The Elasmobranch Husbandry Manual: - Serviette Group

The Elasmobranch Husbandry Manual:

Captive Care of Sharks, Rays and their Relatives

Editors

Mark SmithDoug WarmoltsDennis ThoneyRobert Hueter

Published byOhio Biological Survey, Inc.

Columbus, Ohio 43221-0370 2004

ii

Ohio Biological Survey

Special Publication

ISBN-13: 978-0-86727-152-3ISBN-10: 0-86727-152-3Library of Congress Number: 2004115835

Publication Director

Brian J. Armitage

Editorial Committee

Barbara K. Andreas, Ph. D., Cuyahoga Community College & Kent State UniversityBrian J. Armitage, Ph. D., Ohio Biological Survey

Benjamin A. Foote, Ph. D., Kent State University (Emeritus)Jane L. Forsyth, Ph. D., Bowling Green State University (Emeritus)

Eric H. Metzler, B.S., The Ohio LepidopteristsScott M. Moody, Ph. D., Ohio University

David H. Stansbery, Ph. D., The Ohio State University (Emeritus)Ronald L. Stuckey, Ph. D., The Ohio State University (Emeritus)

Elliot J. Tramer, Ph. D., The University of Toledo

Literature Citation

Smith, M., D. Warmolts, D. Thoney, and R. Hueter (editors). 2004. The Elasmobranch HusbandryManual: Captive Care of Sharks, Rays and their Relatives. Special Publication of the Ohio BiologicalSurvey. xv + 589 p.

Cover and Title PageIllustration by Rolf Williams, The National Marine Aquarium, Rope Walk, Coxside, Plymouth, PL4 0LF UnitedKingdom

DistributorOhio Biological Survey, P.O. Box 21370, Columbus, Ohio 43221-0370 U.S.A.

Copyright© 2004 by the Ohio Biological Survey

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a computerized system, or pub-lished in any form or in any manner, including electronic, mechanical, reprographic, or photographic, withoutprior written permission from the publishers, Ohio Biological Survey, P.O. Box 21370, Columbus, Ohio 43221-0370 U.S.A.

Layout and Design: Brian J. Armitage, Ohio Biological SurveyPrinting: The Ohio State University, Printing Services, Columbus, Ohio

Ohio Biological SurveyP.O. Box 21370

Columbus, OH 43221-0370<[email protected]>

www.ohiobiologicalsurvey.org

11-2004—1.5M

Chapter 3Collecting Elasmobranchs: Legislation, Permitting, Ethics,

and Commercial Collectors

JOSEPH M. CHOROMANSKI

Ripley AquariumsRipley Entertainment, Inc.

7576 Kingspointe Parkway, Suite 188,Orlando, FL 32819, USA.

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: A number of international and national organizations, both governmental andnon-governmental, have jurisdiction or influence over the management of marine fisheries,and hence, over the legal collection of elasmobranchs. It is the responsibility of aquariumstaff to understand and adhere to any legislation, both international and regional, relevantto their elasmobranch collections. In addition, it is imperative that public aquariums andcommercial collectors work closely with regulatory agencies to help educate them aboutthe unique nature of our business. Regulatory agencies should be regarded as partnersand not adversaries. Information learned through collection activities should be sharedwith regulatory agencies, whether required by law or not, to help build healthy relationships,dispel misconceptions, and improve a mutual understanding of the species in question.Zoos and aquariums justify the collection and display of wild animals by the educational,research, and conservation goals achieved. A frequently asked and basic ethical questionis as follows: Do the benefits of a quality display of elasmobranchs at a professionally-operated public aquarium, having a strong educational, research, and conservation mission,outweigh the cost to individual animal welfare? We, as an industry, believe that they do. Inaddition to this basic question, other, more specific ethical concerns should be consideredwhen formulating an elasmobranch collection for an aquarium. Is the species difficult tokeep? Is it appropriate and permissible to release the species should it outgrow an exhibit?Is the species at threat of extinction in the wild and therefore protected? In seeking tobetter understand and meet the aforementioned ethical considerations, the public aquariumcommunity has recourse to many professional zoo and aquarium associations.

25

The Elasmobranch Husbandry Manual: Captive Care of Sharks, Rays and their Relatives, pages 25-41.© 2004 Ohio Biological Survey

Sharks, skates, rays (the elasmobranchs), andchimeras together comprise the classChondrichthyes, or the cartilaginous fishes, agroup of over 1,000 species of mostly marinefishes. Much of the legislation (e.g., commercialfishery regulations, etc.) that regulates the harvestof elasmobranchs encompasses a far greaternumber of individuals and species than theinternational aquarium community would everconceivably display. Legislative informationspecific to the commercial fishery can be foundelsewhere (Camhi, 1998; Camhi et al., 1998;Camhi, 1999; Anon., 2001a).

This chapter focuses on aspects of legislation andpermitting, for as many countries as possible, asit pertains to elasmobranch species that are

commonly collected and displayed by publicaquariums. Due to space limitations, the chaptercenters on legislation and permitting for collectingelasmobranchs. It does not address legislationand permitting, where required, for the possessionor importation of elasmobranch species, as thisinformation is readily available from governmentalagencies. Likewise, the chapter does not detailf isheries management regulat ions ( i .e. ,regulations to govern the commercial take ofelasmobranchs for consumptive purposes), butrather addresses those regulations that maypotentially affect the future collection of a speciesfor public display. The chapter concludes by brieflydiscussing ethical considerations related to thecollection and display of elasmobranchs, and theuse of commercial collectors.

26

J. M. CHOROMANSKI

LEGISLATION AND PERMITTING

Many readers of this chapter will only want toknow what paperwork is required to collect thespecies they desire and how to go about gettingthe proper permits. Before this can be addressed,it must be understood that the informationprovided in this chapter is current as of mid-2003and is unavoidably a snapshot in time. Only a fewcountries (e.g., Australia, Canada, New Zealand,South Africa, and the United States) have fisherymanagement plans for specific shark fisheries. Assuch, specif ic legislat ion and permit t ingregulations for only a few countries are detailedin this chapter. Fishery regulations often change,and curators and commercial collectors mustremain informed and up-to-date about this rapidlychanging arena. The information provided hereinserves as a start ing point for researchinglegislative and permitting changes that will nodoubt occur over time.

International regulations

Elasmobranch collection is regulated to varyingextremes throughout the world, ranging fromoutright prohibition, to taking only certain species,to no regulation whatsoever. At present, there areno international management programs orregulations that effectively address the captureof sharks (Anon., 2001a). Most sharks and manyrays are highly migratory and routinely crosspolitical boundaries (Camhi et al., 1998), makingmanagement challenging.

FAO

During 1999, the Food and Agricul tureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO),Committee on Fisheries (COFI), adopted theInternational Plan of Action for the Conservationand Management of Sharks (IPOA). The IPOA(Anon., 1999a), building on the FAO Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries, encompassesall elasmobranch fisheries and calls on membernations to develop National Plans of Action(NPOA) for the conservation and management ofsharks. Although the IPOA applies to all States,entities, and fishers, participation is voluntary. Asof late 2002, only two NPOAs have beencompleted (i.e., for the USA and Japan) out of 87shark-fishing nations, 18 of which are consideredmajor fishing nations (i.e., landing >10,000 metrictons year-1). Several States have draft NPOAs(i.e., Australia and the EU) and several more are

reported to be in preparation (e.g., South Africa)(Anon., 2001a; Anon., 2002a; Anon., 2002b;Anon., 2002c; Smale, pers. com.). Readers areurged to study detailed information about theIPOA, available at the FAO website (www3).

CITES

The Convention on Internat ional Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES) is an agreement that provides for theprotection of certain species against over-exploitation through international trade. UnderCITES, species are listed in appendices accordingto their conservation status. Appendix I speciesare considered to be threatened with extinction,and international trade for commercial purposesis generally not permitted. Appendix II species arenot necessarily now threatened with extinction,but may become so if trade is not str ict lyregulated. Appendix III includes species that anyparty (i.e., signatory country to CITES) hasidentified as being subject to regulation within itsjurisdiction, to prevent or restrict exploitation, andis seeking cooperation in the control of the tradeof that species. Species can only be added,removed, or transferred between Appendix I andII during regular (2-3 year) meetings of theConference of Parties (COP) or by emergencypostal procedures, whereas species can be addedor removed from Appendix III by any party at anytime (www4).

