Preying on the Predator: The Shark Fin Controversy

OF TECHNOLOGby

Alexandra H. Morris JUN30 2014

B.A. English Literature, Colgate University (2005) LIBRARI ESM.H.S. International Health, Johns Hopkins University (2010)

SUBMITTED TO THE PROGRAM IN COMPARATIVE MEDIA STUDIES/WRITING INPARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN SCIENCE WRITING

AT THE

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

September 2014

2014 Alexandra H. Morris. All rights reserved.

The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publiclypaper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any

medium now known of hereafter created.

Signature redactedSignature of Author: .................... ...........................

Program in Comparative Media Studies/WritingJune 13, 2014

Signature redactedCertified by: ....................... ..-.....................................

Marcia BartusiakProfessor of the Practice

Signature redacted Thesis Supervisor

Accepted by: .....Thomas Levenson

Professor of Science WritingDirector, Graduate Program in Science Writing

1

Preying on the Predator: The Shark Fin Controversy

by

Alexandra H. Morris

Submitted to the Program in Comparative Media Studies/Writing on June 13, 2014in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in

Science Writing

ABSTRACT

The consumption of shark fin soup dates back to the Ming Dynasty in China, when itwas served to emperors. Today, the cultural delicacy represents wealth, status, andpower. Over the past 30 years, with the rising middle class in China, the demand forshark fins has surged. To address the increasing demand, a group of fishermen cameto realize there was little value in carting massive shark bodies to shore when allthey needed were the highly valued fins. So they sliced off the fins, and threw thestill living, rudderless sharks to die in the open ocean. So began the gruesomepractice known as "shark finning."

Shark populations have been unable to withstand the demand for their fins, anddozens of species are now threatened or endangered. From enhancing legislation tocontrol the shark fin market to building sustainable fisheries to promoting syntheticshark fin soup - efforts to address the issue of shark depletion are seeminglyendless. And yet despite these efforts, both the market for shark fins and globalcatch rates have continued unabated. If the demand for fins and the practice ofshark finning continue at the current rate, human interference may forever changethe nature of our oceans.

Thesis Supervisor: Marcia BartusiakTitle: Professor of the Practice, Graduate Program in Science Writing

2

Acknowledgements:

I would like to acknowledge the many people who made this work possible:

Marcia Bartusiak, my thesis advisor, who became the shark expert she didn't knowshe always wanted to be. I couldn't have done it without her encouraging words andhelpful edits.

Phil Hilts, my second reader, who taught me to find the story in the details.

My classmates - Abi, Emma, Jenny, Julie, Lindsay, Sam, Suzanne - who I couldalways count on for thoughtful feedback during our thesis seminars. Thank you forcommiserating with me during the long nights spent producing this work andhelping me to laugh through the tears.

Shannon Larkin, our program administrator, who was always available with coffee,chocolate, and hugs - the complete thesis survival package.

My family, who is still speaking to me even after listening to a year's worth of "shahktahk." Thanks for your encouragement.

3

The captain cut the motor. The waveshad been increasing for an hour. 'It'stoo rough out here,' he said,anticipating the disappointment thatwashed over our faces. We had risenbefore the sun's rays peaked over thehorizon, we'd pulled on our dampwetsuits and climbed with sleepysmiles into the boat. We set out withpurpose, headed towards a manta raycleaning station - a car wash of sortswhere sergeant majors andbutterflyfishes picked off parasitesand cleaned mantas' wounds. Despitethe captain's best efforts, however, wewere still within sight ofMozambique's coastline.

But before we could react, he wasshouting at us. A whale shark, thelargest known fish in the sea, hadpassed just beneath the boat. Myhands shook as adrenaline coursedthrough my veins. I pulled my flippersover my feet and fastened my snorkelmask. We dove backwardssimultaneously off the boat, limitingour disturbance of the animal to onecollective splash.

The average whale shark is about 30feet long and weighs 20,000 pounds -it's a school bus of a fish. Despite itsenormous size, whale sharks arefilter-feeding, docile creatures andpose little danger to humans.

