The fineprint on the headstone
Posted
Updated
A shark caught in the lens of a tourism diver is worth far more than the same shark caught in a hook or net. (Eco Divers, file photo)
Can you imagine what would happen if Australian scientists discovered 100 new species of whales and dolphins in our seas? The wires would be buzzing with the news.
It's not whales and dolphins that have been under the scrutiny of the scientists, but those more ancient and mysterious ocean predators, sharks and their close relatives, rays. Over the last year more than 100 new species have been unveiled by CSIRO scientists. Many are rare and elusive, or live in remote and isolated places like the Coral Sea, a world-renowned marine predator hotspot.
While the scientists in Hobart are busy adding to the list of Australia sharks and rays and advancing the understanding of the top marine predators in our waters, fisheries managers in Brisbane are drawing up plans to issue licenses for the taking of hundreds of tonnes of sharks from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. As science furthers our knowledge of these key ocean predators, managers are planning more dedicated shark fisheries - it is like we are writing the fineprint on the headstone while we send them to extinction, and it is literally playing out before our eyes.
The state of nature reflects a government's ability to manage responsibly for future generations. Fisheries are a classic example of a renewable natural resource that is difficult to manage responsibly. At worst, in the absence of management, there is serial depletion as the 'tragedy of the commons' takes hold, with the highest value species vanishing first, followed by the next most valuable and so on.
Even where management structures are in place, decision making can often be characterised as being driven by delusional optimism, based not on precautionary science but on the need to appease industry stakeholders. The result is the same, with stocks dwindling and fishers switching to different products as high value species vanish.
Sharks provide early warnings of this type of effect. While their fins command a high price on the seafood market, their slow reproductive rates - more akin to whales and dolphins than fish - mean populations are slow to recover from fishing.
As a result, sharks are literally vanishing from our waters. While the CSIRO adds new species to the list, the sharks we already know about, like the hammerheads, thresher sharks and makos nudge closer to extinction. This is the inconvenient truth about sharks globally.
It is against this global backdrop that Queensland has proposed to start a dedicated shark fishery including the waters of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, in an act not dissimilar to allowing the deliberate hunting and removal of hundreds, if not thousands, of lions, leopards and cheetahs from the great natural parks of Africa.
The Queensland Government should abandon its plans for a dedicated shark fishery and instead concentrate on the much greater opportunities for revenue through tourism, and on its global responsibility to protect their dwindling populations. This would mean halting fishing on at-risk shark species such as hammerheads, and putting conservation measures first, such as protecting those maternity wards and nursery grounds where those sharks come to breed, the same grounds that would be targeted by fishers seeking baby sharks.
A more responsible approach would also mean capitalising on the fact that a shark caught in the lens of a tourism diver is worth far more than the same shark caught in a hook or net, destined for a bowl of soup or a grocery store shelf, and investing in dive-based tourism.
Out in the Coral Sea, divers pay thousands of dollars to catch a glimpse of a school of sharks in the wild. Compared to the tens of dollars per kilo retail price for sharks caught and landed on a commercial fishing - it is evident that it makes both economic and ecological sense to protect sharks.
Australian governments often lay the blame for shark declines on foreign fishing vessels, while turning a blind eye to the weak management of domestic shark fisheries and inadequate controls and data to ensure sustainability.
Many Australians would be surprised to learn that we now have the dubious honour of being in the top 25 shark-catching nations on the planet, with kilometres of gill-nets set along our coast every year to service the shark trade.
Let us celebrate the discovery of 100 new Australian shark species - but as a nation that claims to be a world leader in marine conservation, let us say no to the taking of hundreds of tonnes of sharks from the Great Barrier Reef Park. It is simply not acceptable.
Dr Gilly Llewellyn is the oceans team leader for WWF-Australia.
Search for news
Comments (37)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
Fratelli:
24 Sep 2008 9:28:03am
What a joke! Do our government leaders always just do the exact opposite of what should be done? I truly dont understand what they are thinking.
Everyone knows how delicate and damaged the world's fisheries are, so creating a dedicated shark fishery in water that include the GBR is absolutely ludicrous. Even if these shark populations are healthly, the by-catch of many commerical fishing practices is appalling.
Why not just make the Darling Downs agricultural area a dedicated coal mine next? Makes about as much sense.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Iryany:
24 Sep 2008 10:45:17am
Maybe as much sense as a coal mine on the Liverpool Plains? But what will governments care... so they get voted out, and find themsleves on the board of Virgin Blue. There are no effective disencentives for bad decision making in politics.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
BJ:
24 Sep 2008 8:51:57pm
Iryany
Surely you jest.
