Record-breaking 32ft shark caught

from the telegraph.co.uk

Feel free to click the link above to read the story. I thought I would post this as I was quite alarmed as I thought that Threshers were CITES listed. I also thought that they were unlikely to be in UK waters in November. Infact I thought they were tropical sharks. But in recent years the UK coastal waters in summer time has had many unexpected visitors.

Anyways. I was wondering what people thought of this shark a) being in what I would have thought was too cold water for it and then B) about it being caught by a squid fisherman (I am wondering how his equipment was even able to cope with such a large beast) and why if it was still alive and a trouble to deal with did he bother bringing it in.

Also back to my question about CITES listing. How does this work .. does it mean nothing ? Or is accidental catching then killing OK ?

That tail is just so majestic looking .. I couldn't imagine seeing one of these guys cruise by underwater .. WOW

Thresher Shark IUCN RedList Status (threatened, endangered...) [about]

Thresher Shark CITES Listing (international trade protection status) [about]

ok edit .. having just read those to links I posted I understand that CITES does a very good job of stopping import and export of endangered animal meat. However IUCN lists them as threatened does anyone do anything about protecting them after they are listed as threatened ? I don't see any agreements with any countries in that respect. Is it just up to local authorities to keep up to date on the animals on the list and then make their own rules and police them ?

...ok edit .. having just read those to links I posted I understand that CITES does a very good job....

Hi Giles,

Awful to see a shark like that indeed

I wouldn't trust CITES too much. It's all about politics.

A friend of mine who worked for CITES Thailand told me it was one big joke....

Best regards,

Bart

Very disappointing. It sounds like it was bycatch in a trawl net targeting squid. Given that it was still alive when hauled onboard, I imagine the fisherman had some significant personal safety concerns. Clearly it would have been preferable to set the shark free, but with some trawl setups, this could be an insurmountable challenge. I would obviously have preferred the fisherman to let the shark go, but once dead, it makes sense to sell if for food, rather than discarding the carcass at sea. Although, I certainly wouldn't want to eat it with half-a-ton of mercury and other heavy metal laden flesh absorbed over aeons.

CITES being a political instrument can be a good thing and it means that it can still play a roll here. My suggestion is that a heads up for some UK-based environmental campaigners of the CITES listing and this recent catch and some publicity may have some positive spinoffs.

It may encourage future fishers to let such a shark go if their nets provide for the option. Also, letters to newspaper editors may encourage an editorial or feature story and politicians don't to be embarrassed by being seen to flout international treaties. These treaties aren't binding in the same sense of local laws (Trials in international courts are extremely challenging to get up and more likely for very series matters like war crimes), but even publicity for matters of international concern can spur action...

Giles,

Very sad to see such an impressive animal killed.

Size seems to be a little exaggerated though, typical for the media and fishermen. Generally the tail is half the length of a thresher, and unless these fishermen are little people, the tail only appears to be 8 to 10 ft long, which would give a shark 16 to 20 ft long, which is about the maximum length for this species.

Regards

Nigel

Giles,

 

Very sad to see such an impressive animal killed.

 

Size seems to be a little exaggerated though, typical for the media and fishermen. Generally the tail is half the length of a thresher, and unless these fishermen are little people, the tail only appears to be 8 to 10 ft long, which would give a shark 16 to 20 ft long, which is about the maximum length for this species.

 

Regards

 

Nigel

Nigel, that's what I thought..., how was the size documented I wonder? Or maybe when they get this large just the body itself grows larger than normal in relation to the tail and I wonder if it was a female? I don't know. But I too am devastated by this - such a magnificent animal......., I've only seen one thresher up close and it was about 12 ft long - 6 ft of it the magnificently graceful tail..........

Very sad, things need to change ---- for the better... Carol

I think cities only regulates international trade, intra-national trade isn't covered.

In california, thresher is fished commercially. The most recent year I can find statistics on is 2000, in which 568,843 pounds of thresher were landed, worth $492,447.

http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/fmd/bill/land00.htm

I cannot find any statistics on east coast landings. Could be a different thresher species that is not targeted or is less edible or something. This page lists them as "non-targeted":

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/csop/spcomp2.html

The local news coverage gave the length as 16 feet.

Compared to all of the other daily bycatch this is sadly a drop in the ocean.

Paul C

This story also made BBC Radio national news too.

What I find intriguing is that if someone had 'accidentally' caught/killed a large predator whose numbers were dwindling on land, then I suspect that the story would have been slanted a very different way (the loss of tigers, etc., is for example usually slanted as an 'isn't it sad' type of story).

The blandness of the reports that I've heard/read about this shark seem to suggest that the reporters/editors aren't sure whether this is a 'dangerous animal killed, aren't we fortunate' or an 'isn't it sad' story', so they are reporting it far more factually (well up to a point, or should that be length). Perhaps the increased coverage of marine environmental issues (there has been substantial coverage of discarded fisheries bycatch this week following comments from an EU official that it was immoral) is starting to change attitudes to the sea where the predominant one has always been 'out of sight, out of mind - so it doesn't really matter'.

Paul C has a point though!

i think this shark sold for about 340 sterling....it was difficult to sell apparently.

in this case reading what the fishermen said, this is a case of bycatch and as PRC said earlier, is only a drop in the ocean compared to what happens globally or even europe wide. europe provides around one third of declared imports into the hong kong fin market, which does not include catches from european ships flying flags of convenience in other waters.

europe is BIG in sharkfishing and many people are fighting to get laws changed here.

IUCN redlist only provides scientific data which may then be used when taking many factors into consideration when drawing up legislation. no laws are made as an automitic result of what appears on the redlist. that comes down to us, the campaigners who do what we can when we see the data.

it can only be hoped that pictured such as this spark a reaction in the public so that things change sooner rahter than later.

giles: although it would be wrong to say they are common, thresher sharks are not unusual in UK waters, and home to some 30 other species of shark.

hope this is of interest.

regards,

mark