Once in the water, I flanked the groupslightly, hoping to secure the idealviewing position for my first live sharkencounter. But when I peered throughmy snorkel mask, I saw nothing butmicroscopic fish. I popped my head upand tried to follow where the groupwas looking. Still nothing. How was itpossible to overlook an animal that is

the size of a bus? My anxiety wasmounting. Suddenly, a dark shadowemerged just beneath the surface ofthe water, no more than 10 feet infront of me. I held my breath andlowered my face. And there, in themiddle of the Indian Ocean, I foundmyself staring into the open mouth ofa feeding whale shark.

My underwater scream wasconveniently muffled as I swamtowards the rest of the group as fast asmy flippers would allow, out of thepath of the gentle giant. I wasn't atrisk of being eaten by the filter-feeding shark. But if it had turned toavoid me and mistakenly rammed mewith its enormous tail, it might havebeen my early end.

When one hears the word "shark," it'sunlikely a docile whale shark is thespecies that first comes to mind. It'smore common to imagine members ofthe toothier variety, such as 'a greatwhite or a hammerhead. But sharkspecies range considerably. Nocturnalnurse sharks nestle along the sea floor,ambushing crustaceans. Lemon sharksare social butterflies and prefergrazing on fish near the warm surfaceof the water. Spiny dogfish are therunts of the shark litter, maxing out atjust over three feet.

Sharks tend to invoke a sense of fearin humans - the indestructiblepredators of the sea. Yet they facetheir own dangerous predator. Sharkskill 12 humans each year, whilehumans kill 11,417 sharks every hour.A shark's fin is a gold mine in certaincultures: the pectoral fin of a whale

4

shark is worth more than my SubaruOutback.

Not long ago, a group of sharkfishermen came to realize there waslittle value in carting massive sharkbodies to shore when all they neededwere the fins. So they sliced off thefins, and threw the still living,rudderless sharks to die in the openocean. So began the gruesome practiceknown as "shark finning." Due to itsmassive size, luminescent markings,and unique texture, a whale shark finis the Rolls-Royce of the fin market.

Shark fishing and especially finninghas resulted in the addition of dozensof species to the list of threatened andendangered species. Over the past tenyears alone, numerous sharkconservation groups have emergedaround the world. Media campaigns,celebrity advocates, and newgovernment regulations haveattempted to curb the demand forshark fins. Yet despite these efforts,the fin market continues unabated.

It doesn't help that sharks continue toface a public relations nightmare thatall began with a fictional Hollywoodthriller.

Shifting our primordial fears

Ever since Jaws was released in 1975- a film that depicts a giant, man-eating great white shark attacking aquiet, seaside town - it's easy tounderstand why people have tendedto fear this toothy predator. But evenPeter Benchley, the author of thenovel and screenwriter for the movie,spent the latter part of his career

advocating for shark conservationefforts. Following the sensationalistportrayal of sharks in his film, hesought to confront the public'snegative perception of sharks that hehad perpetuated with his writing. Hewanted people to better understandmarine ecosystems and the importantrole sharks play. This becameincreasingly important in light of thethreat of overfishing.

For Peter Pyle, a wildlife biologist andwhite shark expert, Jaws and thepublic's negative perception of sharkshad a profound impact on his research.In 1981, just six years after the film'srelease, Pyle began working on theFarallon Islands. Located less than 30miles off the coast of San Francisco,the Farallones are notoriously difficultto reach, owing to rough weather,rougher seas, and roughed upstomachs.

Pyle initially traveled to the Farallonesto study the vast species of migratoryseabirds that inhabit the islands. Hesoon realized, however, that thetiming of his visits overlapped withone of the largest gatherings of greatwhite sharks in the world. He watchedexplosions of blood splatter the oceancanvas as sharks fed on seals and sealions inhabiting the island waters. Pyleunderstood there was a uniqueopportunity to learn about this criticalpredator. The perspective of sharksthen, especially white sharks,remained one of fear, he said.

From the early 1980s, Pyle and hiscolleagues worked to show peoplethat sharks are not monsters butinstead are keystone predators thatare critical to the marine world.

5

"People were still in that mindset thatthese were senseless killers, so wespent a lot of time trying to convincepeople that they weren't after us." Abig part of their focus was on taggingand tracking the sharks to betterunderstand their patterns, and theneducating the public. Pyle and histeam were curious about thepredation behavior of the sharks, andkept records of where and whensharks attacked their prey, whichincluded California Sea Lions,Northern Fur Seals, Elephant Seals,and pelicans. The team even rigged asurfboard with an underwater camerato record how sharks stalk and strikeat these animals. In 1992, Pyle's workhelped to inspire a campaign toprotect white sharks in California.

