Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 8857 2022-09-13 16:07:12 |
2 update references and layout -5979 word(s) 2881 2022-09-14 03:30:04 | |
3 update layout -5965 word(s) 2881 2022-09-20 03:46:12 | |
4 update citations and references list Meta information modification 2881 2022-09-21 03:01:59 | |
5 update citations and references list Meta information modification 2881 2022-09-21 03:25:20 | |
6 I have checked all references and wording and find it to be correct now. Meta information modification 2881 2022-09-21 15:39:06 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Porcher, I.F.;  Darvell, B.W. Status and Needs of Shark Conservation. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 03 March 2024).
Porcher IF,  Darvell BW. Status and Needs of Shark Conservation. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed March 03, 2024.
Porcher, Ila France, Brian W. Darvell. "Status and Needs of Shark Conservation" Encyclopedia, (accessed March 03, 2024).
Porcher, I.F., & Darvell, B.W. (2022, September 13). Status and Needs of Shark Conservation. In Encyclopedia.
Porcher, Ila France and Brian W. Darvell. "Status and Needs of Shark Conservation." Encyclopedia. Web. 13 September, 2022.
Status and Needs of Shark Conservation

The expanding shark fin market has resulted in intensive global shark fishing. With 90% of teleost fish stocks over-exploited, sharks have become the most lucrative target. As predators, they have high ecological value, are sensitive to fishing pressure, and are in decline, but the secretive nature of the fin trade and difficulties obtaining relevant data, obscure their true status. In consumer countries, shark fin is a luxury item and rich consumers pay high prices with little interest in sustainability or legal trade. Thus, market demand will continue to fuel the hunt for sharks and those accessible to fishing fleets are increasingly endangered. Current legal protections are not working, as exemplified by the case of the shortfin mako shark. Claims that sharks can be sustainably fished under these circumstances are misguided. To avert a catastrophic collapse across the planet’s aquatic ecosystems, sharks and their habitats must be given effective protection. 

biodiversity conservation sharks sustainable shark fishing shark fin trade fisheries shark fisheries sustainable use

1. Introduction

Shark conservation has been the subject of numerous reports over many years, with arguments for and against action to limit the fishery, without consensus.

The growing market for shark fin soup has resulted in intensive global shark fishing, but most of the catch is neither recorded nor managed [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Sharks have poor reproductive capacity [7] and their numbers are plummeting [8][9]. With some 90% of teleost fish stocks seriously depleted [10], sharks have become the most lucrative target and are now hunted by fisheries globally [3][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20].

Jurisdictional issues and the difficulty of obtaining data have long obscured understanding of sharks’ diversity and numbers [21][22]. Ranging far from land and migrating across oceans, outside countries’ Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), their status is difficult for assessment by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), who have placed higher priority on species with greater economic importance. Shark management has been low priority, poor, or entirely lacking [3][21][22][23][24].

Shark fin is a luxury item generating little interest in sustainability or legal trade [25]. Rich consumers pay high prices while the will, oversight, and enforcement resources necessary to manage the trade are absent. Market demand fuels the intensive fishery, exacerbating the problem [25][26][27].

Although it has been suggested that shark fishing could be made sustainable [28][29][30], trends indicate that this is not the case. Increasingly, shark and ray species are found to be endangered and without intervention the situation will decline. To avert collapse across the planet’s diverse aquatic ecosystems, sharks and their habitats must be given effective protection [8][9].

2. Industrial Fishing

With approximately 2.9 million motorized fishing vessels, the footprint of industrial fishing exceeds other forms of food production [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39], yet wild fisheries provide only 1.2% of human food calories [31].

Sharks were always a substantial by-catch [15][40], generally discarded as trash while fisheries statistics record only landed catches [41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. By 2003, the ocean had lost ~90% of its predators, 80% within the first 15 years of industrial exploitation [7][17]. Now, only ~6% remain of the number present in 1950; ~3% in the tropics [9].

3. Ecological Consequences 

In pristine, unfished regions, sharks are abundant and diverse [40]. An ancient line, they are deeply woven into aquatic ecosystems [50][51][52]. More than seven decades of industrial shark removal [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] has resulted in a large-scale ecological disruption in terms of the size of individuals, the relative abundance of species, and the community biomass [17][21][40][43][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66], which is not taken into account by RFMOs [53]. But media hype has blocked shark conservation efforts [67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78].

4. Uncertainties

Global studies have emphasized the problems inherent in assessing the status of sharks [1][2][3][4][13][26][79]. For a shark fishery to be sustainable, it must be possible to determine shark fishing mortality and maximum sustainable yield (MSY). However, these are usually not known or are extremely uncertain [4][5][20][41][80][81][82]. The Hong Kong market, studied between 1999 and 2001 [1][2], showed that shark mortality was four times what had been reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) [1].

Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing takes about 20% of the global catch, and as much as 50% in some fisheries [83]. The political will to address it is lacking [84][85], compliance with regulations is poor, and many vessels intentionally violate laws on the virtually unmonitored high seas [84][85], with little fear of prosecution.

The secretive market for squalene is also a prominent cause of shark mortality [86] and shark meat and oil are used in everything from make-up to dogfood [87].

The high diversity of shark species in the Hong Kong shark fin market indicates the likelihood that species more sensitive to fishing pressure are being replaced by others as they are depleted [6][13][21][23][40][88][89][90][91].

5. Conservation Measures

Regulations to protect and manage sharks [92] have been ineffective in stopping their decline [6][9][23][25][93][94]. CITES listings are opposed by shark hunting nations because of the high commercial value of fins [4]. An Appendix II CITES listing only requires a “Non-detrimental” finding to export fins from listed species, so fins can be stockpiled until one can be arranged, thus undermining the intended protection [95]. Shark hunting nations avoid granting protection to endangered sharks by claiming that they are not wildlife but species of commercial interest [30][96]. Thus, Appendix II listings fail to provide effective protection [16][93]94][97][98].

Finning bans were thought to be a viable means to reduce mortality [11][99] but they did not improve the availability of data on numbers and species caught. Several jurisdictions introduced ‘fins naturally attached’ (FNA) regulations, now considered the only way to guarantee that finning did not occur [100][101][102][103], and for numbers, species, and sizes to be accurately reported. Other jurisdictions became shark sanctuaries [104][105]. But there is no FNA policy for vast regions of the high seas, where finning bans remain the only ‘control’. In spite of very high mortality, RFMOs see shark management as prohibitively costly [4], and oppose adopting FNA policy. Fisheries Certification Standards have been established, but have come into question [106][107][108].

6. Shark Meat

Finning bans and FNA policies have diverted attention from the unsustainability of shark catches. The trend is towards less detaching of the fins [99], while a surplus of low-value meat has been forced onto world markets [11][13][26]. The shark fin market drives the market for meat [109][110]. However, sharks are long-lived top and middle predators and their meat has high levels of accumulated toxins [111][112][113][114][115][116].