There are plenty of repercussions for wrong decision making in government.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Id:
25 Sep 2008 8:16:10am
We aren't discussing Japanese whale fishing are we?The whole tenor of the subject sounds very familiar.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
NT boy:
24 Sep 2008 9:31:03am
Management never works in fishing.. I grew up in a fishing village in Tasmania, it is common knowledge if they caught anything that was protected it was killed and used as bait before the boat came back into harbour. I have seen fins & tails cut off "unusual" sharks then the lot being thrown back over the side.
It is impossable to police unless we stop it completely which wont happen.. sadlyAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
wenmac:
24 Sep 2008 11:38:43am
I agree,I've worked on prawn trawlers and the things that come up in the nets included 12 foot long hammer heads,giant stingrays 15 foot across,sea snakes by the dozen and lots and lots of baby sharks that were unceremoniously bashed onto the side of the boat and then thrown over,The amount of fish species that came up in the nets was astounding and all died due to being squashed with the weight of the catch in the nets,made my stomache turn at the time as I don't ever see the need for senseless killing just to obtain a few hundred weight of prawns.Perhaps all fishing in Australian waters should be stopped for a season or two,that will get stocks back into place and we can soarse seafood from O,S till then,better the fisho's go without for a year or two or three than having NO FISH left to catch.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Sam Guest:
24 Sep 2008 12:40:43pm
Or replace seafood with other omega rich foods eg:flaxseed oil, that way you're not getting a nice dose of mercury and other contaminants.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
Joe:
24 Sep 2008 3:35:09pm
Agree. The only way to protect marine life from ourselves is to declare large no-take sanctuaries. It is the only way that works.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
dragon:
24 Sep 2008 9:32:05am
Humans, as the ultimate dictator and top of the food chain, will always have the final say on what lives and what doesn't. We love and empathise with 'cuteness' and alas I have yet to see a caricature/toy of a cute shark !
That's why Pandas get the attention and Wobbygongs don't !Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
balanced:
24 Sep 2008 9:37:31am
We need to consider the precautionary principle with the allocation of these new fishing quotas and areas. we should start with very small quotas and perhaps work up (or stop) depending on the data that can be gathered about the populations affected. Certainly we need to protect breeding grounds etc.
The other part of the issue is the way people fish - indonesian drag netting and fin fishing seems unreasonably distructive and it doesn't matter what the law is unless it's well enforced. Look at the way Japan seems to fish what it likes where it likes. Again this comes down to the quality of our diplomats and our politcal will.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Fratelli:
24 Sep 2008 12:15:39pm
This shouldnt be an issue of quotas and compromise. This simply should not happen. At all. Shark meat or fins arent a staple food, they are a delicacy. And with the by-catch these fisheries produce (read some of the above posts), its clearly not a balanced trade-off.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
John Michaels:
24 Sep 2008 12:48:59pm
Shark fin soup is a common in Asia. It is no longer a delicacy. It sells very cheaply. The same goes with abalone. I can buy abalone rice soup for about $3 Australian. As for shark meat there is flake. That is shark meat. Sold at almost every fish and chip shop in Australia. What shouldn't happen is the opening up of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park for commercial fishing. It is short sighted, money hungry Government policy aimed at selling licenses to the highest bidder.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ford:
24 Sep 2008 2:22:02pm
Beef isn't a 'staple' food either.
With all the deleterious effects from grazing, one has to wonder why we continue to allow that too.
The answer, of course, is simple...we really don't care about anything but our own comfort, and we're only willing to pretend to care about the environment as long as it doesn't inconvenience us, cramp our lifestyle, or hit the hip pocket.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Fratelli:
24 Sep 2008 3:18:03pm
No, you're right - beef isnt a staple food.
But surely you're not trying to compare the Australian shark fin/meat industry against the Australian beef industry?
And marginal grazing land isnt exactly listed as a World Heritage Site. I think I remember the GBR being up there somewhere though...
Besides, grazing is a far better managed than what people are led to believe. You could count the number of well-managed fisheries in the world on one hand.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Joe:
24 Sep 2008 3:37:39pm
Actually much of the marginal beef grazing land in the North could be - one of the biggest threats to the worlds largest tropical savanna is beef cattle. Specific areas of world heritage potenial in Cape York and the Kimberley are being heavily degraded by grazing, rainforest patches are the worst hit.
It is a fair comparison - we shouldn't be doing either - shark fishing or grazing on marginal land of world heritage quality.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
whitelephant:
24 Sep 2008 4:25:52pm
Fratelli I DO compare the shark fin/meat industry against the beef industry-no, marginal grazing land is not heritage listed although much of it should be as it is very sensitive to overgrazing and contains (or once contained) many endangered species.
