (Eds.), Sharks: Conservation, Governance and Management,
Earthscan press, 2014, pp. 135-156.
[8] R.B. Stone, C.M. Bailey, S.A. McLaughlin, P.M. Mace, M.B.
Schulze, Federal management of US Atlantic shark fisheries, Fish. Res.
39 (1998) 215-221.
[9] J. Fischer, K. Erikstein, B. D'Offay, S. Guggisberg, M. Barone,
Review of the implementation of the International Plan of Action for
the Conservation and Management of Sharks, United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular, 2012, p.
1076.
[10] F. Dent, S. Clarke, State of the Global Market for Shark
Products, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization Fisheries
and Aquaculture, 2015 (Technical Paper 590).
[11] National Marine Fisheries Service. Amendment 6 to the 2006
Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fisheries Management
Plan: Commercial Shark Management Measures, p. 229 .
[12] United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO).
International Plan of Action for Conservation and Management of Sharks.
.
[13] N.K. Dulvy, C.A. Simpfendorfer, L.N.K. Davidson, S.V. Fordham,
A. Brautigam, G. Sant, D.J. Welch, Challenges and priorities in shark
and ray conservation, Curr. Biol. 27 (2017) R565-R572.
[14] C.A. Simpfendorfer, M.R. Heupel, W.T. White, N.K. Dulvy, The
importance of research and public opinion to conservation management of
sharks and rays: a synthesis, Mar. Freshw. Res. 62 (2011) 518-527.
[15] L. Lucifora, V.B. Garcia, B. Worm, Global diversity hotspots
and conservation priorities for sharks, PLoS One 6 (2011) e19356.
[16] B. Worm, B. Davis, L. Kettemer, C.A. Ward-Paige, D. Chapman,
M.R. Heithaus, S.T. Kessel, S.H. Gruber, Global catches, exploitation
rates, and rebuilding options for sharks, Mar. Policy 40 (2013) 194-
204.
______
Bright spots of sustainable shark fishing
Current Biology Magazine
Correspondence
Colin A. Simpfendorfer and Nicholas K. Dulvy
Sharks, rays and chimeras (class Chondrichthyes; herein `sharks')
today face possibly the largest crisis of their 420 million year
history. Tens of millions of sharks are caught and traded
internationally each year, many populations are overfished to the point
where global catch peaked in 2003, and a quarter of species have an
elevated risk of extinction [1-3]. To some, the solution is to simply
stop taking them from our oceans, or prohibit carriage, sale or trade
in shark fins [4]. Approaches such as bans and alternative livelihoods
for fishers (e.g. ecotourism) may play some role in controlling fishing
mortality but will not solve this crisis because sharks are mostly
taken as incidental catch and play an important role in food security
[5-7]. Here, we show that moving to sustainable fishing is a feasible
solution. In fact, approximately 9% of the current global catch of
sharks, from at least 33 species with a wide range of life histories,
is biologically sustainable, although not necessarily sufficiently
managed.
Stock assessments were available for a total of 65 populations
(Supplemental information). A subset of 39 populations (of 33 species)
met criteria for biological sustainability, including 27 (of 22)
sharks, nine (of nine) rays, and three (of two) chimeras, representing
a very small fraction (2.6%) of global shark diversity (n = 1,188). Of
the populations that met biological sustainability criteria, eight
populations of five species did not have science-based management
plans. Stocks that met some or all of the sustainability criteria
mostly occur in the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of developed
countries that have well-developed fisheries management systems (e.g.
USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada; Figure 1). However, there are
some developed nations with good fisheries management capacity (e.g.
European Union) that have not yet translated this into sustainable
outcomes for shark populations.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsThe total annual landed catch of the biologically sustainable
populations was approximately 204,945 tonnes live weight, approximately
27.0% of the average annual catch of sharks, rays and chimeras reported
to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) over the
past five years (2009-2013) of 759,495 tonnes [7]. However, this figure
drops to 12.0% (91,460 t) for populations that are both biologically
sustainable and have a science-based management plan in place. FAO
capture production statistics underestimate true global take of sharks
by a factor of 3 or 4 [1]; hence the proportion of biologically
sustainable take is closer to 9%, and 4% of global shark catch is
managed for sustainability (Figure 1).