7. Sustainability

Illegal shark fishing exceeds what is alleged to be sustainable [25], yet it is proposed [28] that commercial shark fishing become sustainable, considering the case of the spiny dogfish in the USA to be a model [28][117]. However most shark species are impossible to catch selectively [118], so others will be caught as by-catch, including protected, endangered species [9][41]. Dogfish meat has been sold as a replacement for depleted fish such as cod [119][120][121][122][123][124][125], despite the danger to human health [114][121], while the fins are sent to Asia [117]. But using sharks as a replacement for depleted fish stocks is not a viable solution [10][39], for not only are sharks high on the food chain and of incalculable ecological importance, but shark productivity is low. The boom and bust pattern of spiny dogfish exploitation is typical of targeted elasmobranch fisheries and indicative of poor management. In spite of claims to the contrary, its history suggests that it is not sustainable, and that it will not remain productive for long [29][42][109][125][126][127].

7.1. Shark Fin Trade Sustainability

It is also claimed [28] that mako and blue shark fisheries in the North and South Atlantic Ocean, and the blue shark fishery in the North Pacific Ocean, are among the 8.7% of supposedly sustainable shark fisheries, despite being unmanaged, part of the global commons, and serving the fin trade.

ICCAT is responsible for the longline fisheries that catch most of the pelagic shark species [41] in the Northwest Atlantic. It represents 52 contracting nations and groups that between them fish more than 127 million hooks each year in the North Atlantic. Tuna, swordfish, and billfish are the priority; sharks are of lesser concern. Member nations provide fisheries data of variable quality, but major fishing nations that are not party to ICCAT also work the area; they provide no shark catch data whatsoever.

How any shark species could be managed sustainably under these conditions has not been explained. It is impossible to manage the global commons [128].

7.2. Shortfin Mako 

Shortfin mako shark catches reported to ICCAT in the North and South Atlantic show steady decline [17][40][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137]. For three years now, landings from the South Atlantic have exceeded those from the North. The species was assessed [22] in 2000 as ‘Near Threatened’, ‘Vulnerable’ in 2009, and in 2019 as ‘Endangered’ worldwide [135], with decreasing populations, while no conservation actions were taken.

An ICCAT-recommended retention ban [134] for 2019 was blocked by the USA and the EU [20], who put short-term fishing interests first. Their failure to respect the RFMO’s scientific recommendations violated UNFSA and UNCLOS regulations, which establish a clear duty to protect not only target species but also bycatch, as well as to refrain from actions which cause damage to the marine environment and threatened species. A duty to cooperate with other states in the conservation of living resources was also violated. This is particularly noteworthy given that both the EU and the USA have taken on the role of policing the rest of the world in terms of IUU fishing [14]. The USA and the EU were therefore operating at some legal risk, i.e., of being challenged for violating their own laws and perpetrating IUU fishing [14].

In November, 2021, a retention ban was finally agreed upon and a management plan is to be launched, with the goal of achieving MSY by 2070 with a probability of between 60 and 70% [132].

7.3. Blue Shark

Blue sharks supply most of the fins in Asian markets [2][6][138] and are at high risk [80][139][140]. With 90% of fish stocks overfished [10], they are caught in increasing numbers for their previously low-valued meat [13]. They were already being taken at rates exceeding the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) between October 1999 and March 2001 [11] and catches have declined at 5% per year [97] since [41]. Most caught in the Atlantic are juveniles [20], a sign of over-exploitation. In the North Atlantic some 3 million (~100,000 t) have been estimated to be discarded each year [41] and landings are declining.

The fins in Asian markets coming from the North Atlantic greatly exceed the reported catch [141], indicating substantial unreported finning. The actual mortality is estimated to be four times that reported [11] and may be much greater [13][142][143]. MSY, which is estimated from landings, is not applicable to a largely discarded species [41][144], as calculated [28].

8. Fishing Economics

The global fishing industry receives ~US$35.4 billion in subsidies [145]. The only profitable fleets are the longliners and purse-seiners targetting the highest-valued prey: tuna and sharks [146]. High seas fishing would be transformed if subsidies were halted.

Global studies [10][147] indicate that overfishing results in a ~US$83 billion loss annually. Stock recovery through reduced fishing effort, and restoration of habitats are recommended to solve the crisis [147][148][149][150]. Fishing subsidies that formerly encouraged overfishing could be used to ease the social transition [8][10][39][147].

9. Fisheries Management

9.1 Impossibility of Global Sustainability

The USA fishing industry proposed the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act (SSFTA) [151] as a “practical solution” that would allow American fishermen to continue to profit from the fin trade. It requires that countries importing shark products into the United States have management policies comparable to those under the Magnuson Stevens Act [152][153]. However, it has never been suggested how all 1107 chondrichthyan species (as well as all other fish species) could be sustainably managed globally.

The problems would include:

  • how to determine an MSY for every shark fishery in the world

  • how to determine the baseline

  • how management plans will be implemented

  • how they will be funded

  • how they will be enforced

  • how RFMOs could be made to agree to base quotas and rules

Massive data collection projects would need to be organized, standardized, implemented, monitored, and funded globally. When laws are in place, development and funding of management plans would be needed, including staffing, training, scientific advice, and purchase of equipment. Expenses, reaching 14% of the value of landings [10], would be borne by the public, while fishers receive the benefits [10][153].

This would need to be maintained long-term. However, neither the necessary funds, nor an international organization that could create such a network, exist. Every country would need to keep politics, financial self-interest, corruption, and criminality, out of the process.

The USA and EU refusals to follow ICCAT’s recommendations for an immediate retention ban on shortfin mako in the North Atlantic in 2019 [20] illustrates the willingness of states to ignore laws in the absence of a higher authority, as well as the difficulty of protecting high-valued animals [25][86][154][155].

The involvement of fisheries worldwide and the participation of criminal networks in a trade driven by high prices and rich customers, contrasted with the extreme, ongoing depletion of the animals supplying the fins [6][25], makes the hunt for sharks for the shark fin trade not only unsustainable but a severe threat to the health of the world's aquatic ecosystems [8].

9.2. Sustainable Use

CITES was founded to limit industry destruction of biodiversity. The Convention uses biocentric values for ‘sustainable use’[156][157] in which biodiversity is considered to have an intrinsic value that must be preserved in a state of health [156]. However, ‘sustainable use’ is often given a more anthropocentric set of values, in which human use has greater importance [157]. The fishing industry views itself as the sole legitimate user, and in effect the owner, of living marine resources and takes an anthropocentric position based on the concept of MSY without regard for ecosystem effects [158][159][160][161].

As can be seen in fisheries’ practice, ‘sustainable use’ is not being defended against ‘unsustainable use’ but against the effective protection of sharks [9][28][29][30]. Sustainable use advocates fail to state when it would be time to stop using the ‘resource’. The IUCN defines this as “deliberate misuse of the terminology of sustainable use” to justify the benefits to humans [157].

9.3. Instinct vs Science

Due to its financial interests, the fishing industry has pillaged the ocean without concern for wastage and harm [14][15][20][29][39][40][53][161][162][163][164][165][166][167], in spite of international agreements to the contrary. It has been ‘scientifically’ argued that fishermen should treat fish as they wish because they are predators and part of the food chain [168], but our civilization prides itself on using reason, rather than instinct, in its decision-making. However, the fishing industry is in the same position as any other predator that is eliminating its prey [168][169][170][171][172][173][174]. With the human population as over-grown as it is, it has been known for decades that the moment would come in which no wild prey could sustain us [39][169].