Prior to 2001, a number of elasmobranch species,including all of the sawfishes (Family: Pristidae),were proposed for listing on CITES Appendices Ior II, but were not accepted (Anon., 2001a). Inresponse, the basking (Cetorhinus maximus) andgreat white (Carcharodon carcharias) sharks werelisted in Appendix III by the United Kingdom andAustralia, respectively. During the 12th COP in2002, Appendix II proposals were approved fromIndia and the Philippines for the whale shark(Rhincodon typus), and from the United Kingdomfor the basking shark (Table 3.1). Not only dothese l ist ings represent the f i rst t imeelasmobranch species have been included inCITES Appendix II, they also represent the onlyinternational trade regulation affecting elasmo-branchs. An Appendix II listing does not end orrestrict trade as long as the exporting country candemonstrate that trade in a listed species, or itsproducts, is not detrimental to the survival of thatspecies. Appendix II listing requires data collectionand reporting by any of the 160 member countriesinvolved in the trade of listed species.

Scientific Name Common Name CITES IUCN Red List Status a,b,c

Aetobatus narinari spotted eagle ray DD Alopias superciliosus bigeye thresher shark Alopias vulpinus thintail thresher shark DD Amblyraja radiata thorny skate Anoxypristis cuspidata knifetooth sawfish EN A1acde+2cdeBathyraja abyssicola deepsea skate DD Callorhinchus milii ghost sharkCarcharhinus altimus bignose shark Carcharhinus amblyrhynchoides graceful shark LR/nt Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos gray reef shark LR/nt Carcharhinus amboinensis pigeye shark DD (LR/nt: SWI)Carcharhinus borneensis Borneo shark EN C2bCarcharhinus brachyurus copper shark Carcharhinus brevipinna spinner shark LR/nt (VU A1bd+2d: NWA)Carcharhinus galapagensis Galapagos shark Carcharhinus hemiodon Pondicherry shark VU C2aCarcharhinus leiodon smalltooth shark VU B1+2c, C2bCarcharhinus leucas bull shark LR/nt Carcharhinus limbatus blacktip shark LR/nt (VU A1bcd+2cd: NWA)Carcharhinus longimanus oceanic whitetip shark LR/nt Carcharhinus melanopterus blacktip reef shark LR/nt Carcharhinus obscurus dusky shark LR/nt (VU A1abd: NWA + GM)Carcharhinus perezi Caribbean reef shark Carcharhinus plumbeus sandbar shark LR/nt (LR/cd: NWA)Carcharhinus porosus smalltail shark Carcharhinus signatus night sharkCarcharias taurus sand tiger shark VU A1ab+2dCarcharodon carcharias great white shark APP III VU A1cd+2cdCentrophorus granulosus gulper shark VU A1abd+2dCentrophorus harrissoni dumb gulper sharkCentrophorus uyato little gulper sharkCetorhinus maximus basking shark APP II VU A1ad+2d (EN A1d: NP + NEA)Dalatias licha kitefin shark DD (LR/nt: NEA)Dasyatis fluviorum estuary stingrayDasyatis garouaensis smooth freshwater stingray VU B1+2cde, C2b

AFS (N. Am.) d,e NMFS (USA) f SAG (AUS) g MLRA (SA)h

LR/lcP

DD (A)VU (US) + NA (CA)

VU (A)

(A)P

LR/ntLR/lcDD

P (A)LR/lc

P

LR/lcDD

LR/ntLR/nt

VU (WA + EP) P LR/ntP

LR/nt (A)P

VU (WA) PVU (WA) P EN (P) AN 4CD (WA + EP) P VU (P) AN 5

DDEN (EPBCA)VU (EPBCA)

VU (EP) + CD(WA) P DD (P)DD (A)LR/nt

27

CH

AP

TE

R 3: LE

GIS

LAT

ION, P

ER

MIT

TIN

G, ET

HIC

S AN

D CO

MM

ER

CIA

L CO

LLEC

TO

RS

Table 3.1. Conservation and permitting status of elasmobranchs showing: Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) status; World Conservation Union(IUCN) Red List status; the American Fisheries Society (AFS) status list of Elasmobranch Species Distinct Population Segments; species regulated by the United States FederalGovernment National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); species regulated by the Shark Advisory Group (SAG) of the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; andspecies regulated by the Marine Living Resources Act (MLRA) of the South Africa National Government.

a. 2000 IUCN Red List status categories: Critically Endangered (CR); Endangered (EN); Vulnerable (VU); Lower Risk (LR) where nt = near threatened, cd = conservation dependent and lc = least concern; and Data Deficient (DD).

b. 2000 IUCN Red List status criteria: Upper case letters, numbers and lower case letters adjacent to the category listings (e.g., A1abd+2d) refer to specific criteria defined for each red list category. The detailed descriptions of these criteria areavailable on the red lost web site (www 8).

c. 2000 IUCN Red List status regions: Australasian subpopulation (AU); Brazilian subpopulation (BR); Eastern Pacific subpopulation (EP); Gulf of Mexico (GM); Northeast Atlantic subpopulation (NEA); North Pacific subpopulation (NP); NorthwestAtlantic subpopulation (NWA); Southwest Atlantic subpopulation SWA); Southwest Indian Ocean subpopulation (SWI); and Thailand subpopulation (TH).

d. AFS (North America) categories: Endangered (ED); Threatened (T); Vulnerable (VU); Conservation Dependant (CD); Not at Risk (NR); and not assessed (NA).e. AFS (North America) regions: Canada (CA); Eastern Pacific (EP); Gulf of California (GC); Gulf of Mexico (GM); United States territorial waters (US); and Western Atlantic (WA).f. NMFS (USA) categories: Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (E); Possession is prohibited in commercial and recreational fisheries (P).g. SAG (Australia) categories: Categories are the same as used by the 2000 IUCN Red List (see footnote “a”). Parenthetical annotations: Protected in some state, territory, and/ or Commonwealth waters (P); Potentially of concern given

consistent high catch rates in non-target fisheries (A); Being considered for listing as a threatened species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBCA).

h. MLRA (South Africa) categories: Annexure 4 (non- saleable recreational list), fishers are allowed 10 in total from this list but no more than 5 of any one species (AN 4); Annexure 5 (specially protected list), no take allowed (AN 5).


Dasyatis laosensis Mekong stingray EN A1cde+2cde, B1+2ceDipturus batis skate EN A1abcd+2bcdDipturus laevis barndoor skate VU A1bcdFurgaleus macki whiskery shark LR/cd Galeocerdo cuvier tiger shark LR/nt Galeorhinus galeus tope shark VU A1bd (LR/cd: AU)Glyphis gangeticus Ganges shark CR A1cde+2cde, C2bGlyphis glyphis (species A) speartooth shark EN C2aGlyphis sp. (species C) northern river sharkHaploblepharus edwardsii puffadder shyshark LR/nt Haploblepharus fuscus brown shyshark LR/nt Hemitriakis leucoperiptera whitefin topeshark EN B1+2ce, C2bHeteroscyllium colcloughi bluegray carpetshark VU C2bHexanchus griseus bluntnose sixgill shark LR/nt Hexanchus nakamurai bigeye sixgill shark Himantura chaophraya freshwater stingray VU A1bcde+2ce (CR A1bcde+2ce: TH)Himantura fluviatilis Ganges stingray EN A1cde+2cde, B1+2cHimantura oxyrhynchus marbled whipray EN B1+2cHimantura signifer white-rimmed whipray EN B1+2cHydrolagus ogilbyi Ogilby's ghostsharkHypogaleus hyugaensis blacktip topeshark LR/nt Isurus oxyrinchus shortfin mako LR/nt Isurus paucus longfin makoLamna ditropis salmon shark DD Lamna nasus porbeagle LR/nt (VU A1bd: NEA) (LR/cd: NWA)Leptocharias smithii barbeled houndshark LR/nt Manta birostris giant mantaMegachasma pelagios megamouth shark DD Mobula mobular devil fish VU A1cdMustelus antarcticus gummy shark LR/cd Mustelus canis dusky smooth-hound LR/nt Mustelus lenticulatus spotted estuary smooth-hound LR/cd Negaprion brevirostris lemon shark LR/nt Notorynchus cepedianus broadnose sevengill shark DD (LR/nt: EP)Odontaspis ferox smalltooth sand tiger sharkOdontaspis noronhai bigeye sand tiger shark DD Orectolobus maculatus spotted wobbegongOrectolobus ornatus ornate wobbegongPoroderma africanum striped catshark LR/nt Poroderma pantherinum leopard catshark Potamotrygon brachyura short-tailed river stingray DD Potamotrygon henlei bigtooth river stingray DD


VU (CA + WA)LR/cdLR/lc

LR/cd (A)

CR (P)EN (P)

VU (EPBCA)P DDP

VU

(A)LR/lc

LR/lc (A)P

LR/lc (A)

LR/lcDD (P)

LR/lc (A)

P DD (A)LR/nt (P)

PDDDD

AN 4AN 4

28

J. M. C

HO

RO

MA

NS

KI

Table 3.1 (continued). Conservation and permitting status of elasmobranchs showing: Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) status; World ConservationUnion (IUCN) Red List status; the American Fisheries Society (AFS) status list of Elasmobranch Species Distinct Population Segments; species regulated by the United States FederalGovernment National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); species regulated by the Shark Advisory Group (SAG) of the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; andspecies regulated by the Marine Living Resources Act (MLRA) of the South Africa National Government.


