law

Delaware to Consider Shark Fin Trade Ban

Posted Wed, Jun 27, 2012 by Amelia Vorpahl to bill, delaware, east coast, law, shark fin ban, shark fin soup, shark finning

sharkfins

The demand for shark fins puts endangered shark species at higher risk ©Oceana/LX

With the session ending in just three days, Delaware may become the first East Coast state to ban the shark fin trade. HB 324, the bill banning the sale, trade, possession and distribution of shark fins throughout the state, has already passed the Delaware State Assembly and it’s now up to the Senate to finish the job.

Shark fins are primarily used for shark fin soup, a delicacy in many Asian communities. This demand for shark fins, however, drives the cruel practice of shark finning, slicing a shark’s fins off and throwing the body overboard. This bill would decrease the demand for fins, and prevent Delaware from becoming a state used to transport fins to larger markets in other East Coast states, like New York.

Some species of sharks have declined by as much as 99 percent, mainly from the demand for shark fins. As the top predators in the ocean food chain, sharks help keep our oceans in balance. 

The importance of passing a shark fin ban bill in Delaware is a small step in a bigger picture. Other states that have enacted laws banning shark fin sales include California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii, and similar legislation is awaiting Governor Pat Quinn’s signature in Illinois.

Oceana commends the Delaware State Assembly on their important action to save sharks, and calls upon the Delaware Senate to do the same! 


Continue reading...

Oceana's Mike Hirshfield on Fish and the Law

Posted Thu, May 3, 2012 by Emily Fisher to catch limits, fisheries policy, fishing, law, magnuson stevens act, mike hirshfield, overfishing, sustainable fishing

Earlier this year, the National Oceanic and At­mospheric Administration set catch limits under the 2006 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act amendments for all covered species, a major triumph for fisheries management.

The Environmental Forum asked the leading voices in fisheries management, “Is the 2006 law succeeding in re­storing fish stocks? Are adjustments needed to ensure robust stocks and sustainable commer­cial and recreational fisheries in the future?” Here’s an excerpt of the response by Mike Hirshfield. Oceana’s Senior Vice Presi­dent for North America, and Chief Scientist. He is currently on sabbatical; you can read about his travels at his blog.

The United States is fortu­nate to have a law designed to keep abundant fish populations in the ocean. All ocean lovers, including commercial and recreational fisher­men, should celebrate the passage of the 2006 amendments to that law. If they are carried out fully, we will definitely see increased fish populations in future years. Our fishery management system is one of the best in the world, certainly compared to places like Europe. But before we pat ourselves on the back too much, we need to take a clear-eyed look at what the amendments did — and didn’t — do, as well as the way the National Marine Fisher­ies Service is implementing the law. Some problem areas are indicated below by italics.

The amendments only addressed part of the problem. Fisheries man­agement comes down to three prin­ciples: First, don’t kill more fish than can be replenished. Second, don’t kill too many other animals. And third, don’t wreck the places fish need to live. The 2006 amendments really only dealt with the first.

The amendments came 10 years too late for some species. Conservation­ists thought the 1996 amendments required an end to overfishing. We were wrong. Unfortunately, for some species, the additional decade meant ten more years of declining popula­tions. For long-lived, slow-growing species like Atlantic halibut, some sharks, and Pacific rockfish, the extra overfishing means their populations won’t rebuild for decades — if ever.

Too many species are “off the books.” Several hundred species of fish caught by fishermen are not in­cluded in fishery management plans, so managers don’t consider them subject to the accountability require­ments of the 2006 amendments. Managers have even removed species from plans to avoid the obligation. Species subject to international management are exempt from the requirements, even if overfished, like Atlantic bluefin tuna.

Too many species may fail to re­build. Many rebuilding plans are designed with little better than a 50 percent chance of success — mean­ing they are nearly as likely to fail. Even an 80 percent chance of suc­cess means 20 of 100 such plans will fail. We may not always have all the science we would like, but it needs to be taken seriously, with the tie going to the fish. We need more safety margin, not less.

The bare minimum is the target. “Not overfished” and “preventing overfishing” are weak standards of success, leaving too many popula­tions at risk. Fish stocks will face increased threats from a changing climate. We need to hedge our bets with larger fish populations, not the bare minimum.

You can read the full piece at The Environmental Forum.


Continue reading...