skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Hammerhead sharks are one of the most unusual and distinctive-looking sharks on the planet. The great hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead, and smooth hammerhead - all members of the Sphyrnidae family - carry their namesake broad, extended flat head; a shape like no other.
Researchers have studied hammerhead sharks to determine why it evolved with such a unique head shape. There has been research that indicates it is an effective tool for hunting: digging and flipping up small rays out of the sand. Other research has shown that the wide positioning of the hammerhead's eyes provides it with stereo vision - the ability to see straight ahead more easily which might prove to be a predatory advantage. And there have also been studies regarding the possibility that the hammerhead's shape enhances it's ability to sense electrical fields with its Ampullae de Lorenzini (the black specks or five o'clock shadow all around the snout of most sharks) which could aid in long range navigation.
Definitely one of the world's most unique sharks, but also one that has been severely impacted by commercial fishing. In the eastern Pacific, at locations such as Cocos Island, off of Costa Rica, researchers and long-time divers can remember immense schools of hammerheads cruising through the deep waters.
But no more. The occasional school can be encountered but their numbers are greatly reduced and such a sight is a rare occurence indeed. Researchers from Mexico, the United Kingdom, USA, and other countries have been studying the hammerhead sharks using telemetry tags and taking biopsy samples for DNA studies to better understand the movements of these sharks and whether there are isolated populations moving around in the Pacific and elsewhere or whether any genetic co-mingling takes place. This knowledge can be used in determining the best approach for conserving the sharks and managing commercial operations between Central American nations.
Costa Rica and Honduras, Central American nations that have recognized the importance of biological diversity not only for the sake of their own ecology but as an important feature of their tourism revenue, plan to put forward a recommendation at the next convening of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in March of 2013. Recommending that scalloped hammerhead sharks be given an Appendix II status will then require the 175 member nations of CITES to ensure that trade is sustainable and legal.
For some hammerhead advocates, this is not sufficient action - hammerhead sharks are already listed as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) - but it is a step in the right direction on the international front as it represents regulations and actions that must be taken by CITES members. Of course, having the resources to implement and maintain enforcement has always been an issue with many countries, so much remains to be seen.
Research completed over the past few years by groups like the Sea Turtle Restoration Project (PRETOMA) have shown hammerhead movements to extend beyond national boundaries with populations moving between the Cocos Island and Columbia and Ecuador. Because of this, Costa Rica and Honduras are hoping that they will not be lone voices at the CITES meeting next year.
“It’s time for strong international protection for endangered scalloped
hammerhead sharks,” said Maximiliano Bello, senior adviser to the Global
Shark Conservation Campaign of the Pew Environment Group. “Other
governments should join Honduras and Costa Rica in supporting a
sustainable future for these sharks.”
Many shark conservation groups will be watching what CITES does on behalf of the hammerhead sharks in 2013.
Source: Costa Rica Star
Source: Summit County Citizens Voice
I have said in the past that shark conservation is a tough sell. Whether it's the public's general uneasiness with sharks thanks to years of over-sensationalized media or an ingrained cultural bias towards shark products (or seafood in general), gaining converts throughout the masses has been challenging. Part of that lies in the difficulty in making a personal connection, making an argument that resonates within the individual - "this will affect me." But sometimes it's the opposition that, unfortunately, is able to accomplish that to their advantage.
Case in point: If you have been reading some of the shark conservation blogs or web sites, you may have read about a recent study that detailed how U.S. scientists were able to use DNA testing to trace the origin of shark fins for sale in Hong Kong. It turned out that 21% of the fins tested came from endangered scalloped hammerhead sharks from the western Atlantic. A ground-breaking study because it established an accurate method for determining the species and geographic source of a shark fin and because it put Hong Kong's lucrative shark fin market on notice.
Those are the basic facts that caught the attention of most shark advocates. But what caught my eye was the response from the shark fin industry's representative. In criticising the study, Mak Ching-po, chairman of the Hong Kong Dried Seafood and Grocery Merchants Association, said, "Shark populations will grow exponentially if we don't keep fishing them. As a result, humans will be in short supply of smaller fish such as garoupa, as sharks will eat them."
Clever. Fiendishly clever because he just made it personal.
Sure, there's a kind of pretzel logic here: if we don't overfish the sharks, we won't be able to overfish the other fish in the sea. But the sinister beauty in what he said is how it will resonate subtly with the Asian people, a population that has been heavily dependent on seafood for centuries: If we can't fish the sharks, you will go hungry.
Or how about the continued use of shark nets at Australian recreational beaches. Despite the number of sharks and other large sea animals not deterred but killed by these nets, their use is still being supported. Why? Because it's personal. Overtly or covertly, the issue becomes: without the nets, you will be eaten.
Regardless of how weak or illogical the argument, if the listener can make a personal connection then the argument will have some traction. This unfortunate aspect of human nature has been exploited in other areas. It's a mainstay of political campaigns. Some who deny the impact of climate change often turn to fanciful Orwellian conspiracy arguments because people are sensitive and distrustful of intrusive government, real or imagined. Climate change proponents will explain ongoing changes that, for many people, are taking place in faraway, remote places; so curiosity, sympathy, or even a few well-meaning baby steps might be achieved but decisive action lies just out of reach - because it hasn't hit home hard enough. It's still very complicated, abstract or nebulous.
That's why you will see more personal connections trying to be made at the Copenhagen Climate Conference that began this week, connections that link climate change to human misery that is happening right now. (A past post of mine cited a UN report that attributed 300,000 deaths annually to climate change.)
But I digress. . . For shark conservation to really have an impact on the general population, the argument needs to be distilled to very personal messages. To say that the loss of reef sharks will disrupt the marine ecology to where we will lose coral or even oxygen is perhaps possible but may be a bit too abstract for most people to embrace. To position sharks as warm and friendly to man, while agreeable to some ardent shark fans, really pushes the envelope beyond what the everyday individual can accept. (Just look at how those "shark huggers" are always portrayed as irresponsible in the media.)
International organizations like CITES, the IUCN, and legislation like the U.S. Senate Bill S850 look after the big picture. We must support these efforts as they set the framework for regulation and, hopefully, enforcement. But to impact the market demand (which can fuel legal and illegal activities), we must make personal connections to win the hearts and minds of the general public.
It's not easy. When I speak with people, I always emphasize the important role sharks play as predators and scavengers; I don't downplay it. But I will try to distill it down to a simple message. In fact my message is the opposite of Mr. Ching-po: without sharks, other fish populations - fish populations that some people depend on - would potentially be less healthy, their numbers would be impacted. Sometimes I see it working, sometimes the light bulbs of recognition turn on - and sometimes not.
Think about personal connections that will resonate with people who are perhaps less committed than you to conserving animals like sharks. Use them and feel free to share them here in this blog.