An alternative method of estimating the current annual catch of
sharks that is biologically sustainable is to sum the FAO capture
production figures for species that are categorized as `Least Concern'
or `Near Threatened' on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Assuming these species meet the biological sustainability criterion,
the average FAO capture production over the last five years of Least
Concern and Near Threatened species was 212,691 t (28% of FAO capture
production; Figure 1). Again rescaling to account for underreporting of
FAO capture production, this figure reduces to 7% of total shark
catch, similar to the results of stock assessments.
The prevalent view has been that only the most productive species
with fast life histories can be managed sustainably [4]. We found that
some species with relatively low productivity--with the most common
rmax values between 0.1 and 0.2--can support sustainable fisheries
(Figure 1). No species with a maximum rate of population increase (rmax
< 0.1) were identified as sustainable and species capable of achieving
sustainability were proportionally more common at rmax > 0.3. These
data suggest that with strong science-based management, most shark
species have the potential to support sustainable fisheries.
We highlight five lessons that can help progress sustainability
across shark fisheries: first, protect those species with the lowest
biological productivity. Sustainable outcomes have been achieved only
for species with rmax > 0.1. Species with very low rmax include some
deep water species (e.g. gulper sharks) and species with very small
litter sizes (e.g. Cownose Ray, Bigeye Thresher Shark) [8].
Second, tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (tRFMOs)
should implement precautionary science-based catch limits on the more
biologically sustainable high-seas sharks. Some of the largest shark
catches come under the remit of tRFMOs. While tRFMOs conduct stock
assessments and have some shark-specific rules, they have yet to
implement catch limits for blue shark (Atlantic and Pacific Oceans) and
shortfin mako shark (Atlantic Ocean) despite repeated scientific advice
that catch levels should be capped.
Third, international treaties can contribute to sustainable
international fisheries and trade and prompt fisheries management
improvements. The Convention on Migratory Species and Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) are increasingly
being seen as possible drivers of improved shark management [9]. For
example, the listing of commercially important shark species on CITES
in 2013 and 2016 requires that nations demonstrate that products in
international trade do not threaten the survival of the species in the
wild. This has required many countries (and tRFMOs) to undertake
sustainability assessments (i.e. produce Non-Detriment Findings) and
develop product identification and traceability systems that all
contribute to improved outcomes for these species.
Fourth, developed countries have a responsibility to support the
transition to sustainability in developing countries. Many developed
countries import, consume or re-export shark products [6]. Hence, as
developed nations bring their fisheries into sustainability and import
more fish, they should translate their successes into lessons and
capacity building for other nations to ensure that they are able to
move toward sustainability.
Finally, responsible, traceable shark fisheries can provide
consumers with the ability to choose and purchase sustainable seafood.
Traceability has repeatedly and reliably driven sustainability across
numerous natural resource supply chains [10]. All products from
sustainably caught sharks and rays could be sold as sustainable,
including shark fins. At present, the notion of sustainable shark fins
is unthinkable to many. Yet, today's sustainable (but not necessarily
managed) shark fisheries yield about 4,406 t of dried fins
(Supplemental information). This suggests that approximately 8.7% of
the fins in the global fin trade are from sustainable sources, but not
yet traceable or labeled. Without labeling fins from sustainable
sources cannot yet command the price premium that would in-turn
feedback to drive sustainability back through supply chains.
Achieving sustainable outcomes for most or all shark populations
will require tailored diagnosis and management depending on species and
context, rather than simplified solutions such as outright bans. The
successes demonstrated here provide a template to guide the expansion
of fisheries sustainability. The benefits of such change, for both
biodiversity conservation and human food security, argue for tackling
the challenge without further delay.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Supplemental Information including experimental procedures and two
tables can be found with this article online at http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.cub.2016.12.017.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
C.A.S. and N.K.D. devised the study, gathered data and wrote the
paper.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the MacArthur Foundation, Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation,
Cathay Pacific, Natural Science and Engineering Research Council
(Canada) and Canada Research Chairs Program for funding to think about
the concept of sustainable fishing for sharks and rays. S.A. Pardo
provided data, S.C. Clarke, S.V. Fordham, and T.H. Curtis provided
valuable advice. Ray Hilborn and Enric Cortes provided insightful
comments on the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Clarke, S.C., McAllister, M.K., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Kirkwood,
G.P., Michielsens, C.G.J., Agnew, D.J., Pikitch, E.K., Nakano, H., and
Shivji, M.S. (2006). Global estimates of shark catches using trade
records from commercial markets. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1115-1126.