Potamotrygon leopoldi white-blotched river stingray DD Potamotrygon motoro ocellate river stingray DD Prionace glauca blue shark LR/nt Pristidae sawfishes (all species)Pristiophorus cirratus longnose sawshark LR/nt Pristis clavata dwarf sawfish EN A1acd+2cdPristis microdon largetooth sawfish EN A1bcde+2bcde (CR A1abc+2cd: SEA)Pristis pectinata smalltooth sawfish EN A1bcd+2cd (CR A1abc+2cd: NWA + SWA)Pristis perotteti large-tooth sawfish CR A1abc+2cdPristis pristis common sawfish CR A1abc+2cdPristis zijsron longcomb sawfish EN A1bcd+2cdPseudocarcharias kamoharai crocodile shark LR/nt Raja binoculata big skate LR/nt Raja clavata Thornback ray LR/nt Raja microocellata Small-eyed ray LR/nt Raja sp. L Maugaen skate EN B1+2cRhincodon typus whale shark APP II VU A1bd+2dRhinobatos horkeli Brazilian guitarfish CR A1bd+2bdRhizoprionodon porosus Caribbean sharpnose sharkRhynchobatus djiddensis giant guitarfish VU A1bd+2dSchroederichthys bivius narrowmouthed catshark DD Scoliodon laticaudus spadenose catshark LR/nt Scyliorhinus capensis yellowspotted catshark LR/nt Scylliogaleus quecketti flapnose houndshark VU B1+2c, C2bSphyrna lewini scalloped hammerhead LR/nt Sphyrna mokarran great hammerhead DD Sphyrna zygaena smooth hammerhead LR/nt Squalus acanthias spiny dogfish LR/nt Squatina argentina Argentine angelshark DD Squatina californica Pacific angelshark LR/nt Squatina dumeril sand devilSquatina guggenheim angular angelshark VU A1bd+A2d (EN A1bd+2d: BR)Squatina occulta hidden angelshark EN A1abd+A2dSquatina squatina angelshark VU A1abcd+A2dTaeniura lymma bluespotted ribbontail ray LR/nt Triaenodon obesus whitetip reef shark LR/nt Triakis acutipinna sharpfin houndshark VU C2bTriakis megalopterus sharptooth houndshark LR/nt Triakis semifasciata leopard shark LR/cd Urogymnus asperrimus porcupine ray VU A1bd, B1+2bcdUrogymnus ukpam thorny freshwater stingray EN B1+2abcd


LR/lc (A)AN 5

LR/cdEN

CR (P)ED (US + GM) E DDED (US + GM + GC)

EN (A)LC/lc

VU (EP)

EN (EPBCA)CD (USA + AT + GM); NR (GC) P DD (P)

PLR/lc

LR/lcLR/lcLR/lcLR/lc

P

LR/lcLR/lc

AN 4

LR/nt

29

CH

AP

TE

R 3: LE

GIS

LAT

ION, P

ER

MIT

TIN

G, ET

HIC

S AN

D CO

MM

ER

CIA

L CO

LLEC

TO

RS

Table 3.1 (continued). Conservation and permitting status of elasmobranchs showing: Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) status; World ConservationUnion (IUCN) Red List status; the American Fisheries Society (AFS) status list of Elasmobranch Species Distinct Population Segments; species regulated by the United States FederalGovernment National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); species regulated by the Shark Advisory Group (SAG) of the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; andspecies regulated by the Marine Living Resources Act (MLRA) of the South Africa National Government.

30

J. M. CHOROMANSKI

Conservation assessment lists

The conservation status of many elasmobranchspecies has been assessed by a variety of non-governmental (NGO) conservation agencies, inthe form of classification lists. These lists haveno governmental or regulatory authority per se,however, they often form the basis of existing orfuture fishery regulations.

IUCN Red list of Threatened Species™

The IUCN (World Conservation Union) bringstogether states, government agencies, and adiverse range of NGOs, in a unique worldpartnership with over 980 members in some 140countries. The IUCN’s mission is “…to influence,encourage, and assist societies throughout theworld to conserve the integrity and diversity ofnature and to ensure that any use of naturalresources is equitable and ecological lysustainable…” (www5). Although the IUCN hasno regulatory power, it does seek to influence theimplementation of international conservationconventions such as CITES, World Heritage, andthe Convention on Biological Diversity.

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ isnow widely recognized as the mostcomprehensive, apolitical global system forevaluating the conservation status of plant andanimal species. From small beginnings, almost30 years ago, the IUCN Red List has grown insize and complexity. The IUCN’s scientificallyr igorous approach to determining r isk ofextinction, introduced in 1994 and applicable toall species and infra-specific taxa, has virtuallybecome a world standard (Anon., 1994). Thesecriteria were updated in 2001 (Anon., 2001b), inpart to address concerns over the application ofearlier criteria to commercially exploited marinefishes, although most elasmobranch evaluationsare still based on the criteria established in 1994.The last major printed publication of the IUCN RedList was in 2000 (Hilton-Taylor, 2000). Since 2000,the IUCN Red List has been updated annually ontheir official web site (www8). The next printedupdate of the IUCN Red List is planned for 2004.

The main purpose of the IUCN Red List is tocatalogue and highlight those taxa that are at riskof global extinction (i.e., “critically endangered”,“endangered”, and “vulnerable”). The IUCN RedList includes information on taxa that arecategorized as “extinct or extinct in the wild”; “datadeficient” (i.e., taxa that cannot be evaluated

because of insufficient information); and “nearthreatened” (i.e., taxa that are close to threatenedthresholds). The IUCN Red List’s regular programof updates and publications provides a means ofmonitoring changes in the status of listed species.

Between 1996 and 2000, the number of fishspecies on the IUCN Red List increaseddramatically, largely as a result of an improvedcoverage of the sharks and rays. The 1996 IUCNRed List (Baille and Groombride, 1996) included32 species of elasmobranchs, while the 2000IUCN Red List (Hilton-Taylor, 2000) included 95species (Table 3.1). A review of the IUCN RedList assessments for all chondrichthyan fishes isscheduled for 2004. [Author’s Note (September,2004): The current web-based IUCN Red List nowcontains 185 species of elasmobranchs (www 8).]

AFS

Musick et al. (2000), under the auspices of theAmerican Fisheries Society (AFS), published thefirst recognized list of marine fish species andmarine fish stocks at risk of extinction (MSRE).The AFS list identified 82 species or populationscategorized as “vulnerable”, “threatened”, or“endangered” in North American waters, 22 ofwhich may be “vulnerable” to global extinction.The status of these organisms was determinedby applying risk criteria (i.e., rarity, small rangel imits and endemici ty, special ized habitatrequirements, population resilience to decline,and fecundity) developed from peer-reviewedknowledge and expert scientific opinion. Moststocks faced more than one risk factor, but lifehistory l imitat ions (e.g., low or very lowreproduct ive capacity) were consideredparticularly important.

A fish stock refers to a group of fish that can betreated as a single unit for management purposes.In identifying which units were at risk, Musick etal. (2000) employed the concept of distinctpopulation segments (DPSs). DPSs were definedas populations markedly separated from otherpopulat ions of the same organism, as aconsequence of signif icant physical,physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors(Anon., 1996).

Fisheries scientists believe it is important torecognize threatened fish populations early intheir decl ine and implement conservat ionmeasures that will preclude further populationreduction or extinction. AFS categories deal with

31

CHAPTER 3: LEGISLATION, PERMITTING, ETHICS AND COMMERCIAL COLLECTORS

extinction risk, and not growth or recruitment,except where over-fishing threatens recruitmentand thus a DPS with extinction. AFS recognizesthe following categories of risk: (1) “endangered”,i.e., high risk of extinction in the wild in theimmediate future (years); (2) “threatened”, i.e., notendangered but facing risk of extinction in the nearfuture (decades); (3) “vulnerable” (specialconcern), i.e., not endangered or threatenedseverely, but at possible risk of falling into one ofthese categories in the near future; (4)“conservation dependent”, i.e., reduced butstabilized or recovering under a continuingconservation plan; and (5) “not at risk”, i.e., notat apparent risk of extinction. Of the 82 specieslisted in the AFS publication (Musick et al., 2000),11 are elasmobranch species (Table 3.1).

