Green and Blue Washing Arguments

Tournament organizers have responded to past criticism by giving their events a thin veil of conservation and research context. We don’t believe anyone is fooled by this. The goal of the competition is to bring back some big trophies, not to encourage shark conservation and education or to be charitable. The lingo only serves to make excuses and to confuse the issue.

CLAIM 1: Tournaments contribute to research and education

Just because they record data on the animals caught doesn't mean it has ANY value for conservation. It may serve to show that populations are decreasing in numbers and individuals are getting smaller. But we don’t need to kill sharks to know that. There is plenty of data on species catches, stomach contents, pregnant females, etc, from decades of fishing. More of the same data may be interesting to a researcher, but what does it really contribute to science or conservation at this point? All it is is more data. We can learn much more by observing live animals. At this point, research technologies are available that use non-lethal methods. In many cases, you don’t even have to touch a shark to get the data.

Teaching kids about sharks by showing them strung up on a dock is about as useful as taking kids to a slaughterhouse to teach them about cows and pigs or showing them the stuffed head of an African lion to teach them about big cats. We meet kids every day that are in awe of sharks and have never seen one in real life. Images, stories, films, and some of the better aquariums do a much better job of educating children about life in the ocean.

Joe Romeiro, wildlife film producer, and conservationist has been observing and recording the tournaments for years: “There are dozens of events all over the coast, hundreds of boats in most, 1000 dollars each in entry fees. So we see broken jaws and cut faces, and the sharks die from fighting and stress. Sharks are mismeasured and misidentified regularly. Thousands of sharks are hooked. They leave hooks and 20 ft of line cut off to drag around collecting everything. There are sharks swimming around with arrows in them and bullet holes. Seen one once with its face taken off and still trying to eat to survive and couldn’t. So many can’t eat properly if at all. It’s a slow death and nothing acts the same again. How do you naturally study that? It’s a huge mess and absolutely not as they paint at all. I don’t think most even know the volume.”

claim 2: the sharks aren’t wasted

Organizers claim that the sharks are not thrown away and that they give them to homeless shelters instead. This makes zero sense because it’s illegal to transfer sharks to a facility as food without the proper meat transfer license and often the sharks have been sitting on a boat, then lying in the sun on the dock waiting to be measured. They are not kept on ice. Also, most sharks are unfit for human consumption due to the high levels of toxins that can accumulate in an adult shark. And particularly in the largest specimens. It seems likely that the shelters are not even aware they are being used for this argument and certainly wouldn’t agree to accept this “charitable” meat once they realize it can be harmful to human health. The reality is that most sharks end up in the dumpster of the marina.

claim 3: tournaments contribute to Charity and they are an economic benefit to the community

It may be true that the crowds attracted by the spectacle bring money to the community, but it is also likely that most of the money goes to a fairly limited amount of companies that benefit from the event. Towns and harbors may benefit from events, but the question is whether this is truly the image they want to continue to promote. Maybe it’s time to find other ways to attract visitors. We don’t doubt that tournaments have given money to charities and research programs. It would be interesting to find out how much and how frequently.

What about NOAA?

NOAA has done some great work and there are very effective programs and departments within the agency. Unfortunately, when it comes to sharks their decisions and actions seem questionable and very biased toward keeping the fishing of sharks supported. This may not be the actual intention and should by no means be seen as a blanket conviction of NOAA. But there are several issues that give the impression that there is a lack of care and most definitely unfair treatment of the industries that deal with sharks on a regular basis.

NOAA is a federally funded agency. They are a regulatory and scientific agency under the Department of Commerce. The reason why this matters is that they are the ultimate influencers and decision-makers when it comes to many fisheries issues. The rules are administered by two federal agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NOAA works closely with and through these agencies. What they do, or fail to do, matters because they get to make the rules. It is time to address some questions that could become detrimental, if not dealt with in the near future (not in order of importance):

Issue 1: Justifying all lack of protection with one talking point - “The US is The Best.”

The persistent answer that is given as a justification for every shark-related inquiry is: “The US shark fisheries are one of the best managed in the world”. This claim is not sufficient anymore because this measurement is based on an extremely low standard. Shark conservation and management of fisheries around the world are a disaster. We are experiencing a collapse of so many fisheries and have lost major populations of tuna, sharks, whales, dolphins, swordfish… you name it, it’s all going past the tipping point of recovery. In essence, the many agencies that have the “management” of fisheries as their mandate seem to have solely focused on what is best for the commercial industries. The regulations are mostly concerned to keep enough stock for fishing and to protect species simply for the sake of replenishing “stock”. Never mind the fact that there are many other reasons to keep shark populations healthy. The RFMO’s are part of the problem (and mostly even worse at their job). What’s so frustrating is that these agencies and organizations are federally funded, so our dollars pay for their expertise in the management of what essentially belongs to all of us.

It is true that some shark species in the US show signs of recovery due to conservation measures. Most of those had to be fought for one at a time and with many concessions. But what is unclear is what the “recovery” is based on. Many times the baselines considered are population numbers from the 80s or 90s when everything was already severely depleted. There isn’t an agency that dares to set a standard that would be natural (pre 1950’s) because it would now seem almost utopian to strive for that. That is how far our “new normal” has slipped down the scale.

Furthermore, this blanket argument is fueling the growing friction between water users, as the fishing industry feels empowered by this statement and asks to ramp up the fishing of sharks again, while the dive businesses feel ignored and unsupported.