The capacity is to recognize the difference between instinctual drive and reasoned thought, yet reason (i.e., science) is often rejected in negotiations. Territorial interests supervene and limit international cooperation [170][172], which affects the management of globally-important species. Such barriers must be overcome, otherwise the current pattern of species depletion, extinction, and the unravelling of the planet’s ecosystems will continue and accelerate, eventually to the severe detriment of humanity [8][171][172].

That one soup recipe could have had such a serious effect on the status of as many species as are represented by the class of Chondrichthyes is a telling indictment of the priorities of humanity.

10. Conclusions

A global catastrophe of elasmobranch loss through unmanageable and unsustainable shark fishing is documented throughout the cited literature. All sharks, manta rays, devil rays, rhino rays, and chimaeras, as well as their parts, require immediate protection from international trade through a CITES Appendix I listing [175][176][177]. Sharks must be treated as protected wildlife internationally, not as a ‘resource’ of commercial interest. A binding international treaty to protect sharks, as well as threatened biodiversity in general, should be the immediate goal [172].

In addition:

  • Shark fin trade bans should be adopted [178].

  • Drastic reduction in fishing effort is required to permit damaged ecosystems to recover [10][39].
  • Honest labelling of seafood products is required for transparency and traceability.

  • Fishing subsidies need to end. The money could go to help fishermen switch occupations, and to police the shores and reefs they once fished [10][39][179][180].

  • Deep sea fishing should be permanently banned [33].

  • Bycatch must be avoided [181][182][183][184][185].

  • At least 30% of the ocean should be set aside to recover as MPAs [186][187][188][189].

  • Implementation of a comprehensive monitoring and surveillance system should be a priority for all RFMOs [190][191].

  • RFMOs should be required to respect human rights, to address slavery, as well as unsafe and inhumane working conditions, to keep track of stocks through stock assessments by species and geographic region, update them regularly, and mandate catch limits. Landings should be monitored, and species-specific records kept.

  • IUU fishing should be addressed globally [84].

  • Cultural change with respect to shark fin soup in China [25] and elsewhere needs to be strengthened.

Fishing methods need transforming such that bycatch of non-target species is completely avoided. The reduction in fishing efficiency and the increased costs mean that consumers will have to pay higher prices to eat fish, reflecting the true value of such wild prey. Fishers should be able to sell their catch at a fair price to make a living while neither overfishing nor damaging the environment.

A global shift towards selective, non-destructive fishing methods is necessary for the remaining aquatic biodiversity to survive beyond this century [184][185].

The sixth global mass extinction has been brought about by human activities [192] and marine biodiversity loss results from decades of over-exploitation [193]. There must be a shift away from the attitude that human expansion lies above all other concerns, towards management of the biosphere in the interests of sustainability, not only of sharks, but to permit our civilization to remain in good health. Domination by industry must end if aquatic ecosystems are to be saved from collapse [8][172].

History has taught us that no wild animal can withstand targeted industrial-scale hunting long term—not whales, not sea turtles, not fish, and certainly not sharks. When consumption stops, the trade stops.


