Shark culling

Main article: Shark culling

In 2014, a shark cull in Western Australia killed dozens of sharks (mostly tiger sharks) using drum
lines,[141] until it was cancelled after public protests and a decision by the Western Australia EPA; from
2014 to 2017, there was an "imminent threat" policy in Western Australia in which sharks that
"threatened" humans in the ocean were shot and killed.[142] This "imminent threat" policy was
criticized by senator Rachel Siewart for killing endangered sharks.[143] The "imminent threat" policy
was cancelled in March 2017.[144] In August 2018, the Western Australia government announced a
plan to re-introduce drum lines (though, this time the drum lines are "SMART" drum lines). [145]
From 1962 to the present,[146] the government of Queensland has targeted and killed sharks in large
numbers by using drum lines, under a "shark control" program—this program has also inadvertently
killed large numbers of other animals such as dolphins; it has also killed endangered hammerhead
sharks.[147][148][149][150] Queensland's drum line program has been called "outdated, cruel and ineffective".
[150]
From 2001 to 2018, a total of 10,480 sharks were killed on lethal drum lines in Queensland,
including in the Great Barrier Reef.[151] From 1962 to 2018, roughly 50,000 sharks were killed by
Queensland authorities.[152]
The government of New South Wales has a program that deliberately kills sharks using nets.[149]
[153]
The current net program in New South Wales has been described as being "extremely
destructive" to marine life, including sharks.[154] Between 1950 and 2008, 352 tiger sharks and
577 great white sharks were killed in the nets in New South Wales—also during this period, a total of
15,135 marine animals were killed in the nets, including dolphins, whales, turtles, dugongs, and
critically endangered grey nurse sharks.[155] There has been a very large decrease in the number of
sharks in eastern Australia, and the shark-killing programs in Queensland and New South Wales are
partly responsible for this decrease.[152]
Kwazulu-Natal, an area of South Africa, has a shark-killing program using nets and drum lines—
these nets and drum lines have killed turtles and dolphins, and have been criticized for killing wildlife.
[156]
During a 30-year period, more than 33,000 sharks have been killed in KwaZulu-Natal's shark-
killing program—during the same 30-year period, 2,211 turtles, 8,448 rays, and 2,310 dolphins were
killed in KwaZulu-Natal.[156] Authorities on the French island of Réunion kill about 100 sharks per
year.[157]
Killing sharks negatively affects the marine ecosystem.[158][159] Jessica Morris of Humane Society
International calls shark culling a "knee-jerk reaction" and says, "sharks are top order predators that
play an important role in the functioning of marine ecosystems. We need them for healthy
oceans."[160]
George H. Burgess, the former[161] director of the International Shark Attack File, "describes [shark]
culling as a form of revenge, satisfying a public demand for blood and little else"; [162] he also said
shark culling is a "retro-type move reminiscent of what people would have done in the 1940s and
50s, back when we didn't have an ecological conscience and before we knew the consequences of
our actions."[162] Jane Williamson, an associate professor in marine ecology at Macquarie University,
says "There is no scientific support for the concept that culling sharks in a particular area will lead to
a decrease in shark attacks and increase ocean safety."[163]
Other threats
Other threats include habitat alteration, damage and loss from coastal development, pollution and
the impact of fisheries on the seabed and prey species.[164] The 2007
documentary Sharkwater exposed how sharks are being hunted to extinction.[165]

Conservation
Further information: List of threatened sharks and Shark sanctuary
In 1991, South Africa was the first country in the world to declare Great White sharks a legally
protected species[166] (however, the KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board is allowed to kill great white sharks
in its "shark control" program in eastern South Africa).[156]
Intending to ban the practice of shark finning while at sea, the United States Congress passed
the Shark Finning Prohibition Act in 2000.[167] Two years later the Act saw its first legal challenge
in United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. In 2008 a Federal Appeals
Court ruled that a loophole in the law allowed non-fishing vessels to purchase shark fins from fishing
vessels while on the high seas.[168] Seeking to close the loophole, the Shark Conservation Act was
passed by Congress in December 2010, and it was signed into law in January 2011.[169][170]
In 2003, the European Union introduced a general shark finning ban for all vessels of all nationalities
in Union waters and for all vessels flying a flag of one of its member states. [171] This prohibition was
amended in June 2013 to close remaining loopholes.[172]
In 2009, the International Union for Conservation of Nature's IUCN Red List of Endangered
Species named 64 species, one-third of all oceanic shark species, as being at risk of extinction due
to fishing and shark finning.[173][174]
In 2010, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) rejected proposals
from the United States and Palau that would have required countries to strictly regulate trade in
several species of scalloped hammerhead, oceanic whitetip and spiny dogfish sharks. The majority,
but not the required two-thirds of voting delegates, approved the proposal. China, by far the world's
largest shark market, and Japan, which battles all attempts to extend the convention to marine
species, led the opposition.[175][176] In March 2013, three endangered commercially valuable sharks,
the hammerheads, the oceanic whitetip and porbeagle were added to Appendix 2 of CITES, bringing
shark fishing and commerce of these species under licensing and regulation. [177]
In 2010, Greenpeace International added the school shark, shortfin mako shark, mackerel
shark, tiger shark and spiny dogfish to its seafood red list, a list of common supermarket fish that are
often sourced from unsustainable fisheries.[178] Advocacy group Shark Trust campaigns to limit shark
fishing. Advocacy group Seafood Watch directs American consumers to not eat sharks.[179]
Under the auspices of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild
Animals (CMS), also known as the Bonn Convention, the Memorandum of Understanding on the
Conservation of Migratory Sharks was concluded and came into effect in March 2010. It was the first
global instrument concluded under CMS and aims at facilitating international coordination for the
protection, conservation and management of migratory sharks, through multilateral,
intergovernmental discussion and scientific research.
In July 2013, New York state, a major market and entry point for shark fins, banned the shark fin
trade joining seven other states of the United States and the three Pacific U.S. territories in providing
legal protection to sharks.[180]
In the United States, and as of January 16, 2019, 12 states including
(Massachusetts, Maryland, Delaware, California, Illinois, Hawaii, Oregon, Nevada, Rhode
Island, Washington, New York and Texas) along with 3 U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam and
the Northern Mariana Islands) have passed laws against the sale or possession of shark fins.[181][182]
Several regions now have shark sanctuaries or have banned shark fishing—these regions
include American Samoa, the Bahamas, the Cook Islands, French Polynesia, Guam, the Maldives,
the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Palau.[183][184][185]
In April 2020 researchers reported to have traced the origins of shark fins of
endangered hammerhead sharks from a retail market in Hong Kong back to their source populations
and therefore the approximate locations where the sharks were first caught using DNA analysis.[186][187]
In July 2020 scientists reported results of a survey of 371 reefs in 58 nations estimating
the conservation status of reef sharks globally. No sharks have been observed on almost 20% of the
surveyed reefs and shark depletion was strongly associated with both socio-economic conditions
and conservation measures.[188][189] Sharks are considered to be a vital part of the ocean ecosystem.
According to a 2021 study in Nature,[190] overfishing has resulted in a 71% global decline in the
number of oceanic sharks and rays over the preceding 50 years. The oceanic whitetip, and both the
scalloped hammerhead and great hammerheads are now classified as critically endangered.
[191]
Sharks in tropical waters have declined more rapidly than those in temperate zones during the
period studied.[192] A 2021 study published in Current Biology found that overfishing is currently
driving over one-third of sharks and rays to extinction.[193]