Issue 2: NOAA inaction

Why are fishing tournaments not required to apply for special permits? It seems, based on what we found out in Florida last year, that neither the regional Fisheries and Wildlife agencies nor NOAA seem to think they are in charge of what controversial fishing tournaments are doing. Even after it was shown that the tournaments were organized with the pure intent to “thin the herd” and to kill as many sharks as possible. Fishers that see sharks as their competition, are taking matters into their own hands because they are not getting what they want from the agencies, which would be a blanket permit to reduce shark numbers. Divers and advocates fight tooth and nail with the fishers and the outcome is dangerous tension and people protesting and yelling at each other. And worst of all, a lot of dead sharks. Why does it have to go that far? There is a total lack of leadership. It’s like the Wild West out there. The agencies have created this situation that pitches divers and advocates against fishers, which is not what it should be. Because in the end, many of the people in this controversy actually want the same - to protect and enjoy the ocean.

Issue 4: Biased action

While shark fishers are free to create mayhem in Florida without repercussions, two divers are being federally prosecuted for cutting sharks free from a longline. These divers probably weren’t aware that it was a federal offense to touch fishing gear. Many people, including advocates, threw these divers under the bus for “breaking the law”, feigning outrage and trying to distance themselves from this incidence. But let’s be honest, who can pass by such a death trap and not feel inclined to save some animals? And how many divers actually know federal law? They could have easily received a slap on the hands and a fee to replace the fishing gear. But fishers completely blew this up into the kind of outrage that should be reserved for actual crime. Reading the stories it seemed like the taking of gear is the equivalent of burning down someone’s house or bankrupting their business. And where was NOAA in all this? Such protection of an industry is simply not given to any other water user.

Issue 5: NOAA gives cover to trophy hunting tournaments

NOAA also gives monster tournaments validity by considering the resulting catch a contribution to research. NOAA researchers get to collect records and inspect carcasses. NOAA is essentially helping these events to "greenwash" their tournaments claiming that “it is much better to get this data than to not get it.” After 40 years of opening dead sharks and counting fishing results, it is highly questionable whether these records serve any real purpose except more data collection. Meanwhile, the tournament organizers can hide behind their claim to “support conservation”, which is misleading to sponsors, participants, and spectators.

One reason why the taking of Mako is still allowed, even though they are now a CITES-listed species is that these agencies have determined that the US can manage the harvest at a level that is "non-detrimental" by lowering quotas. (meaning that continued fishing isn't going to hurt the population). With that, they meet the CITES requirement. Because CITES is a trade agreement, not a law-making body. So this is how a CITES endangered listing is rendered useless.

Issue 6: Lack of protection of endangered species

There is a petition under review to add shortfin mako to the US ESA (Endangered Species Act) which would protect them from fishing. NOAA considers that petition as warranted, meaning that initial findings prove the point, but a 12-month review is needed to finalize the decision. That’s all fine and good, but the big question is: Why is a species that is internationally recognized as endangered and that is being considered for listing under the ESA still allowed to be killed for sport?

When should a population be considered for protection? At what point would NOAA take a broader view on “protecting sharks to ensure long-term sustainability” (which is a claim their make on their own site). Does their version of sustainability consider anything beyond assessing stocks for fishing?

Issue 7: Giving research permits that allow the killing of prohibited/endangered species

It seems unbelievable, but commercial shark fishers can apply for a research permit to harvest prohibited species.

As per NOAA: What the permit covers: Shark Research Fishery permits allow fishermen to land sandbar, other large coastal sharks, small coastal sharks, smoothhound, and pelagic sharks from federal waters in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. The permit is subject to 100-percent observer coverage—participants can fish without an observer when not on a Shark Research Fishery trip. The scientific data collected by fishery observers is used in shark stock assessments.

In other words, the species that are prohibited from being fished because their populations need to recover can be fished (with imitations) under this permit. And the justification is that it gives NOAA data to assess whether the stock is recovering. That makes about as much sense as cutting down a bunch of trees to see if the forest is growing back. If one fisher catches 40 sandbar sharks in one day, even if this only takes place a few times per year, they could potentially take 40 females at breeding age. Surely there are better ways to count sharks these days.

This issue goes further into the bizarre - in Florida, the company busted in 2020 for illegal fin exports (amongst other criminal activities) was trading sandbar shark fins that came from a local fisher, who must have caught these sharks under a research permit. It became evident after the fisher complained that he couldn’t get paid for the fins because of the bust. While the fisher technically didn’t break the law, the bigger issue here is that the federal government agency was, in a roundabout way, supporting illegal activities with a permit that should be enabling the conservation of sharks, not creating loopholes for fin sales.

What can be done?

We have made inquiries with NOAA on some of these subjects, but most of the time the arguments are dismissed or advocates are told to leave these issues alone because “that’s the job of the agencies”. Moving forward, we will continue to seek avenues to engage. Our hope is that NOAA is open and willing to see why these issues need to be addressed. We are by no means the representatives of the whole shark advocacy movement and can’t speak for everyone. Our goal is to focus on solutions and bring people to the table. It is never to simply stoke public outrage unless that is the only choice we have. Sometimes agencies only listen once enough people are upset. Pro-commercial shark fishing advocates have proven over the years how effective that strategy can be.

Having said that, there is no sense in fueling outrage without offering a call to action. Stay tuned for updates on how we plan to move forward in an organized and practical fashion.