The constraints of lists

Although conservation assessment lists areintended to help protect and conserveelasmobranch species, and representconsiderable effort and research, they present arisk to public aquariums.

Firstly, there is the issue of non-standardized, ifnot confusing, nomenclature. For example, theIUCN Red List classes a species as “threatened”if it falls into any of the “critically endangered”,“endangered”, or “vulnerable” categories.Similarly, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA)classifies species as either “threatened” or“endangered”, based on population status, but itis common for ESA-assessed animals to bereferred to in general as simply “endangered”. Inaddition, the AFS list has adopted similar, but notidentical, classifications as the IUCN Red List.

Secondly, there is the issue of confusingmanagement units when distinguishing betweena species, a distinct population, DPSs, or stocks.Most non-scientific individuals do not differentiatebetween the various forms of “endangered” and/or “threatened”, nor between DPS’s and species.This confusion can lead to bad legislation andespecially confusing law enforcement. Aquariumshave already observed this problem with thegreen sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), listed by ESAas “endangered” but having a Caribbeanpopulation classified under the less restrictive“threatened”.

Thirdly, well intended fishery regulators may adoptconservation recommendations and incorporateassessment lists verbatim, creating blanket

legislation that has no exemption for the collectionand live display of elasmobranchs. Sweepinginterpretations of this nature can preclude theopportunity of presenting important conservationmessages to the public, through engaging andeducational live displays.

It is essential that aquarists and fishery managersfamiliarize themselves with the different definitionsused for, and the rat ionale behind, al lconservation assessment listings. In addition, itis important to understand the difference betweenadvisory, non-statutory lists (e.g., the IUCN RedList, the AFS MSRE, etc.) and lists enactedthrough legislation (see below).

National regulations: USA

Atlantic FMP, Shark FMP, and EFPs

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservationand Management Act (M-S Act) of 1976, is theprimary legislation governing the conservationand management of marine fisheries within theU.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The M-SAct requires the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS), and eight regional fishery managementcouncils (i.e., New England, Mid-Atlantic, SouthAtlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, Pacific, NorthPacific, and Western Pacific), to analyze fisheriesunder their jurisdiction and develop FisheryManagement Plans (FMPs). In addition, NMFSworks with three interstate marine fisheriescommissions (i.e., the Atlantic States, Gulf States,and Pacif ic States) to monitor f isheriesmanagement at the state level, and to coordinatefishery issues that cross over state and federalboundaries. In general, waters under thejurisdiction of individual coastal states extend fromthe shoreline to a limit of three nautical miles (ninenautical miles in the case of Texas, the west coastof Florida, and Puerto Rico). Federally managedwaters continue offshore from state waters to a200 nautical mile limit (except where interceptedby the EEZ of another country). Management ofelasmobranchs in state waters falls under thecontrol of that state’s regulatory authority; usuallythe marine division of the respective fish andwildlife department (Anon., 2001a).

In the early 1980’s, directed Atlantic sharkfisheries expanded rapidly when shark meat wasmarketed as an acceptable alternative to tuna andswordfish. Shark landings increased by almost300% between 1985 and 1994. This trend wasidentified by the early 1990’s and the first federal

32

J. M. CHOROMANSKI

shark fishery management plan was developedby NMFS in 1993. The 1993 Fishery ManagementPlan for Sharks of the Atlantic Ocean (Shark FMP)separated 39 species of sharks into three groups(i.e., large coastal sharks or LCS, small coastalsharks or SCS, and pelagic sharks or PS) andcatch limits were imposed (Anon., 1993; Anon.,2001a). The three categories were based on thefishery in which the sharks were caught, ratherthan biological factors. LCS consisted of targetedcommercial and sport fished species; SCSconsisted of largely near-shore species, caughtprimarily by sport fishers and as by-catch ofshrimp, long-line, and gillnet fisheries; and PS,offshore and deepwater species, were harvestedprimarily as by-catch of the tuna and swordfishlong-line fisheries, and were also targeted by sportfishers (www9).

In 1997, NMFS prohibited the possession of fivespecies of shark, the great white, whale, basking,sand tiger (Carcharias taurus), and bigeye sandtiger (Odontaspis noronhai) sharks. Thesespecies were identified as highly susceptible tooverexploi tat ion and prohibi t ion was aprecautionary measure to ensure a directedfishery did not develop (Anon., 2001a). From thispoint forward, an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP)was required to collect sand tiger sharks, the onlyspecies of the five prohibited species to beroutinely displayed by aquariums. During thesame year (1997), NMFS added dusky(Carcharhinus obscurus), night (Carcharhinussignatus), and sand tiger sharks to the candidatespecies list for possible inclusion under theEndangered Species Act (see ESA below).

In 1999, NMFS added two categories (i.e.,Prohibited Species, and Deepwater and OtherSharks) to the Shark FMP (Anon., 1999b; Anon.,2001a). NMFS then issued the Final FisheryManagement Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish,and Sharks (Atlantic FMP). The retention of anadditional 14 shark species was prohibited,bringing the total to 19 protected species (Table3.1). In addition, the new Atlantic FMP imposedan annual catch quota of 60 metric tons wholeweight (43 metric tons dressed weight) on sharksintended for display in public aquariums. Thisfigure represents a tiny fraction of the annualcommercial fishery catch quota of 2,028 metrictons dressed weight, broken down as follows:

1. Large coastal sharks (LCS), including (a)ridgeback species, i.e., the sandbar (Carchar-hinus plumbeus), silky (Carcharhinus falciformis),and tiger (Galeocerdo cuvier) sharks: 620 metric

tons; and (b) non-ridgeback species, i.e., theblacktip (Carcharhinus limbatus), spinner(Carcharhinus brevipinna), lemon (Negaprionbrevirostris), bull (Carcharhinus leucas), andnurse (Ginglymostoma cirratum) sharks, andsmooth (Sphyrna zygaena), scalloped (Sphyrnalewini), and great (Sphyrna mokarran)hammerhead sharks: 196 metric tons.

2. Small coastal sharks (SCS), including theAtlantic sharpnose (Rhizoprionodon terrae-novae), blacknose (Carcharhinus acronotus),finetooth (Carcharhinus isodon), and bonnet-head (Sphyrna tiburo) sharks: 359 metric tons.

3. Pelagic Sharks (PS), including (a) shortfinmako (Isurus oxyrinchus), thintail thresher(Alopias vulpinus), and oceanic whitetip(Carcharhinus longimanus) sharks: 488 metrictons; (b) porbeagle sharks (Lamna nasus): 92metric tons; and (c) blue sharks (Prionaceglauca): 273 metric tons.

Once shark catch quotas were established in1993, it immediately became necessary to applyfor EFPs when annual catch quotas wereexceeded and corresponding fisheries closed forthe season. This had a particular impact on LCSspecies, i.e., there was a demand for LCS speciesduring periods when the fishery had already beenclosed. It is unclear when the first EFP was issued,but many requests were made between 1993 and1998. The evolving EFP process, along with agrowing list of prohibited species, led to theproposal for a dedicated public display quota in1999, and a one-time quota of 75 sand tigersharks was established for that year. Dataprovided by NMFS (Stirratt, pers. com.) indicatedthat 28 EFPs were requested and issued between2000 and 2002. A total of 2,793 sharks wererequested for public display and 10,577 wereauthorized ( including sharks for researchpurposes), representing <50% of the annualdisplay quota. The number of sharks actuallycol lected in those same years was 144,representing <1% of the 60 metric ton displayquota. NMFS is revising the requirements forEFPs and should release this update in 2004.

Although the status of most shark species in thePacific Ocean is unknown, NMFS is developing aPacific Highly Migratory Species FMP which willinclude certain shark species in California, Oregon,and Washington. Existing FMPs cover certainshark species in Hawaii, Guam, and AmericanSamoa (i.e., the Western Pacific Pelagic FisheriesFMP), and Alaska (i.e., the North Pacific FMP).