2. Davidson, L.N.K., Krawchuk, M.A., and Dulvy, N.K. (2016). Why
have global shark and ray landings declined: improved management or
overfishing? Fish Fisheries 17, 438-458.
3. Dulvy, N.K., Fowler, S.L., Musick, J.A., Cavanagh, R.D., Kyne,
P.M., Harrison, L.R., Carlson, J.K., Davidson, L.N., Fordham, S.V.,
Francis, M.P., et al. (2014). Extinction risk and conservation of the
world's sharks and rays. eLife 3, e00590.
4. Shiffman, D.S. and Hammerschlag, N. (2016). Shark conservation
and management policy: a review and primer for non-specialists. Anim.
Conserv. 19, 401-412.
5. Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M., Barnes-Mauthe, M., Al-Abdulrazzak,
D., Navarro-Holm, E., and Sumaila, U.R. (2013). Global economic value
of shark ecotourism: implications for conservation. Oryx 47, 381-388.
6. Clarke, S.C. and Dent, F. (2015). State of the global market for
shark products. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 590, 1-
187.
7. Fischer, J., Erikstein, K., D'Offay, B., Guggisberg, S., and
Barone, M. (2012). Review of the implementation of the International
Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1076. Rome, FAO. pp. 120.
8. Pardo, S.A., Kindsvater, H.K., Reynolds, J.D., and Dulvy, N.K.
(2016). Maximum intrinsic rate of population increase in sharks, rays,
and chimaeras: the importance of survival to maturity. Canad. J.
Fisher. Aqua. Sci. 73, 1159-1163.
9. Vincent, A.C.J., de Mitcheson, Y.J.S., Fowler, S.L., and
Lieberman, S. (2014). The role of CITES in the conservation of marine
fishes subject to international trade. Fish Fisheries 15, 563-592.
10. Sampson, G.S., Sanchirico, J.N., Roheim, C.A., Bush, S.R.,
Taylor, J.E., Allison, E.H., Anderson, J.L., Ban, N.C., Fujita, R.,
Jupiter, S., et al. (2015). Secure sustainable seafood from developing
countries. Science 348, 504-506.
______
Mr. Lamborn. We will now try to conclude as soon as
possible. I want to respect all the witnesses who came here,
and I appreciate your testimony. We do have a 2:30 classified
hearing on the recent events in Syria. Secretary Mattis will be
there and members of the intelligence community, and I know
many Members want to be at that hearing.
So, on the Republican side, I am going to see if anyone has
any questions. I don't.
Representative Webster, would you like to be recognized for
questions?
Mr. Webster. I will condense it down; how about that?
Mr. Lamborn. You are recognized.
Mr. Webster. Dr. Hueter, shark tourism in Federal waters
off Florida appears to be doing well, increasing. At the same
time, Florida fishermen account for the second-highest
commercial catch of sharks in any state.
Is it reasonable to conclude that both recreational diving
for sharks and commercial fishing can co-exist?
Mr. Hueter. Thank you, Congressman. Absolutely. Yes. Not
only those two sectors, but also recreational fishing for
sharks as well. And the recreational fisherman has to do his
part in terms of helping with sustainability, and that means a
lot of catch and release with some of these shark fisheries.
So, yes, a properly managed and balanced system of
commercial, recreational, and tourism for sharks is actually
the best thing for the economy.
Mr. Webster. Great.
I would like to add, Mote Marine is one of my favorite
places. I have six kids. During their growing-up years, we made
many trips there. They especially loved going on the waterway
and having them scoop up just a bunch of fish and then tell us
what they all were. But, anyway, thank you for what you do
there, the many aspects of Mote Marine.
I yield back.
Mr. Lamborn. On the Democratic side, Representative Beyer
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I just have
two quick questions, if possible.
First off, will the Congressman from Florida yield for a
question?
Mr. Soto. Yes.
Mr. Beyer. In your bill, I noticed that Section 1 clarifies
the Billfish Conservation Act to ensure the exemption provided
that traditional markets in Hawaii and the Pacific Insular
Islands would not allow the sale of billfish from these areas
to mainland United States.
Doesn't that sync with the fact that those territories and
Hawaii have already banned the sale of shark fins?