We should return it to its former state and encourage the consumption of Kangaroo-a soft footed animal that does not damage the land and can survive in marginal land utilising a fraction of the water that beef uses.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Fratelli:
24 Sep 2008 8:11:59pm
whitelephant,
In comparing the beef industry to the shark industry, I was thinking in terms of scale and economics as well as the environment.
The shark industry in Australia barely registers. Until this article, I didnt even know we had one. On the other hand, simply getting rid of the beef industry (even if it was replaced with kangaroo farming or equivalent) isnt at all likely.
Although having said that, Joe makes a good point - that some areas simply shouldnt be grazed, just like some areas shouldnt be expected to support cotton and rice. This would include rainforests of the North and the Kimberley.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
regular roo eater:
25 Sep 2008 8:22:54am
in the case of the northern savanna, one of the problems with 'return(ing) it to its former state' is that this state is unknown. no where is free from the impacts of cattle (check out kakadu's former life). part of the goal of this marine research is to establish a baseline from which to judge changes in 'ecosystem health'.
as for eating roo, some rough numbers others can firm up if they desire: the sustainable yield for kangaroo in australia equates to 2% of our current beef production. that means that even if we stopped exporting half our beef and just focused on domestic consumption roo could sustainably replace 4% of the beef on our dinner plates. say we all adopt 'radical' environmentally friendly lifestyles and halve our beef/equivilent consumption; then roos start to reach 10%. so, no exports, half the consumption, and we get 10% of our meat from 'soft footed animals'. that's the max before we start to cause more problems.
don't get me wrong, i love the stuff, i just don't feel so environmentally self righteous when i eat it anymore.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
NT boy:
24 Sep 2008 4:02:55pm
The Data will only come from fishermen which means will be an invalid way of gaining the data..
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Starfish:
24 Sep 2008 10:00:52am
This is not an issue just about sharks, it is an issue of sustainability vs economic greed.
Australia exports some 70% of all its seafood production overseas. Most of this ends up in Asia, while the domestic market gets the leftovers. If we produced solely for the domestic market it would enable this natural resource to replenish and operate at a sustainable level. Seafood would be more affordable and as a result Australians would start consuming more.
You cannot develop sustainable ecosystems and serve mammon.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Save it:
24 Sep 2008 10:04:03am
There is one thing that will only become more valuable over time, and which Australia is fortunate to still have some left - and that is relatively pristine habitat and ecosystems. We have such places in Australia, for example in the Kimberleys, Cape York, parts of Tasmania, and the Tasman Sea & Great Barrier Reef. In the future, as every bit of habitable land on the planet fills with people, the world will pay a fortune to be able to visit such places and see nature in a raw state. So, let's leave these places alone.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Save it:
24 Sep 2008 10:16:23am
Sorry I meant Coral Sea - not Tasman Sea.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
John O:
24 Sep 2008 10:05:03am
Ludicrous. That any Government would do this is beyond comprehension but that a Labour government who relies on Green preferences does it is beyond belief.
Or is the Green leaning just for election time?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Dan:
25 Sep 2008 1:05:34am
Labor doesn't rely too much on Greens preferences in Queensland state elections. That's who we're talking about here.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
dazza:
25 Sep 2008 8:16:15am
John O,
It appears the Greens are definitely going 'cold' on Labor in QLD after announcing yesterday that they would not be directing preferences to either major party in next years state election - at this stage anyway. We will have to wait and see what 'incentives' are offered by both sides up here to try and secure Greens preferences.
And as for the idea of dedicated fisheries, like everyone else here, I simply can't support the idea. We are already losing too many marine species and seeing too much impact from commercial fishing - as well as the abuse of Australian waters through illegal fishing in the north.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Bugman:
24 Sep 2008 10:36:00am
While I have some sympathy for the save everything approach I think there may be a point that has alluded some here.
The catching of sharks and rays in Queensland has been taking place for decades and the reason the Government is doing something about it is because of the massive spike in captures over the last 6 years. As other fishing sources become more regulated sharks and rays provided an unregulated industry with a strong market.
So instead of deriding the efforts of the Government on this one what about an acknowledgement that they're finally doing something - although it could be said it came a touch too late and doesn't go far enough.
A SUSTAINABLE fishing industry is what Australia requires.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Aubrey:
24 Sep 2008 3:06:11pm
Thanks for pointing this out. The Conservation movement, for some reason, wants us to believe that the Government is suddenly opening up a new shark fishery in the GBR and Coral Sea when the opposite is true. The "creation" of the shark fishery is an administrative act to get control over an existing poorly regulated multispecies fishery. Until 2004, more that 90% of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was open to commercial (over) fishing and more than 60% of it still is - despite a taxpayer-funded "buy-out" of commercial fishing licences costing more than $200 Million - more that the entire fishery is worth by almost any measure.