33


ESA

The U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)provides for the conservation and protection ofspecies which have clear potent ial forendangerment or extinction throughout all, or asignif icant portion of, their range, and theconservation of the ecosystems on which theydepend. There are two classifications under whicha species may be listed. Species determined tobe in imminent danger of extinction throughoutall of a significant portion of their range are listedas “endangered”. Species determined likely tobecome endangered in the foreseeable future arelisted as “threatened”. A “species” is defined byESA to mean a species, a subspecies, or, forvertebrates only, a distinct population.

ESA authorizes the fol lowing: (1) thedeterminat ion and l ist ing of species as“endangered” and “threatened”; (2) the prohibitionof unauthorized taking, possession, sale, andtransport of “endangered” species (Note: The term“take” is defined by ESA to mean harass, harm,pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture orcollect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.The term “harm” is further defined to mean an actwhich actually kills or injures wildlife. Such actmay include significant habitat modification ordegradation where it actually kills or injures wildlifeby significantly impairing essential behavioralpatterns, including breeding, feeding, orsheltering.); (3) the acquisition of land for theconservation of listed species, using land andwater conservation funds; (4) the establishmentof cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid tostates that establish and maintain active andadequate programs for endangered andthreatened wildlife and plants; (5) the assessmentof civil and criminal penalties for violating the Actor regulations; and (6) the payment of rewards toanyone furnishing information leading to the arrestand conviction for any violation of the Act or anyregulation issued thereunder.

In general, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS) coordinates ESA activities for terrestrialand freshwater species, whi le NMFS isresponsible for marine and anadromous species.After a listing petition is filed (i.e., to classify aspecies as “endangered” or “threatened”), it isdecided whether the pet i t ion presentedsubstantial information to warrant listing. If so,NMFS conducts a status review of the species,initiated by a public solicitation for information,and data relevant to population size and lifehistory of the species are considered (Anon.,

2002d). A final decision must be made within oneyear of issuance of the proposal. NMFS (or FWS)can initiate a status review without a petition.

A species is listed if it is “threatened” or“endangered” due to any of the following five factors:(1) present or threatened destruction, modification,or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overuse forcommercial, recreational, scientific, or educationalpurposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacyof existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) othernatural or man-made factors affecting its continuedexistence. After a species has been listed, arecovery plan is prepared which identifiesconservation measures to help the species recover.In addition, ESA requires that all federal agenciesuse their authorities to conduct conservationprograms and to consult with NMFS (or FWS)concerning the potential effects of their actions onany species listed under the act.

Barndoor skates (Dipturus laevis), common(Pristis pristis) and smalltooth (Pristis pectinata)sawfishes, and sand tiger, dusky, and night sharkshave all been added to the NMFS candidate listfor threatened and endangered species, dueprincipally to large documented declines causedby over-fishing (Diaz-Soltera, 1999). A candidatespecies is, as the name implies, a candidate forlisting under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).More specifically, a candidate species is a speciesor vertebrate population for which reliableinformation is available that suggests a listingunder the ESA may be warranted. There is nomandatory federal protection required under ESAfor a candidate species, however NMFS urgesvoluntary protection for such species. [Author’snote (September, 2004): To better reflect the purposeof the NMFS candidate list, candidate species arenow considered “Species of Concern” (64 FederalRegister 19975 - April 15, 2004). Only those speciesunder active consideration for ESA listing are referredto as “Candidate Species.” Neither status carriesprocedural or substantive protection under the ESA.]

The smalltooth sawfish, a popular aquariumspecies, was added to the ESA candidate specieslist in 1991, removed in 1997, and reinstated in1999. In November of 1999, NMFS received apetition from the Center for Marine Conservationrequesting that the smalltooth sawfish be listedas endangered under ESA. NMFS completed astatus review of the smalltooth sawfish inDecember 2000 and published a proposed ruleto list the U.S. population of this species asendangered under ESA on 16 Apr i l 2001

(www10). On 1 Apri l 2003, the small toothsawfish was finally listed as an endangeredspecies under ESA, the first elasmobranchspecies to be so l is ted (Anon., 2003). InSeptember 2002, a separate petition to list thebarndoor skate was ruled as “…not warranted atthis time…” (Anon., 2002d). The barndoor skateremains on the ESA candidate species list.

State legislation and the ASMFC

Every coastal state in the USA has some form ofmarine fisheries unit within the state agencyresponsible for fish and wildlife management.Each state has different regulations and permittingrequirements governing the collection or fishingof elasmobranch species, however, many statesare beginning to follow federal regulations (i.e.,NMFS), especially with regard to prohibitedspecies. Some states even require collectors toobtain a NMFS EFP as a prerequisite to applyingfor a permit within their state.

In the past few years, some state agencies havebecome concerned about the collection activitiesof public aquariums and commercial collectors.In particular, state agencies have been concernedthat some organizations have acquired permitsfrom more than one state, as well as the federalgovernment, and viewed this activity as doubledipping, i.e., the potential to collect greaternumbers of animals by requesting permits frommore than one jurisdiction. In reality, aquariumshave appl ied for permits from differentgeographical regions to provide collectionflexibility (i.e., allowing for collection duringconvenient times where animals might best befound). Regardless, agencies in some states,unconvinced of the best intentions of publicaquariums, requested that shark collectionpermitting be coordinated by the interstate AtlanticStates Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC).

The ASMFC was formed by the 15 Atlantic coastalstates (Maine to Florida) in 1942 to assist themanagement and conservation of shared coastalfishery resources under an interstate compact. In1998, the policy board requested that the ASMFCinvestigate and consider options for enhancingthe management of sharks in state waters. In1999, workshops (technical and policy) were heldto collect state-by-state information on sharkfisheries, review the federal FMP, and developoptions for possible shark management in statewaters by the ASMFC. Although no consensuswas reached, attendees agreed that the

Commission should move forward with thedevelopment of a shark FMP. In 2001, themanagement and science committee of theASMFC met with NMFS to review the databasedetailing permits issued for scientific and displaypurposes, and to discuss the effects of removingpermitted animals from wild populations.

At the time of writing, NMFS would like to pursuesome sort of umbrella exempted fishing permitbetween NMFS and the ASMFC states, tofacilitate enforcement (White, pers. com.). Theexact mechanism is unclear, but if a single permitwere valid for both state and federal waters, itwould help assuage fears of double dipping. Inaddition, the ASMFC has invited two aquariumrepresentatives, via the American Zoo & AquariumAssociation (AZA), to sit on their newly formedshark permit workgroup. As yet, there have notbeen permitting problems or concerns with statesalong the Gulf of Mexico or the Pacific coastalstates. No regional shark management plans arein effect for these areas.

National regulations: Australia

Management responsibility and jurisdiction forAustralian marine resources, including sharks, areshared between the six states, the NorthernTerritory, and the Australian Federal Government(Commonwealth). The states and territories ofAustralia have jurisdiction over waters out to 3nautical miles, and the Commonwealth hasjurisdiction for waters outside these limits to theedge of a 200 nautical mile Australian FishingZone (AFZ). This system presented challengesto the management of stocks occurring in bothinshore and offshore waters, and was resolvedby establishing offshore constitutional settlement(OCS) arrangements. Under OCSs, fish stockscan be managed through either a Joint Authorityof State and Commonwealth bodies, or under themanagement of a single jurisdiction throughout aspecies’ range. (Anon., 2001c; Anon., 2002c).

AFMA and SAG

The Australian Fisheries Management Authority(AFMA) is the Commonwealth statutory authorityresponsible for the sustainable use and efficientmanagement of fishery resources on behalf of theAustralian community and key stakeholders. TheAFMA manages fisheries within the 200 nauticalmile AFZ and, in some cases, by agreement withthe Australian states, in state waters. The AFMA

J. M. CHOROMANSKI

34

provides fisheries management, and advisory,compliance, and licensing services (www11).AFMA was established in 1992 following thepassage through Australian Parliament of theFisheries Administration and Fisheries Manage-ment Acts in 1991. These two pieces of legislationcreated statutory authority for the day-to-daymanagement of fisheries, vested in the AFMA, andfor broader fisheries policies, internationalnegotiations, and strategic issues, administeredby the former Department of Primary Industriesand Energy, now called the Department ofAgriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry Australia(AFFA). AFFA established a Shark AdvisoryGroup (SAG) and together developed Australia’sdraft NPOA-Sharks, published as a publicconsultation document in July of 2002 (Anon.,2002c).