  1. Clarke,S.; Magnussen, J.E.; Abercrombie, D.L.; McAllister, M.; Shivji, M. Identification of shark species composition and proportion in the Hong Kong shark fin market based on molecular genetics and trade records.Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20, 201–211.
  2. Clarke, S.; Murdoch, K.; McAllister, M.; Milner-Gulland, E.J.; Kirkwood, G.P.; Michielsens, C.; Agnew, D.J.; Pikitch, E.K.; Nakano, H.; Shivji, M.S. Global estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9, 1115–1126.
  3. Dulvy, N.K.; Baum, J.K.; Clarke, S.; Compagno, L.J.V.; Cortés, E.; Domingo, A.; Fordham, S.; Fowler, S.; Francis, M.P.; Gibson, C.; et al. You can swim but you can’t hide: The global status and conservation of oceanic pelagic sharks and rays. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2008, 18, 459–482.
  4. Worm, B.; Davis, B.; Kettemer, L.; Ward-Paige, C.A.; Chapman, D.; Heithaus, M.R.; Kessel, S.T.; Gruber, S.H. Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding options for sharks. Mar. Pol. 2013, 40, 194–204.
  5. 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. Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. eLife 2014, 3, e00590.
  6. Fields, A.T.; Fischer, G.A.; Shea, S.K.H.; Zhang, H.; Abercrombie, D.L.; Feldheim, K.A.; Babcock, E.A.; Chapman, D.D. Species composition of the international shark fin trade assessed through a retail-market survey in Hong Kong. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 32, 376-389.
  7. Myers, R.A.; Worm, B. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 2003, 423, 280–283.
  8. IPBES. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2019.
  9. Pacoureau, N.; Rigby, C.L.; Kyne, P.M.; Sherley, R.B.; Winker, H.; Carlson, J.K.; Fordham, S.V.; Barreto, R.; Fernando, D.; Francis, M.P.; et al. Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature 2021, 589, 567–571.
  10. World Bank. The Sunken Billions Revisited: Progress and Challenges in Global Marine Fisheries; Environment and Sustainable Development Series; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
  11. Clarke, S.; Milner-Gulland, E.J.; Bjørndal, T. Social, economic and regulatory drivers of the shark fin trade. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2007, 22, 305–327.
  12. Hareide, N.R.; Carlson, J.; Clarke, M.; Clarke, S.; Ellis, J.; Fordham, S.; Fowler, S.; Pinho, M.; Raymakers, C.; Serena, F.; et al. European shark fisheries: A preliminary investigation into fisheries, conversion factors, trade products, markets and management measures. In Proceedings of the European Elasmobranch Association 2008, Lisbon, Portugal, 14–16 November 2008; IOTC-2008-WPEB-INF04.pdf. Available online: (accessed on 10 March 2021).
  13. da Silva, T.E.F.; Lessa, R.; Santana, F.M. Current knowledge on biology, fishing and conservation of the blue shark (Prionace glauca). Neotrop. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 16, 71–88.
  14. Rosello, M.; Vilata, J.; Belhabib, D. Atlantic shortfin mako: Chronicle of a death foretold? Laws 2021, 10, 52.
  15. Oliver, S.; Braccini, M.; Newman, S.J.; Harvey, E.S. Global patterns in the bycatch of sharks and rays. Mar. Pol. 2015, 54, 86–97.
  16. Van Houtan, K.S.; Gagné, T.O.; Reygondeau, G.; Tanaka, K.R.; Palumbi, S.R.; Jorgensen, S.J. Coastal sharks supply the global shark fin trade. Biol. Lett. 2020, 16, 20200609.
  17. Ward, P.; Myers, R.A. Shifts in open-ocean fish communities coinciding with the commencement of commercial fishing. Ecology 2005, 86, 835–847.
  18. Lam, V.Y.Y.; Sadovy de Mitcheson, Y. The sharks of South East Asia—Unknown, unmonitored and unmanaged. Fish Fish. 2011, 12, 51–74.
  19. Doherty, P.D.; Alfaro-Shigueto, J.; Hodgson, D.J.; Mangel, J.C.; Witt, M.J.; Godley, B.J. Big catch, little sharks: Insight into Peruvian small-scale longline fisheries. Ecol. Evol. 2014, 4, 2375–2383.
  20. ICCAT. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS). In Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS), Madrid, Spain, 30 September–4 October 2019. Available online: (accessed on 22 April 2020).
  21. Stevens, J.D.; Bonfil, R.; Dulvy, N.K.; Walker, P.A. The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimaeras (chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystem. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2000, 57, 476–494.
  22. IUCN Red List. Available online: (accessed on 28 May 2022).
  23. Davidson, L.N.K.; Krawchuk, M.A.; Dulvy, N.K. Why have global shark and ray landings declined: Improved management or overfishing? Fish Fish. 2016, 17, 438–458.
  24. Cashion, M.S.; Bailly, N.; Pauly, D. Official catch data under-represent shark and ray taxa caught in Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries. Mar. Pol. 2019, 105, 1–9.
  25. Sadovy de Mitcheson, Y.; Andersson, A.A.; Hofford, A.; Law, C.S.W.; Hau, L.C.Y.; Pauly, D. Out of control means off the menu: The case for ceasing consumption of luxury products from highly vulnerable species when international trade cannot be adequately controlled; shark fin as a case study. Mar. Pol. 2018, 98, 115–120.
  26. Dent, F.; Clarke, S.C. State of the Global Market for Shark Products. FAO Fish. 2015; Technical Paper 590.
  27. Okes, N.; Sant, G. An Overview of Major Shark Traders, Catchers and Species; TRAFFIC: Cambridge, UK, 2019. Available online: (accessed on 28 May 2022).
  28. Simpfendorfer, C.A.; Dulvy, N.K. Bright spots of sustainable shark fishing. Curr. Biol. 2017, 27, R97–R98.
  29. Shiffman, D.S.; Hueter, R.E. A United States shark fin ban would undermine sustainable shark fisheries. Mar. Pol. 2017, 85, 138–140.
  30. Shiffman, D.S.; Macdonald, C.C.; Wallace, S.S.; Dulvy, N.K. The role and value of science in shark conservation advocacy. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 16626.
  31. Kroodsma, D.A.; Mayorga, J.; Hochberg, T.; Miller, N.A.; Boerder, K.; Ferretti, F.; Wilson, A.; Bergman, B.; White, T.D.; Block, B.A.; et al. Tracking the global footprint of fisheries. Science 2018, 359, 904–908.
  32. Jones, J.B. Environmental impact of trawling on the seabed: A review. N. Z. J. Mar. 1992, 26, 59–67.
  33. Sumaila, R.U.; Rashid, K.; Ahmed, T.L.; Watson, R.; Tyedmers, P.; Pauly, D. Subsidies to high seas bottom trawl fleets and the sustainability of deep-sea demersal fish stocks. Mar. Pol. 2010, 34, 495–497.
  34. Norse, E.A.; Brooke, S.; Cheung, W.W.L.; Clark, M.R.; Ekeland, I.; Froese, R.; Gjerde, K.M.; Haedrich, R.L.; Heppell, S.S.; Morato, T.; et al. Sustainability of deep-sea fisheries. Mar. Pol. 2011, 36, 307–320.
  35. Filmalter, J.D.; Capello, M.; Deneubourg, J.; Cowley, P.D.; Dagorn, L. Looking behind the curtain: Quantifying massive shark mortality in fish aggregating devices. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 11, 291–296.
  36. Hanich, Q.; Davis, R.; Holmes, G.; Amidjogbe, E.R.; Campbell, B. Drifting Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) Deploying, Soaking and Setting—When Is a FAD ‘Fishing’? Int. J. Mar. Coast. 2019, 34, 731–754.
  37. Blackford, M. A Tale of Two Fisheries: Fishing and Over-fishing in American waters. Orig. Curr. Events Hist. Perspect. 2008. Available online: (accessed on 29 July 2022).
  38. Jackson, J.B.C.; Berger, W.H.; Bjorndal, K.A.; Botsford, L.W.; Bourque, B.J.; Bradbury, R.H.; Cooke, R.; Erlandson, J.; Estes, J.A.; Hughes, T.P.; et al. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 2001, 293, 629–638.
  39. Pauly, D.; Christensen, V.; Guénette, S.; Pitcher, T.J.; Sumaila, R.U.; Walters, C.J.; Watson, R.; Zeller, D. Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 2002, 418, 689–695.