Opposing the creation of a Qld shark fishery is like saying you want the uncontrolled pilage to continue.
Personally, I don't think the words "sustainable" and "shark fishery" go together very well - but at least a regulated "industry" can eventually be managed down (or out).Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
twobob:
24 Sep 2008 3:48:54pm
Absolutely fascinating isnt it?
Making out the QLD government to be the baddies when they are actually improving the situation. In this light the whole political slant changes. I wonder would a natlib QLD government ban the taking of all shark fin from the coral sea, or be more ecologically responsible elsewhere?
I doubt it.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Green:
24 Sep 2008 10:39:34am
How can the Qld government maintain a straight face as they condemn Indonesian fishing vessels for taking shark, while at the same time planning to create more legal shark fisheries?
Given that Qld loves to capitalise on its image as a fantastic location for diving and snorkelling, this is a horrendously short-sighted plan.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
andrew:
24 Sep 2008 11:56:30am
this shows how ignorant we are. The sharks were swimming the oceans before we came down from the trees and now we are trying to get rid of them. This shows how detached we are form nature.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
John Michaels:
24 Sep 2008 12:39:49pm
I have a few queries if anyone could answer them. Does anybody know when the Government began writing up these plans for shark fisheries? I only ask because someone I "know" was working on a Department boat last year that was operating in the Coral Sea but outside of Australian territorial waters. They were supposed to be doing research on this very same issue and they were catching and killing anything they wanted.
This short sighted, reap nature for all you can attitude will come back to bite us hard. The Government would have done much better to research and initiate a sustainable land based fisheries program so that stocks in the wild can replenish. They have no interest. It's like work for the dole. Hey, we'll give you something to do but don't think you will actually learn anything from it.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Lindsay Cooper:
24 Sep 2008 12:41:45pm
Whats new!!!!
Do you expect the people that make these decissions to think??? they are politicians and P.S's . If they were capable of thinking they would not be what they are.
One of the proposals are to set up a "shark fin" fishng industry in the Coral sea.
We fine the Indonesians fishermen and burn their boats when they come over to do this.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Paradigm shift:
24 Sep 2008 1:25:13pm
Australians historically, have always enjoyed and valued our unique ecosystems and oceans, flora, fauna and wildlife species.
However values differ as much as neighbourhood gardens
It's time to stop and assess this globalised raping and demand of our natural resources for excess profit.
We must remember that all Governments act for the people by responding to 'outside global influences impacting on the wealth or poverty of our economy.'
We need a healthy well balanced economy. Not greedy short term gratification. An economy driven by the strategy of a younger country aiming to win the approval and please older countries is a faulty one.
With the west's collective wealth vulnerable, as a result of recent events, we need to be aware of what appears as 'innocent investment' flowing in from other major rising economies.
Our goals ideally should focus on our collective beliefs and ability to 'do things differently' in achieving sustainable outcomes for basic needs of all life, both human and eco on and around our beautiful 'Great Southern Land.'
However, with rising global 'Sharks' wanting our natural resources at an insatiable rate, we are creating our own vulnerability by risking our collective resources and identity in the longer term.
The drive for excess wealth to save in the short term for the future is valiant, however to rest on our laurels that this 'boon' doesn't come at a delayed cost is perhaps naive.'
As Australians we need to be vigilant in keeping the harvesting of not only our seas, ecosystems healthy and sustainable, but also our economic systems. Our ecosystems and economic systems need to respect each other in balance and they must work harmoniously in tandem for the good of all inhabitants in our great nation.
I would suggest that there may well be bait in a perceived economic vulnerability. The growing global phenomena for material greed and frenzied feeding on our landed resources may result in there, being more diversity in sharks walking around on land than in our coastal waters.'Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ron T:
24 Sep 2008 2:49:59pm
Considering the QLD government led by Governr Bligh is considering damming the Mary River and doing similar to the Fitroy river I am not suprised. So by destroying the nursery for smaller fish there won't be any big fish anyway. Garrett you have the power, now give us the passion.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
henalf:
24 Sep 2008 4:20:49pm
The World is overcrowded,the more we try to save the wildlfe on land and sea,the more people are born to destroy the natural way of things.The answer? Nobody knows how long we go on before being vapourised by some maniac with nuclear bombs.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
A H:
24 Sep 2008 4:53:53pm
If you are interested in protecting marine life in the coral sea, I suggest visiting the Australian Conservation Foundation website, as they have a campaign pushing for a large no-take reserve in the coral sea.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
vhemt7:
25 Sep 2008 7:20:22am
Just a thought. How 'bout everyone parking their damn egos & stop behaving like chimps with fancy shoes & start thinking collectively instead of selfishly. Yeah ....right. Oh, & stop your breeding.... Its a no brainer.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