While Australia’s contribution to the global sharkcatch is relatively small (<1.5%), sharks are asignificant part (~5%) of the total quantity ofAustralia’s wild fish production. Of the over 1,000species of chondrichthyans identified worldwidenearly 300 species are found in Australian watersand more than half of these are endemic (Anon.,2002c). The Australian shark assessment reportidentified 178 shark species as caught fromAustralian waters (Anon., 2001c). Of thesesharks, 60 species and five families have beenidentified as species “of concern” (Table 3.1),including those on the 2000 IUCN Red List, thoseassessed against IUCN criteria by Pogonoski etal. (2002), and those identified as potentially ofconcern on the basis of consistently high catchrates recorded in Commonwealth fishing records.Two-thirds of the landings for the 1998-1999season fell into 15 of the 178 shark species orgroups.

Of the 95 chondrichthyan species listed in the2000 IUCN Red List, 47 occur in Australianwaters, with 14 categorized as “threatened” andthe remainder listed as “lower risk” (26 species)or “data deficient” (7 species). Of the “threatened”species, five (i.e., of the family Pristidae) areconsidered “endangered” and nine are considered“vulnerable”. An IUCN Red List assessmentworkshop was held in Australia in March of 2003in order to review all Australian species ofchondrichthyan f ishes. The results of thisworkshop will be incorporated into the IUCN RedList to be published in 2004.

As more information on elasmobranch speciesbecomes available, and more comprehensive riskassessments become possible, the conservation

status assigned to each species will be updatedon the IUCN Red List website (www8). There hasbeen some concern that the criteria used for IUCNRed List assessments are not directly applicableto marine species. Although the criteria andcategories have been recently updated (Anon.,2001b), most of the current elasmobranch RedList assessments (www8) are still based oncriteria from 1994 (Anon., 1994). It is hoped thatthese assessments will soon be revised usingIUCN Red List criteria from 2001 (Anon., 2001b).The conservation status of Australian sharkspecies (Table 3.1) should therefore be regardedas the best currently available, rather than adefinitive statement (Anon., 2002c).

EPBCA

There has been a recent boost to theenvironmental oversight of fisheries managementin Australia, primarily by the CommonwealthDepartment of Environment and Heritage, orEnvironment Austral ia (EA). Under theEnvironment Protect ion and Biodiversi tyConservat ion Act of 1999 (EPBCA), al lCommonwealth-managed fisheries are subject tostrategic assessments, while those fisheriesmanaged by states or territories, which impactprotected species, may also be assessed (Anon.,2001c). EPBCA strategic assessments are madeagainst the Commonwealth Guidelines for theEcological ly Sustainable Management ofFisheries. The EPBCA came into effect on 16 July2000, replacing five Commonwealth environmentstatutes from the 1970’s and 1980’s, including theEndangered Species Protection Act of 1992.Some states apply additional environmentalassessments to fisheries under their jurisdiction,independent of species protected and fisheriesassessed under the EPBCA.

At the time of writing, the following elasmobranchspecies are protected under the EPBCA (www13):(1) the East Coast population of sand tiger or greynurse sharks and the speartooth shark (Glyphissp. “A”), considered to be “critically endangered”;(2) the northern river shark (Glyphis sp. “C”),considered to be “endangered”; and (3) the Westcoast population of sand tiger or grey nursesharks, the largetooth sawfish (Pristis microdon),the whale shark, and the great white shark,considered to be “vulnerable”. It is a requirementof the EPBCA to prepare recovery plans for all“endangered” and “vulnerable” species that occurwithin Commonwealth jurisdiction. The recoveryplan must include research and management


35

actions necessary to stop the decline of a targetspecies so its chances of long-term survival inthe wild are maximized. Of the species currentlyprotected, detailed recovery plans have beenprepared for the sand tiger and great white sharks(Anon., 2002e; Anon., 2002f).

State legislation

For species not covered by the EPBCA, statefishery regulations apply. For example, the bigeyesand tiger shark is protected in New South Wales,and the basking and megamouth (Megachasmapelagios) sharks are protected in Tasmania. Intotal, nine elasmobranch species have some formof protection at either the Commonwealth and/orstate level where, in general, their collection isprohibited (Table 3.1).

Public aquariums are required to apply for permits,through their respect ive state f isheriesmanagement agency, to collect, hold, and displaymarine life. Many aquariums therefore obtainanimals through licensed commercial collectors.As long as the aquarium has relevant statefisheries permits to hold and display marine life,the commercial collector is responsible formeeting permit requirements to collect the animalsfrom a specific region.

In the event that a public aquarium intends tocollect an elasmobranch species directly (e.g., fora species requiring specialized capture ortransport techniques) they may be issued aspecial collection permit. Special collectionpermits al low for a restr icted number ofindividuals, for the elected species, to be collectedand held each year. Permit titles vary between statesbut in each case there is a permit issued to collect,hold, and display marine life, and a special permitawarded, on application, for the display of protectedspecies (Thorburn, pers. com.).

While most commercial fishing activities are notdirected at providing live specimens, there is agrowing number of fishermen in Australia whohave a real passion and concern for marine life,and are interested in learning how to minimizedamage to both fishes and fisheries. Cooperationwith these fishermen provides an excellentopportunity to collect smaller, robust species,such as smooth-hounds (Mustelus spp.),wobbegong sharks (Orectolobus spp.), etc. Ofcourse, collected species must be covered by thefishermen’s license and must not be protectedunder the EPBCA or state Acts.

Aquariums in Australia are unable to purchasespecimens from members of the public or amateurfishermen, although they may accept specimensas a donation.

National regulations: South Africa

The coastal environs of South Africa are subjectto legislation administered by local, provincial, andfederal authorities. Responsibility for coordinatingpolicy specific to the coast and its resources hasbeen delegated to the Department ofEnvironmental Affairs and Tourism, Branch ofMarine and Coastal Management (MCM).

The Marine Living Resources Act (MLRA—Act 18of 1998) was introduced during September of1998. The MLRA consolidated the Sea FisheriesAct of 1988 and provincial nature conservationordinances, both of which had previouslyregulated marine resources. The MLRA was anoverdue revision of the Sea Fisheries Act, whichbenefited some sectors of society and stoppedothers from gaining access to marine resources.The MLRA al lowed previously excludedcommunities full access to the fishing industry,and prepared the country for free trade andderegulated markets. The guiding principle ofthe MLRA stresses that the natural marine livingresources of South Afr ica, as wel l as theenvironment in which they exist, are a nationalasset and the heritage of all South Africanpeople.

The main thrust of the MLRA and regulationgazette 6284, detailing specific regulations underthe MLRA, is that anyone desiring to take a livingorganism from the marine environment is requiredto purchase a permit to do so. The user-paysprinciple generates income which goes toward theresearch, management, and control of resources.Recreational fishing is regulated via a fee-basedpermit system and permits may be obtained atany post office. Small-scale and commercialfishing activities are regulated by either the officeof the Minister of Environmental Affairs andTourism, or the Fisheries Transformation Council.

Part 3, Chapter 5 of Regulation Gazette Number6284 details fishing regulations pertaining to sharks.Protected species are categorized as either annex-ure 4 (“non-saleable recreational”) or annexure 5(“specially protected”) (Table 3.1). Another category,annexure 8 (“exploitable”), refers to species not cov-ered by annexure 4 or 5 whereby a total of 10 elas-mobranchs, of no size limit, may be taken.

J. M. CHOROMANSKI

36

Publ ic aquariums are required to obtainexemptions to the MLRA through an annualapplication (or renewal) of permits to the MCM.MLRA exemptions allow aquarium staff to collectand hold more than the normally permittednumber of marine taxa. Such exemptions specifythat animals shall be used for research or displayonly, and may not be sold.

In April of 1991, South Africa became the firstcountry to completely protect the great whiteshark. During 2000, the whale shark was givenlimited protection status in specific marineprotected areas. Any sharks, including those notspecifically listed, are afforded protection shouldthey occur within a marine protected area that isclosed to fishing or collecting for aquariums.

ETHICS

There are many ethical considerations associatedwith the maintenance of animals in a captiveenvironment. For an excellent overview, criticalanalysis, and detailed essays examining bothsides of the issue, albeit with a terrestrial zooperspective, the reader is directed to Norton etal. (1995) and Hutchins et al. (2003).