  40. Ferretti, F.; Worm, B.; Britten, G.L.; Heithaus, M.R.; Lotze, H.K. Patterns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecol. Lett. 2010, 13, 1055–1071.
  41. Campana, S.E. Transboundary movements, unmonitored fishing mortality, and ineffective international fisheries management pose risks for pelagic sharks in the Northwest Atlantic. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2016, 73, 1599–1607.
  42. Fordham, S.; Fowler, S.L.; Coelho, R.P.; Goldman, K.; Francis, M.P. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Squalus acanthias. J. Fish. Biol. 2016.
  43. Myers, R.A.; Baum, J.K.; Shepherd, T.D.; Powers, S.P.; Peterson, C.H. Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science 2007, 315, 1846–1850.
  44. Heithaus, M.R.; Frid, A.; Wirsing, A.J.; Worm, B. Predicting ecological consequences of marine top predator declines. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2008, 23, 202–210.
  45. Sulaiman, P.S.; Triharyuni, S. Shark fisheries management as a sustainable development implementation in Indonesia fishery sector. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 718, 012069.
  46. Ferretti, F.; Myers, R.A.; Serena, F.; Lotze, H.K. Loss of large predatory sharks from the Mediterranean Sea. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22, 952–964.
  47. Amorim, A.F.; Arfelli, C.A.; Fagundes, L. Pelagic elasmobranchs caught by longliners off Southern Brazil during 1974–1997: An overview. Mar. Freshw. Res. 1998, 49, 621–632.
  48. Balderson, S.D.; Martin, L.E.C. Environmental impacts and causation of ‘beached’ Drifting Fish Aggregating Devices around Seychelles Islands: A preliminary report on data collected by Island Conservation Society. 2015; IOTC-2015-WPEB11-39. Available online: (accessed on 26 February 2022).
  49. Wang, Y.; Zhou, C.; Xu, L.; Wan, R.; Shi, J.; Wang, X.; Tang, H.; Wang, L.; Yu, W.; Wang, K. Degradability evaluation for natural material fibre used on fish aggregation devices (FADs) in tuna purse seine fishery. Aquacult. Fish. 2020, 6, 376–381.
  50. Kriwet, J.; Benton, M.J. Neoselachian (Chondrichthyes, Elasmobranchii) diversity across the cretaceous-tertiary boundary. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2004, 214, 181–194.
  51. Kriwet, J.; Kiessling, W.; Klug, S. Diversification trajectories and evolutionary life-history traits in early sharks and batoids. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2009, 276, 945–951.
  52. Guinot, G.; Cavin, L. ‘Fish’ (Actinopterygii and Elasmobranchii) diversification patterns through deep time. Biol. Rev. 2016, 91, 950–981.
  53. Travis, J.; Coleman, F.C.; Auster, P.J.; Cury, P.M.; Estes, J.A.; Orensanz, J.; Peterson, C.H.; Power, M.E.; Steneck, R.S.; Wootton, T.J. Species interactions and fisheries management. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 581–584.
  54. Mumby, P.J.; Dahlgren, C.P.; Harborne, A.R.; Kappel, C.V.; Micheli, F.; Brumbaugh, D.R.; Holmes, K.E.; Mendes, J.M.; Broad, K.; Sanchirico, J.N.; et al. Fishing, trophic cascades, and the process of grazing on coral reefs. Science 2006, 311, 98–101. Available online:
  55. Freire, K.D.; Christensen, V.; Pauly, D. Description of the East Brazil Large Marine Ecosystem using a trophic model. Scientia Marina. 2008, 72, 477–491.
  56. Bascomte, J.; Melián, C.J.; Sala, E. Interaction strength combinations and the overfishing of a marine food web. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 5443–5447.
  57. Okey, T.A.; Banks, S.; Born, A.F.; Bustamante, R.H.; Calvopiña, M.; Edgar, G.J.; Espinoza, E.; MiguelFariña, J.; Garske, L.E.; Reck, G.K.; et al. A trophic model of a Galápagos subtidal rocky reef for evaluating fisheries and conservation strategies. Ecol. Model. 2004, 172, 383–401.
  58. Nadon, M.O.; Baum, J.K.; Williams, I.D.; McPherson, J.M.; Zgliczynski, B.J.; Richards, B.L.; Schroeder, R.E.; Brainard, R.E. Re-creating missing population baselines for Pacific reef sharks. Conserv. Biol. 2012, 26, 493–503.
  59. MacNeil, M.A.; Chapman, D.D.; Heupel, M.; Simpfendorfer, C.A.; Heithaus, M.; Meekan, M.; Harvey, E.; Goetze, J.; Kiszka, J.; Bond, M.E.; et al. Global status and conservation potential of reef sharks. Nature 2020, 583, 801–806.
  60. Hammerschlag, N.; Williams, L.; Fallows, M.; Fallows, C. Disappearance of white sharks leads to the novel emergence of an allopatric apex predator, the sevengill shark. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1908.
  61. Heithaus, M.R.; Frid, A.; Wirsing, A.J.; Dill, L.M.; Fourqurean, J.W.; Burkholder, D.; Thomson, J.; Bejder, L. State-dependent risk-taking by green sea turtles mediates top-down effects of tiger shark intimidation in a marine ecosystem. J. Anim. Ecol. 2007, 6, 837–844.
  62. Porcher, I.F. The Shark Sessions: My Sunset Rendezvous; Strategic Book Publishing: Traverse City, MI, USA. 2010; pp. 317–320.
  63. Porcher, I.F. The True Nature of Sharks; Independent: Chicago, IL, USA, 2017; p. 26.
  64. Mourier, J.; Vercelloni, J.; Planes, S. Evidence of social communities in a spatially structured network of a free-ranging shark species. Anim. Beh. 2012, 83, 389–401.
  65. Papastamatiou, Y.P.; Bodey, T.W.; Caselle, J.E.; Bradley, D.; Freeman, R.; Friedlander, A.M.; Jacoby, D.M.P. Multiyear social stability and social information use in reef sharks with diel fission–fusion dynamics. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2020, 287, 20201063.
  66. Abernethy, J. Personal communication during interview, 2013. Available online: (accessed on 29 July 2022)
  67. Drumm, R. In the Slick of the Cricket; BookSurge: Charleston, SC, USA, 1996.
  68. Muter, B.A.; Gore, M.L.; Gledhill, K.S.; Lamont, C.; Huveneers, C. Australian and US news media portrayal of sharks and their conservation. Cons. Biol. 2013, 27, 187–196.
  69. Neff, C. The Jaws effect: How movie narratives are used to influence policy responses to shark bites in Western Australia. Austral. J. Pol. Sci. 2015, 50, 114–127.
  70. Le Busque, B.; Litchfield, C. Sharks on film: An analysis of how shark-human interactions are portrayed in films. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2021, 27, 193–199.
  71. Hasek, P. (Executive Producer and Senior Science Editor, Development & Production of ‘Shark Week’ for Discovery Channel, Silver Spring, MD, USA); Hasler, J. (Senior VP, Development & Production of ‘Shark Week’, Discovery Channel, Silver Spring, MD, USA). Personal communication during meeting with representatives of the Shark Group, 2010.
  72. Castro, J.I. The origins and rise of shark biology in the 20th century. Mar. Fish. Rev. 2017, 78, 1433.
  73. Gruber, H.; Myrberg, A.A. Approaches to the study of the behavior of sharks. Integr. Comp. Biol. 1977, 17, 471–486.
  74. Coates, M.I.; Finarelli, J.A.; Sansom, I.J.; Andreev, P.S.; Criswell, K.E.; Tietjen, K.; Rivers, M.L.; La Riviere, P.J. An early chondrichthyan and the evolutionary assembly of a shark body plan. Proc. R. Soc. B 2018, 285, 20172418.
  75. Andreev, P.S.; Zhao, W.; Wang, N.Z.; Smith, M.M.; Li, Q.; Cui, X.; Zhu, M.; Sansom, I.J. Early Silurian chondrichthyans from the Tarim Basin (Xinjiang, China). PLoS ONE. 2020, 15, e0228589.
  76. Schluessel, V. Who would have thought that ‘Jaws’ also has brains? Cognitive functions in elasmobranchs. Anim. Cogn. 2015, 18, 19–37.
  77. Friedrich, L.A.; Jefferson, R.; Glegg, G. Public perceptions of sharks: Gathering support for shark conservation. Mar. Pol. 2014, 47, 1–7.
  78. PADI. 2011. Available online: (accessed on 8 January 2022).