Mr. Soto. Yes, of course. It would be consistent with
preventing shark finning. It is just traditional shark and
billfish fishing that they do and have done for generations in
their culture.
Mr. Beyer. But it is completely consistent?
Mr. Soto. Absolutely.
Mr. Beyer. That is great. Well, thank you very much.
And if the Ranking Member would yield for a question?
Mr. Huffman. I would be honored.
Mr. Beyer. I understand you were recently on a mission to
Yellowstone Park to observe keystone predators in their natural
environment and the impact on the trophic ecological
environment. It is fair to say that sharks are the gray wolves
of the ocean?
Mr. Huffman. They are the gray wolves, the lions, and
tigers of the sea, and also very slow to reproduce, unlike the
gray wolf, which is a keystone predator that reproduced, we
learned on this trip, very quickly. So, sharks are even more
complicated in that regard.
Mr. Beyer. Great. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I would just offer one more thing. The most
interesting book I read last year was called ``Why We Sleep,''
by a guy named Matthew Walker at Berkeley, who pointed out that
sharks do, in fact, sleep, unlike the myth, but they sleep one-
half of their brain at a time. One half stays awake, the other
half sleeps. Because if they totally went to sleep, they would
stop swimming and they would die, but they have to sleep.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lamborn. Not that anyone up here is sleeping with half
their brain and one eye open.
I want to thank all the witnesses for being here and for
your valuable testimony. Members of the Subcommittee may have
additional questions for you, and we would ask that you respond
to these in writing if you receive them.
Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must
submit questions to the Clerk within 3 business days following
the hearing for this purpose, and the hearing record will be
open for 10 business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Doug Lamborn, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Water, Power and Oceans
Today, the Subcommittee meets to consider three fisheries bills.
First, we will consider, H.R. 1456, the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act
of 2017, introduced by our colleague Ed Royce of California; followed
by H.R. 5248, the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act, introduced
by the Subcommittee Vice Chair Daniel Webster; and finally, we will
consider H.R. 4528, introduced by our colleague Darren Soto.
The first two bills we will consider today take very different
approaches to addressing the heinous practice of shark finning. The act
of shark finning has been illegal in the United States since the
passage of the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000, which was further
strengthened by Congress in 2010 with the passage of the Shark
Conservation Act.
These two laws have made the United States a leader in shark
conservation and management. NOAA's 2015 Coastal Shark Survey saw the
most tagged sharks in the Survey's 29-year history. Furthermore, while
stocks seem to be soaring, the United States ranks as one of the top-10
shark fishing nations. These numbers directly speak to the success of
U.S. fisheries management and conservation.
The signing of the 2000 and 2010 laws made it crystal clear where
Congress and this nation stands on the practice of catching a shark,
cutting off its fins, and throwing the carcass overboard to die.
However, while 102 nations have joined us in banning the act of shark
finning; the practice continues overseas.
To address the practice of shark finning in foreign nations, we
have two proposals in front of us today that take very different
approaches. The first bill we will consider today, the Shark Fin Sales
Elimination Act, introduced by Congressman Royce, looks to impose
additional regulations on U.S. fishermen to stem the tide of foreign
trade of inhumanely obtained shark fins. The other proposal we will
consider today, the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act,
introduced by Congressman Webster, establishes a traceability program
modeled after the shrimp import traceability program and seeks to
leverage access to the U.S. market to encourage foreign nations to
adopt strong shark conservation measures.
I want to thank both of our colleagues for their work on this noble
cause. It is our hope that the two bill sponsors can come together and
build consensus around a proposal that effectively addresses foreign
bad actors while preserving our sustainable U.S. industry.
Finally, we will consider H.R. 4528, introduced by Congressman
Soto, which makes a technical correction to the Billfish Conservation
Act of 2012. The Act of 2012 prohibited the sale of billfish, but
provides an exemption for traditional fisheries markets in Hawaii and
Pacific Insular Areas. H.R. 4528 clarifies that the exemption for these
areas allows the sale of billfish caught by U.S. fishing vessels only
within Hawaii and Pacific Insular Areas.
I want to thank the bill sponsors that aren't on our Subcommittee
for being with us today as well as our witnesses. This is an important
debate and I am glad we are having it here today.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Rep. Lamborn Submission
--NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center,
Report titled ``2015 Coastal Shark Survey Reveals
Shark Populations Improving off U.S. East Coast,''
dated September 8, 2015.
[all]