Aquariums should ensure that all animal exhibitsand husbandry procedures are ethically sound,not only because it is appropriate, but alsobecause of a growing public awareness andconcern for all animals in captive environments.The powerful public sentiment provoked bycaptive marine mammals today did not exist 40-50 years ago. As well-intended conservationgroups raise the public consciousness about otheranimal taxa, such as sharks, the public willbecome increasingly critical of the standardsemployed in displaying those taxa. Althoughsharks and stingrays are still feared by the generalpublic in many areas of the world, animal activistgroups are becoming increasingly interested intheir plight. It is only a matter of time beforeprotesters actively and consistently campaign forimproved condit ions on behalf of capt iveelasmobranchs. However, this change in publicopinion should not be viewed as a negativeinfluence. Rather, it should be viewed as atestament to the success of aquariums aseducational tools. In addition, protestationsdirected at improving captive conditions shouldbe embraced. We, as an industry, can alwaysimprove our exhibits and husbandry tech-niques, and should capitalize on the opportunityto do so.

Justification

Unlike terrestr ial zoos, aquariums mustmeticulously recreate the marine environmentwithin a very restricted area, providing not onlyphysical space and nutrition, but a slew ofcareful ly control led chemical and physicalparameters. Elasmobranchs are especiallydifficult to maintain in aquariums, for a variety ofreasons ( i .e., large size, relat ively poorlyunderstood physiology, etc.). As such, oursuccesses at maintaining elasmobranchs,although steadily improving, have been somewhatl imited. For the same reasons, capt iveelasmobranchs have not been studied asextensively, nor maintained for as long, as mostterrestrial vertebrates. Thus, alternatives to wildcollection, such as captive breeding, have notbeen widely accomplished.

Zoos and aquariums justify the collection anddisplay of wild animals through the educational,research, and conservation goals achieved. Thefollowing ethical question has often been posed:Do the benefits of a quality display of elasmo-branchs, at a professionally operated publicaquarium, having a strong educational, research,and conservation mission, outweigh the cost toindividual animal welfare? We, as an industry,believe that they do. Aquariums benefit societythrough the presentation of live animal displaysand associated public education programs.Aquariums contribute directly to the conservationof aquatic species and their habitat by raisingpublic awareness, by raising funds, and througha direct participation in research activities.Aquariums further advance conservation researchby testing new technologies (e.g., satellite pop-off tags, etc.), advancing aquatic animal medicine,developing animal handling techniques, andpublishing results stemming from same. Bystudying elasmobranchs in captivity, and applyingthat knowledge to their husbandry, aquariumsprovide valuable and practical information thatwould be difficult or impossible to gather in thewild (Hutchins et. al, 2003).

Protected species

When collecting elasmobranchs, considerationshould always be given to the conservation statusof a chosen species and requisite permitsobtained through appropriate channels. Ascaretakers of this important taxonomic group, wemust, and must be seen to, uphold speciesmanagement programs and work with


37

environmental, conservation, and regulatoryagencies to police our own industry. Carefulethical consideration should be given to thecollection and maintenance of threatened species,in particular where wild populations may sufferas a result of collection activities. Education andconservation benefits must be carefully weighedagainst risks to wild populations before threatenedspecies are considered for display in an aquarium.

Difficult species

Ethical principals should be applied to thecollection and maintenance of shark species that,historically, have not done well in captivity (e.g.,species easily damaged in aquariums such asshortfin mako sharks, and those that do not feedreadily and can perish after a short period, suchas great white sharks). Although it may appear tobe ethically unacceptable to collect a species thathas not been successfully maintained in anaquarium, to learn more about these difficultspecies it is necessary to challenge what is knownabout their husbandry, and this can only beachieved through trial and error. Indeed, asadvances have been made in both husbandry andfacility design, species previously thought to beproblematic or impossible to keep (e.g., tigersharks) are now being maintained successfully(Marin-Osorno, pers. com.; www14). Experi-mentation with difficult species should only beconsidered acceptable if attempts are wellresearched and planned, experienced personnelare used, and appropriate institutional resourcesare made avai lable. Specif ic pre-plannedparameters (e.g., minimum space requirements)and clear milestones enabling trials to be abortedbefore animal health is compromised should beestablished. In general, an aquarium should neveracquire a species that will outgrow their facilities.However, in some rare cases, the risks ofacquiring excessively large species may be offsetby knowledge gained (e.g., Hewitt, 1984; Ellis andMcCosker, 1991).

Releases

Releasing an elasmobranch into the wild, afterholding it in captivity, presents a risk to wildpopulations (i.e., through the introduction of exoticdiseases, exotic genetic material, etc.). However,if releases are undertaken correctly (i.e., withinthe elasmobranchs native range and near thepoint of collection), with appropriate precautions(i.e., pre-release isolation, medical evaluations,

etc.) , and with appropriate governmentalapproval, such releases can provide valuablescientific information (see Van Dykhuizen et al.,1998). Under the IUCN Species SurvivalCommission (SSC) Guidel ines for Re-Introductions (Anon., 1995; www12), this type ofrelease is defined as a “reinforcement” or“supplementat ion” ( i .e., the “…addit ion ofindividuals to an exist ing populat ion ofconspecifics…”), as opposed to a “re-introduction”(i.e., “…an attempt to establish a species in anarea which was once part of its historical range,but from which it has been extirpated or becomeextinct…”). Re-introductions are beyond thescope of this chapter, but if considered theyshould adhere to IUCN SSC guidelines and thoseof your regional zoological association (seebelow).

Professional affiliations

Ethical considerations are not normally legislatedby governments. Rather, ethics are developedwithin the culture of the countries in which we live,and often by the professional organizations towhich we belong. Most public aquariums belongto a regional zoo and aquarium association, themajority of which abide by a code of professionalethics. These codes address, amongst otherissues, the ethical considerations of animalacquisition and disposition through wild collection,commercial suppliers, and trade. A breach ofthese professional codes can result in some formof penalty to institutions or individuals.

Readers are urged to familiarize themselves withtheir regional zoo and aquarium association, andcorrespondingly, their code of ethics. Regionalassociations include: (1) the American Zoo &Aquarium Association (AZA); (2) the AfricanAssociation of Zoos and Aquaria (PAAZAB); (3)the Australasian Regional Associat ion ofZoological Parks and Aquariums (ARAZPA); (4)the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums(CAZA); (5) the European Union of AquariumCurators (EUAC) and the European Associationof Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA); (6) the South EastAsian Zoos Association (SEAZA); and (7) globally,the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums(WAZA).

Ethical constraints vary between countries andcultures, but presumably we share the samebasic goals, i.e., to provide excellent live animaldisplays for public education and broaderconserva t ion purposes , and to b reed

J. M. CHOROMANSKI

38

endangered or threatened species. By breedingendangered or threatened species we strive toprovide self-sustaining captive populations andthereby minimize or eliminate take from thewild, improve knowledge of basic biologicalparameters , and in some spec i f ic casesreinforce wild populations.

COMMERCIAL COLLECTORS

Commercial collectors are defined in this chapteras individuals or companies that collect marineorganisms directly from the wild for the purposesof sale to public aquariums. Collection may bedone at the specific request of a public aquariumor, in case of non-restricted species, collectionmay be made in advance with a view to sellingthe specimens at a later date ( i .e. , “onspeculation”).

Commercial collectors can provide specimencollection, quarantine, and transportation servicesto those aquariums unable to perform these tasksthemselves (i.e., aquariums whose geographiclocation, lack of expertise or resources, or dailyoperations and busy programs prevent them fromundertaking collecting expedit ions). Theseservices are especial ly important for newaquariums, where staff are preoccupied with otherhusbandry challenges imposed by unpredictableconstruction schedules and maturing life supportsystems. Under such conditions, it becomesdifficult for aquarium staff to concentrate on large-scale elasmobranch collection expeditions.Established aquariums may consciously leave thecollection of elasmobranchs to commercialcollectors, opting to avoid high costs associatedwith buying and maintaining boats and otherequipment. Commercial collectors may provideanother service to established aquariums byrapidly replacing animals that have sufferedunexpected mortality.

Many reputable and professional commercialcollectors have served public aquariums in alaudable manner. Unfortunately, a few commercialcollectors have not always subscribed to the samehigh standards set by their colleagues. At times,these unscrupulous individuals have caused theaquarium community significant difficulty anddamage. A few unprincipled collectors have beeninvestigated for il legal activities and publicaquariums have been tainted by association.Recent plans to overhaul NMFS’s shark collectionpermit procedures has been a direct result of suchtransgressions (Rogers, pers. com.).