  79. NOAA Fisheries. Shark Finning Report to Congress. 2016. Available online: (accessed on 14 April 2020).
  80. Queiroz, N.; Humphries, N.; Couto, A.; Vedor, M.; da Costa, I.; Sequeira, A.; Mucientes, G.; Santos, A.; Abascal, F.; Abercrombie, D.; et al. Global spatial risk assessment of sharks under the footprint of fisheries. Nature 2019, 572, 461–466.
  81. Musick, J.A.; Musick, S. Sharks; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Reviews and Studies; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011; 13p. Available online: (accessed on 28 May 2022).
  82. DeBruyn, P. Report of the 23rd Session of the IOTC Scientific Committee. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Session of the IOTC Scientific Committee, video-conference, 7–11 December 2020; IOTC–2020–SC23–R[E]. Available online: (accessed on 14 May 2021).
  83. Agnew, D.J.; Pearce, J.; Pramod, G.; Peatman, T.; Watson, R.; Beddington, J.R.; Pitcher, T.J. Estimating the worldwide extent of illegal fishing. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e4570.
  84. Widjaja, S.; Long, T.; Wirajuda, H.; Van As, H.; Bergh, P.E.; Brett, A.; Copeland, D.; Fernandez, M.; Gusman, A.; Juwana, S.; et al. Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Associated Drivers; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. Available online: (accessed on 9 April 2021).
  85. Meere, F.; Lack, M. Assessment of Impacts of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing in the Asia-Pacific. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Fisheries Working Group APEC#208-FS-01.5 2008. Available online: (accessed on 28 May 2022).
  86. Greenpeace. Choppy Waters: Forced Labour and Illegal Fishing in Taiwan’s Distant Water Fisheries. 2020. Available online: (accessed on 28 May 2022).
  87. Chabrol, R.; Nouvian, C. The hideous price of beauty. An investigation into the market of deep-sea shark liver oil. Bloom. Assoc. 2012. Available online: (accessed 4 June 2021).
  88. Cardeñosa, D. Genetic identification of threatened shark species in pet food and beauty care products. Conserv. Genet. 2019, 20:1383–1387.
  89. Hobbs, C.A.D.; Potts, R.W.A.; Bjerregaard, W.M.; Usher, J.; Griffiths, A.M. Using DNA barcoding to investigate patterns of species utilisation in UK shark products reveals threatened species on sale. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1028.
  90. Oxford University. OED Online: Oxford English Dictionary; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. Available online: (accessed on 28 December 2021).
  91. Guida, L. Why we should #GiveFlakeABreak. Aust. Mar. Conserv. Soc. 2021. Available online: (accessed on 18 April 2021).
  92. FAO. Database of measures on conservation and management of sharks. In Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation [online]; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022; Database version 1-2022. Available online: (accessed on 18 May 2022).
  93. Ward-Paige, C.A.; Keith, D.M.; Worm, B.; Lotze, H.K. Recovery potential and conservation options for elasmobranchs. J. Fish. Biol. 2012, 80, 1844–1869.
  94. Cardeñosa, D.; Fields, A.T.; Babcock, E.A.; Zhang, H.; Feldheim, K.; Shea, S.K.H.; Fischer, G.A.; Chapman, D.D. CITES-listed sharks remain among the top species in the contemporary fin trade. Conserv. Lett. 2018, 11, e12457.
  95. CREMA. Costa Rica, don’t export that pile of hammerhead shark fins. 2018. Available online: (accessed on 10 March 2021).
  96. Arauz, R. (Marine conservation policy advisor for Fins Attached Marine Research and Conservation, Costa Rica). Personal communication. 2021 Available online: 2021 (accessed on 29 July 2022).
  97. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 2020. Available online: (accessed 19 August 2020).
  98. Villate-Moreno, M.; Pollerspöck, J.; Kremer-Obrock, F.; Straube, N. Molecular analyses of confiscated shark fins reveal shortcomings of CITES implementations in Germany. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2021, 3, e398.
  99. Clarke, S.C.; Harley, S.J.; Hoyle, S.D.; Rice, J.S. Population trends in Pacific Oceanic sharks and the utility of regulations on shark finning. Conserv. Biol. 2013, 27, 197–209.
  100. Cortés, E.; Neer, J.A. Preliminary reassessment of the validity of the 5% fin to carcass weight ratio for sharks. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT. 2006, 59, 1025–1036.
  101. Fischer, J.; Erikstein, K.; D’Offay, B.; Guggisberg, S.; Barone, M. Review of the Implementation of the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. In FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular; FAO: Rome, Italy; No. 1076 2012, p. 65. Available online: (accessed on 12 August 2020).
  102. Biery, L.; Pauly, D. A global review of species specific shark fin to body mass ratios and relevant legislation. J. Fish Biol. 2012, 80, 1643–1677.
  103. India: Humane Society International/India. ‘Fins Naturally Attached’ Policy adopted to protect sharks. 2013. Available online: (accessed on 5 January 2022).
  104. Ward-Paige, C.A. A global overview of shark sanctuary regulations and their impact on shark fisheries. Mar. Pol. 2017, 82, 87–97.
  105. Animal Welfare Institute. International Shark Finning Bans and Policies. Available online: (accessed on 21 July 2022).
  106. Arauz, R. NGOs adverse MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification granted to Western and Central Pacific Tuna Fishery. 2018. Available online: (accessed on 28 December 2021).
  107. Ziegler, I. Shark Finning—A Case Study Highlighting the Lack of Best Practice and Application of a Risk Based Need for Data “Combating Shark Finning, an IUU Fishing Activity that Severely Undermines Conservation Efforts” Transparency and Monitoring to Combat IUU in MSC Certified Fisheries. 2019. Available online: (accessed on 12 August 2020).
  108. Ziegler, A.H.; Millward, S.; Woodroffe, K.; Vail, C.; Guida, L.; Hofford, A.; Arauz, R. Analysis of the Marine Stewardship Council’s Policy on Shark Finning and the Opportunity for Adoption of a ‘Fins Naturally Attached’ Policy in the MSC. Fisheries Standard Review. 2021. Available online: (accessed on 4 June 2021).
  109. Porcher, I.F.; Darvell, B.W.; Cuny, G. Response to “A United States Shark Fin Ban Would Undermine Sustainable Shark Fisheries” Shiffman D.S.; Hueter, R.E. Mar. Pol. 2017, 85, 138–140. Mar. Pol. 2019, 104, 85–89.
  110. Gehan, S.M. Testimony of the Sustainable Shark Alliance Before the House Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife. 26 March 2019. Available online:
  111. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Available online: (accessed on 14 April 2020).
  112. Florida Department of Health Florida Advisory on Fish Consumption. Available online: (accessed on 17 April 2020).
  113. Environmental Protection Agency, USA (US EPA). Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, 3rd ed.; Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits 2000; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water: Washington, DC, USA; EPA-823-B-00-008. Available online: (accessed on 14 April 2020).
  114. Taylor, D.L.; Kutil, N.J.; Malek, A.J.; Collie, J.S. Mercury bioaccumulation in cartilaginous fishes from southern new England coastal waters: Contamination from a trophic ecology and human health perspective. Mar. Environ. Res. 2014, 99, 20–33.
  115. Maine Seafood Guide; University of Maine: Orono, ME, USA. Available online: (accessed on 14 April 2020).
  116. Barcia, L.G.; Argiro, J.; Babcock, E.A.; Cai, Y.; Shea, S.K.H.; Chapman, D.D. Mercury and arsenic in processed fins from nine of the most traded shark species in the Hong Kong and China dried seafood markets: The potential health risks of shark fin soup. Mar. Pol. Bull. 2020, 157, 111281.
  117. Wiersma, J.; Carroll, M. An Economic Analysis of Spiny Dogfish: Historical Trends, Future Markets, and Implications for Management Action. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Seafood Marketing Program.
  118. Walker, T.I. Can shark resources be harvested sustainably? A question revisited with a review of shark fisheries. Mar. Freshw. Res. 1998, 49, 553–572.
  119. Rago, P.J.; Sosebee, K.A.; Brodziak, J.K.; Murawski, S.A.; Anderson, E.D. Implications of recent increases in catches on the dynamics of Northwest Atlantic spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias). Fish. Res. 1998, 39, 165–181.
  120. Witkin, T.; Dissanayake, S.T.; McClenachan, L. Opportunities and barriers for fisheries diversification: Consumer choice in New England. Fish. Res. 2015, 168, 56–62.
  121. St. Gelais, A.T.; Costa-Pierce, B.A. Mercury concentrations in Northwest Atlantic winter-caught, male spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias): A geographic mercury comparison and risk-reward framework for human consumption. Mar. Poll. Bull. 2016, 102, 199–205.
  122. Goldfarb, B. Cod is Dead—Is Dogfish the Answer? Boston Newsmagazine. Available online: (accessed on 17 April 2020).
  123. New York Post. Fish Sticks for millennials! Seafood Industry Rebrands ‘Trash Fish’. Available online: (accessed on 22 April 2020).
  124. Kowacki, E.B. Can Dogfish Save Cape Cod Fisheries? Christian Science Monitor. Available online: (accessed on 27 April 2020).
  125. NOAA Fisheries. Atlantic Spiny Dogfish. Available online:
  126. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Spiny Dogfish. Available online: (accessed on 17 April 2020).
  127. Marine Stewardship Council. US Spiny Dogfish and Winter Skate. Available online: (accessed on 24 April 2020).
  128. Agrawal, A. Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Dev. 2001, 10, 1649–1672.
  129. Byrne, M.E.; Cortés, E.; Jeremy, J.; Vaudo, J.J.; Harvey, G.C.M.; Sampson, M.; Wetherbee, B.M.; Shivji, M. Satellite telemetry reveals higher fishing mortality rates than previously estimated, suggesting overfishing of an apex marine predator. Proc. R. Soc. B 2017, 284, 20170658.
  130. Rigby, C.L.; Barreto, R.; Carlson, J.; Fernando, D.; Fordham, S.; Francis, M.P.; Jabado, R.; Liu, K.M.; Marshall, A.; Pacoureau, N.; et al. Isurus oxyrinchus. IUCN Red List Threat. Species. Red List 2019, e.T39341A2903170.
  131. ICCAT. Summary Report by the Commission Chair. Doc. No. PLE_150_A/2020. Available online: (accessed on 9 March 2021).
  132. ICCAT. ICCAT Press Release ICCAT Agreed a New Conservation Measure for the North Atlantic Shortfin Mako Shark. In Proceedings of the 27th Regular Meeting of the Commission, 23 November 2021. Available online: (accessed on 4 December 2021).
  133. ICCAT. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS). In Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS), Madrid, Spain, 2–6 October 2017. Available online: (accessed on 12 January 2022).
  134. ICCAT. Recommendation by ICCAT on the Conservation of the North Atlantic Stock of Shortfin Mako Caught in Association with ICCAT Fisheries. Rec. 17-08. Available online: (accessed on 12 January 2022).
  135. CITES. Supplementary Information on CITES COP 18 Proposal 42: Confirming that Shortfin and Longfin Mako Sharks Fully Meet the Criteria for Inclusion on CITES Appendix II. Paper presented at Eighteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, Geneva, Switzerland, June 17–28; CoP18 Inf. 40, 1 and 6. Available online: (accessed on 12 December 2021).
  136. Wegner, N.C.; Lai, N.C.; Bull, K.B.; Graham, J.B. Oxygen utilization and the branchial pressure gradient during ram ventilation of the shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus: Is lamnid shark-tuna convergence constrained by elasmobranch gill morphology? J. Exp. Biol. 2012, 215, 22–28.
  137. Campana, S.E.; Joyce, W.; Fowler, M.; Showell, M. Discards, hooking, and post-release mortality of porbeagle (Lamna nasus), shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus), and blue shark (Prionace glauca) in the Canadian pelagic longline fishery. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2016, 73, 520–528.
  138. Kao, E. Hong Kong Shark Fin Traders ‘will be Hit Hard’ by Proposal to Protect Blue Sharks. South China Morning Post. 2017. Available online: (accessed on 14 April 2020).
  139. Vedor, M.; Queiroz, N.; Mucientes, G. Climate-driven deoxygenation elevates fishing vulnerability for the ocean’s widest ranging shark. eLife 2021, 10, e62508.
  140. Make Stewardship Count. Open Letter to MSC. Available online: (accessed on 29 July 2022).
  141. Clarke, S. Use of shark fin trade data to estimate historic total shark removals in the Atlantic Ocean. Aquat. Living Resour. 2008, 21, 373–381.
  142. ICCAT. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS). In Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS), Online, 27 September–2 October 2021. Available online: (accessed on 4 December 2021).
  143. European Union Plenary sitting. Recommendation on the Draft Council Decision on the Conclusion, on Behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol to Amend the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (13447/2019—C9-0187/2019—2019/0225(NLE)) 27 April 2020. Available online: (accessed on 7 August 2020).
  144. Tsikliras, A.C.; Froese, R. Maximum Sustainable Yield. In Encyclopedia of Ecology, 2nd ed.; Fath, B.D., Ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2019; Volume 1, pp. 108–115.
  145. Sumaila, R.U.; Ebrahim, N.; Schuhbauer, A.; Skerritt, D.; Li, Y.; Sik Kim, H.; Mallory, T.G.; Lam, V.W.L.; Pauly, D. Updated estimates and analysis of global fisheries subsidies. Mar. Pol. 2019, 109, 103695.
  146. Sala, E.; Mayorga, J.; Costello, C.; Kroodsma, D.; Palomares, M.L.D.; Pauly, D.; Sumaila, U.R.; Zeller, D. The economics of fishing the high seas. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaat2504.
  147. Arnason, R.; Kelleher, K.; Willmann, R. The Sunken Billions: The Economic Justification for Fisheries Reform; Joint publication of the World Bank and the FAO; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2008. ISBN 978-0-8213-7790-1.
  148. Travis, W. Shark For Sale; Rand McNally: Chicago, IL, USA, 1961.
  149. Castro, J.I.; Woodley, C.M.; Brudek, R.L. A Preliminary Evaluation of Status of Shark Species; FAO Fisheries Technical Paper; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 1999; 380.
  150. Pauly, D.; Zeller, D. Catch reconstructions reveal that global marine fisheries catches are higher than reported and declining. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 10244.
  151. Vaness, B. Sustainable Shark Alliance: Setting the Record Straight on Sharks for Ocean Week. Available online: (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  152. Rutger, H. Sustainable Shark Trade Bill Offers Science Based Solutions for Overfishing. Mote Laboratories. 2018. Available online: (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  153. Ferretti, F.; Jacoby, D.M.P.; Pfleger, M.O.; White, T.D.; Dent, F.; Micheli, F.; Rosenberg, A.A.; Crowder, L.B.; Block, B.A. Shark fin trade bans and sustainable shark fisheries. Conserv. Lett. 2020, 13, e12708.