Commercial collectors, working in U.S. waters,obtain permits from relevant state and/or federalgovernment agencies, and then col lectelasmobranchs as requested by specif icaquariums or “on speculation” for future sale.Some commercial collectors have requestedpermits for a high number of elasmobranchs andsubsequently reported collecting far feweranimals. Although innocent, this behaviorconfuses permitt ing agencies and createssuspicion; agencies believing that collectors andaquariums are not being entirely honest. Inaddition, commercial collectors (and publicaquariums) have applied for multiple permitscovering different jurisdictions, enabling thecollection of a given species within limited timeframes despite seasonal variations of availability,etc. Again, permitting agencies can be confusedby this practice believing that collectors are“double dipping”, i.e., applying for permits fromdifferent jurisdictions in order to collect a highernumber of animals than legally allowed.

It is imperative that public aquariums andcommercial col lectors work together withregulatory agencies to educate them about theunique nature of our business. Regulatoryagencies should be regarded as partners and notadversaries. Information learned throughcollection activit ies should be shared withregulatory agencies, whether required by law ornot, to help build healthy relationships, dispelmisconceptions, and improve a mutualunderstanding of regulated species.

It is incumbent upon all aquariums to thoroughlyresearch the reputation and legal status of anycommercial collector they choose to contract.Many regulatory agencies are moving toward thepractice of issuing collection permits directly toaquariums, and not commercial collectors,especially for restricted or protected species.Aquariums must then contract a commercialcollector to obtain the species desired. Thispractice will make aquariums directly accountablefor the activit ies of contracted commercialcollectors. Some U.S. state agencies may go evenfurther, requiring federal permits, and in somecases AZA accreditation, before state permits willbe granted to an aquarium.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the assistance ofCraig Thorburn and Malcolm Smale who madevaluable contributions toward this chapter.


39

REFERENCES

Anon. 1993. Fishery management plan for the sharks of theAtlantic Ocean. NOAA/NMFS, U.S. Department ofCommerce, 25 February 1993. 272 p.

Anon. 1994. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™:categories and criteria (version 2.3). International Unionfor the Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland(www6).

Anon. 1995. IUCN/SSC Guidelines for re-introductions.International Union for the Conservation of Nature,Gland, Switzerland (www12).

Anon. 1996. Draft policy regarding controlled propagation ofspecies listed under the Endangered Species Act. UnitedStates Fish and Wildlife Service and National MarineFisheries Service, 7 February 1996. Federal Register1(26): 4716-4721.

Anon. 1999a. International Plan of Action for ReducingIncidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries.International Plan of Action for the Conservation andManagement of Sharks. International Plan of Action forthe conservat ion and management of sharks.Management of Fishing Capacity. Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 26 p.

Anon. 1999b. Final fishery management plan for Atlantic tuna,swordfish, and sharks. National Marine FisheriesService, Nat ional Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, U.S. Department of Commerce, April1999. 1192 p.

Anon. 2001a. Final United States national plan of action forthe conservation and management of sharks. NationalMarine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administrat ion, U.S. Department ofCommerce, February 2001. 90 p.

Anon. 2001b. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™:categories and criteria (version 3.1). International Unionfor the Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland(www7).

Anon. 2001c. Australian shark assessment report for theAustralian national plan of action for the conservationand management of sharks. Shark Advisory Group,Canberra. 207 p.

Anon. 2002a. The World Conservation Union, SpeciesSurvival Commission, Shark Specialist Group andTRAFFIC. Report on implementation of the internationalplan of action for sharks (IPOA-Sharks): Paper submittedfor discussion at the 18th CITES Animals Committeemeeting, Costa Rica, 8-12 April, 2002. (www1)

Anon. 2002b. The World Conservation Union, SpeciesSurvival Commission, Shark Specialist Group andTRAFFIC The role of CITES in the conservation andmanagement of sharks. June, 2002. (www2).

Anon. 2002c. The Australian national plan of action for theconservation and management of sharks - publicconsultation draft. Shark Advisory Group, Canberra. 59 p.

Anon. 2002d. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;12–month finding for a petition to list barndoor skate(Dipturus laevis) as threatened or endangered. 27September 2002. Federal Register 67(188): 61055-61061.

Anon. 2002e. Recovery plan for the Grey Nurse shark(Carcharias taurus) in Australia, June 2002. EnvironmentAustralia, Canberra. 45 p.

Anon. 2002f. White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) RecoveryPlan, July 2002. Environment Australia, Canberra. 43 p.

Anon. 2003. Endangered and threatened species; Finalendangered status for a distinct population segment ofsmalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) in the United States.1 April 2003. Federal Register 68(62): 15674-15680.

Baille, J. and B. Groombride (eds.) 1996. The 1996 IUCNRed List of Threatened Animals. International Union for

the Conservation of Nature Publications Service Unit,Cambridge, UK. 448 p.

Camhi, M. 1998. Sharks on the Line: A State-by-State Analysisof Sharks and their Fisheries. National Audubon Society,Living Oceans Program, Islip, New York, USA. 158 p.

Camhi, M. 1999. Sharks on the Line II: An Analysis of PacificState Shark Fisheries. National Audubon Society, LivingOceans Program, Islip, New York, USA, 158 p.

Camhi, M., S. L. Fowler, J. A. Musick, A. Brautigam, and S. V.Fordham. 1998. Sharks and their Relatives: Ecology andConservation. IUCN/SSC Shark Specialists Group,International Union for the Conservation of Nature,Gland, Switzerland. 39 p.

Diaz-Soltera, H. 1999. Endangered and threatened species;revision of candidate species list under the EndangeredSpecies Act. Federal Register 64(120): 33166-33467.

Ellis, R. and J. E. McCosker. 1991. Great White Shark. HarperCollins Publishers, New York, USA. 270 p.

Hewitt, J. 1984. The great white shark in captivity: A historyand prognosis. American Association of Zoological Parksand Aquariums annual conference proceedings, 9-13September 1984, Miami, Florida, USA. 317-324 pp.

Hilton-Taylor, C. (ed.). 2000. The 2000 IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species. International Union for theConservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland. 61 p.

Hutchins, M., B. Smith, and R. Allard. 2003. In defense ofzoos and aquariums: The ethical basis for keeping wildanimals in captivity. Journal of the American VeterinaryMedical Association. 223(7): 958-966.

Musick, J. A., M. M. Harbin, S. A. Berkeley, G. H. Burgess, A.M. Eklund, L. Findley, R. G. Gilmore, J. T. Golden, D. S.Ha, G. R. Huntsman, J. C. McGovern, S. J Parker, S. G.Poss, E. Sala, T. W. Schmidt, G. R. Sedberry, H. Weeks,and S. G. Wright. 2000. Marine, estuar ine, anddiadromous fish stocks at risk of extinction in NorthAmerica (exclusive of Pacific salmonids). Fisheries25(11): 6-30.

Norton, B. G., M. Hutchins, E. F. Stevens, and T. L. Maple(eds.). 1995. Ethics on the ark: Zoos, animal welfare andwi ldl i fe conservat ion. Washington: SmithsonianInstitution Press, USA. 330 p.

Pogonoski, J. J., D. A. Pollard, and J. R. Paxton. 2002.Conservation overview and action plan for Australianthreatened and potentially threatened marine andestuarine fishes, February, 2002. Environment Australia,Sydney. 375 p.

Van Dykhuizen, G., H. F. Mollet, and J. M. Ezcurra. 1998.Homing behavior of a sevengill shark released from theMonterey Bay Aquarium. California Fish and Game 84(4):180-181.

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Marin-Osorno, R. 2003. Acuario de Veracruz, Veracruz, CP91170, Mexico.

Rogers, C. 2002. National Marine Fisheries Service, HighlyMigratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring,MD 20910, USA.

Stirratt, H. 2003. National Marine Fisheries Service, HighlyMigratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring,MD 20910, USA.

Thorburn, C. 2001. Thorburn Consultants Ltd., PO Box 99669,Auckland, New Zealand.

White, G. 2001. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,Washington, D. C. 20005, USA.

J. M. CHOROMANSKI

40

INTERNET RESOURCES

www1 www.traffic.org/news/ipoasharks.html

www2 www.traffic.org/cop12/esf042a.pdf

www3 www.fao.org/fi/ipa/manage.asp

www4 www.cites.org

www5 www.iucn.org

www6 www.redlist.org/info/categories_criteria1994.html

www7 www.redlist.org/info/categories_criteria2001.html

www8 www.redlist.org

www9 www. f lmnh .u f l . edu / f i sh /o rgan i za t i ons / ssg /sharkconswna.htm

www10 www.nmfs.noaa.gov

www11 www.afma.gov.au

www12 www.iunc.org/themes/ssc/pubs/policy/reinte.htm

www13 www.deh.gov.au

www14 www.galeocerdo.com


41

The Elasmobranch Husbandry Manual: - Serviette Group

Documents