  154. Human Rights at Sea. Fisheries Observer Deaths at Sea, Human Rights and the Role and Responsibilities of Fisheries Organisations. Available online: (accessed on 3 March 2021).
  155. McVeigh, K.; Firdaus, F. ‘Hold on Brother’: Final Days of Doomed Crew on Chinese Shark Finning Boat. The Guardian 7 July 2020. Available online: (accessed on 12 August 2020).
  156. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Available online: (accessed on 28 May 2022).
  157. Cooney, R. Sustainable Use: Concepts, Ambiguities, Challenges. In Proceedings of the IUCN Species Survival Commission’s Sustainable Use Specialist Group Strategic Planning Meeting, White Oak Plantation, Yulee, FL, USA, 10–13 July 2007; Available online: (accessed on 28 May 2020).
  158. EU Monitor Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2002)185—Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Fisheries Resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. Available online: (accessed on 5 January 2022).
  159. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) 16 USC Ch. 38: Fishery Conservation and Management. Available online: (accessed on 28 May 2022).
  160. Preikshot, D.; Pauly, D. Global Fisheries and Marine Conservation: Is Coexistence Possible? In Marine Conservation Biology: The Science of Maintaining the Sea’s Biodiversity; Norse, E.A., Crowder, L.B., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Chapter 11; pp. 185–197.
  161. Agrawal, A.; Ostrom, E. Political science and conservation biology: A dialog of the deaf. Conserv. Biol. 2006, 30, 681–682.
  162. Harrington, J.M.; Myers, R.A.; Rosenberg, A.A. Wasted fishery resources: Discarded bycatch in the USA. Fish Fish. 2005, 6, 350–361.
  163. Stelfox, M.; Bulling, M.; Sweet, M. Untangling the origin of ghost gear within the Maldivian archipelago and its impact on olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) populations. Endang. Spec. Res. 2019, 40, 309–320.
  164. Make Stewardship Count. Available online: (accessed on 28 May 2022).
  165. Marine Stewardship Council. Echebastar Indian Ocean Purse Seine Skipjack Tuna. Available online: (accessed on 10 March 2021).
  166. Kearns, M. IPNLF: Tuna Fishery Certification ‘Fatally Flawed’. Seafood Source. Available online: (accessed on 24 April 2020).
  167. Edwards, S. WWF Statement on MSC Certification of Spanish Purse Seine “Echebastar” Fishery in the Indian Ocean. Available online: (accessed on 29 June 2022).
  168. Diggles, B.K.; Cooke, S.J.; Rose, J.D.; Sawynok, W. Ecology and welfare of aquatic animals in wild capture fisheries. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 2011, 21, 739–765.
  169. Meadows, D.H.; Meadows, D.L.; Randers, J.; Behrens, W.W. The Limits to Growth; Universe Books: New York, NY, USA, 1972.
  170. Lorenz, K. Das Sogenannte Böse, Zur Naturgeschichte der Aggression; Verlag Dr Borotha-Schoeler: Vienna, Austria, 1963.
  171. Barry, G. Terrestrial ecosystem loss and biosphere collapse. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2014, 25, 542–563.
  172. Dasgupta, P. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review; HM Treasury: London, UK, 2021. Available online: (accessed on 29 June 2022).
  173. Mason, F. The Newfoundland cod stock collapse: A review and analysis of social factors. Electron. Green J. 2002, 1.
  174. Dickey-Collas, M.; Nash, R.D.M.; Brunel, T.; van Damme, C.J.G.; Marshall, T.C.; Payne, M.R.; Corten, A.; Geffen, A.J.; Peck, M.A.; Hatfield, E.M.C.; et al. Lessons learned from stock collapse and recovery of North Sea herring: A review. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2010, 67, 1875–1886.
  175. Sea Shepherd. Operation Sola Stella: Combatting Illegal Fishing in Liberia, West Africa. Available online: (accessed on 22 August 2020).
  176. Sea Shepherd. Arrest of Poaching Vessel Shows Shark Liver Oil Production Could Drive Species to Extinction. Available online: (accessed on 4 June 2021).
  177. Vincent, A.C.J.; Sadovy de Mitcheson, Y.; Fowler, S.L.; Lieberman, S. The role of CITES in the conservation of marine fishes subject to international trade. Fish Fish. 2013, 15, 563–592.
  178. Citizen’s Initiative: Stop Finning EU. Available online: (accessed on 29 June 2022).
  179. Alcala, A.C. Community-based coastal resource management in the Philippines: A case study. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 1998, 38, 179–186.
  180. Diegues, A.C. Marine Protected Areas and Artisanal Fisheries in Brazil. 2008. Available online: (accessed on 28 May 2022).
  181. Espectato, L.N.; Monteclaro, H.M.; Arceo, H.O.; Catedrilla, L.C.; Baylon, C.C. Community perceptions on the role of inter-local government units alliance in coastal resource management: The case of Banate Bay alliance in Iloilo, Philippines. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2022, 219, 106059.
  182. Kaplan, I.C.; Cox, S.P.; Kitchell, J.F. Circle hooks for Pacific longliners: Not a panacea for marlin and shark bycatch, but part of the solution. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 2007, 136, 392–401.
  183. Erickson, D.L.; Berkeley, S.A. Methods to reduce bycatch mortality in longline fisheries. In Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation; Camhi, M.D., Pikitch, E.K., Babcock, E.A., Eds.; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2008; pp. 462–471.
  184. Reid, D.G.; Graham, N.; Suuronen, P.; He, P.; Pol, M. Implementing balanced harvesting: Practical challenges and other implications. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2016, 73, 1690–1696.
  185. Zhou, S.; Kolding, J.; Garcia, S.M.; Plank, M.J.; Bundy, A.; Charles, A.; Hansen, A.; Heino, M.; Howell, D.; Jacobsen, N.S.; et al. Balanced harvest: Concept, policies, evidence, and management implications. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 2019, 29, 711–733.
  186. O’Leary, B.C.; Winther-Janson, M.; Bainbridge, J.M.; Aitken, J.; Hawkins, J.P.; Roberts, C.M. Effective Coverage Targets for Ocean Protection. Conserv. Lett. 2016, 9, 398–404.
  187. Klimley, A.P.; Arauz, R.; Bessudo, S.; Chávez, E.J.; Chinacalle, N.; Espinoza, E.; Green, J.; Hearn, A.R.; Hoyos-Padilla, M.E.; Nalesso, E.; et al. Studies of the movement ecology of sharks justify the existence and expansion of marine protected areas in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Environ. Biol. Fish. 2022.
  188. Baum, J. Industrial fishing boats leave few safe havens for sharks on the high seas. Nature 2019, 572, 449–450.
  189. Dwyer, R.G.; Krueck, N.C.; Udyawer, V.; Heupel, M.R.; Chapman, D.; Pratt, H.L.; Garla, R.; Simpfendorfer, C.A. Individual and population benefits of marine reserves for reef sharks. Curr. Biol. 2020, 30, 480–489.
  190. Sumaila, R.U.; Zeller, D.; Hood, L.; Palomares, M.L.D.; Li, Y.; Pauly, D. Illicit trade in marine fish catch and its effects on ecosystems and people worldwide. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eaaz3801.
  191. Ewell, C.; Hocevar, J.; Mitchell, E.; Snowden, S.J. An evaluation of Regional Fisheries Management Organization at-sea compliance monitoring and observer programs. Mar. Pol. 2020, 115, 103842.
  192. Barnosky, A.; Matzke, N.; Tomiya, S.; Wogan, G.O.U.; Swartz, B.; Quental, T.B.; Marshall, C.; McGuire, J.L.; Lindsey, E.L.; Maguire, K.C.; et al. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 2011, 471, 51–57.
  193. Pievani, T. The sixth mass extinction: Anthropocene and the human impact on biodiversity. Rend. Lincei 2014, 25, 85–93.
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to : ,
View Times: 338
Revisions: 6 times (View History)
Update Date: 21 Sep 2022