Today, attitudes towards sharks arefinally beginning to shift, said NewEngland Aquarium biologist JohnMandelman. In the ten yearsMandelman has been working for theAquarium, he has witnessed anevolution in the public's perception ofsharks. "When I first got here, if youasked the average person 'what's thedeal with sharks?' you would hearabout fear - they were scared of them,"he said. "People are generally in favorof shark conservation now."

The truth is, sharks face a muchgreater threat than the bad rapintroduced by an iconic film. The realdanger comes in the form of a revered,ancient, Chinese delicacy....a bowl ofsoup.

Shark Fin Soup

Over the years, the demand for sharkfins has been driven by a desire toconsume soup fit for a king...or, moreaccurately, soup fit for an emperor.Shark fin soup, an ancient Chinesecultural tradition, is a dish served atformal banquets, weddings, andgovernment functions. The soup isoften used to represent wealth, status,and power, as well as to signify theimportance of a given occasion.

The first reference to shark meatconsumption in the literature dates asfar back as the fourth century, andoccurred in Asia as well as areas ofAfrica, Latin America, and the PacificIslands. Evidence reportingconsumption of shark fins as a specificdelicacy dates back to the SungDynasty in 960-1279.

During the Ming Dynasty, shark finsoup was served within the palace toemperors as well as to candidates inBeijing who were taking the imperialgovernment examinations - a processdesigned to test the education andmerit of a candidate. Products fromanimals like sharks, considered torepresent strength, were believed totransfer that strength and power tothose who consumed them.

By the Qing Dynasty (1644- 1911), theChinese had listed shark fin as secondamong the "eight culinary treasures"from the sea and consumption of thesoup began to spread outside of thepalace to wealthy Chinese citizens.While the shark fins themselves arevirtually tasteless (the soup's taste iscomprised of other ingredients), thefins provide a unique, gelatinoustexture to the dish. It is a dish that is

6

difficult to prepare, which furtheradds to its allure.

Shark fins have fallen in and out offavor over the years. After World WarII, the Communist governmentdiscouraged the consumption of sharkfin soup, as officials felt it representedelitism. But the practice of servingshark fin soup at formal banquetsexperienced a revival in the mid1980s. Since then, economicprosperity and the growing middleclass in China has led to an increase indemand for the soup. It is expectedthat, in the absence of successfulgovernment regulations andcampaigns designed to address thedemand, the fin market will continueto grow.

In China, shark fin is known as 'yu chi'or 'fish wing.' A survey that wascarried out between 2005 and 2006found that 80 percent of respondentsdid not know the soup was actuallymade of shark fin, a fact thatfrightened conservationists hoping toraise awareness about the perils ofshark finning.

While the use of shark fins in Chinesecooking serves as a symbol of wealth,power, and status, many believe thefins have medicinal benefits as well.'Cartilage from shark fins continues tobe used today in pharmaceuticalproducts that claim to treat illnessesranging from heart disease tocholesterol to impotence, and even tocancer. Trials testing shark cartilageon treating cancerous tumors began inthe 1980s. While the effect of cartilageshowed some promise in treatingcancer in animals, it had no effect inhumans. Despite the lack of evidence,

the myth that 'sharks don't get cancer'(a fact that has been disproven byscientists) has helped to fuel themarket for fins through the promotionof "anti cancer" drugs.

Shark finning, shark fishing, andby-catch

The demand for shark fin soup andfin-based medicinal products has ledto a booming market for the fins. Andthis, in turn, encouraged a fishingpractice that offers a faster, moreeconomical way to collect fins. It isunknown when shark finning firstbegan, or how extensive the practice istoday, but it is clear it has contributedto the rapidly depleting global sharkpopulations.

Shark finning is the process of cuttingoff a shark's fins and throwing thestill-living animal back into the water.Without its fins, the shark cannotswim and therefore drowns, bleeds todeath, is eaten by another predator, ordies from starvation. This practice isseparate from shark fishing - whichinvolves killing the shark and bringingits entire carcass back to shore. Athird method of killing sharks isknown as "by-catch," and occurs whenfishermen are targeting other species,such as tuna, and mistakenly hook ashark on one of their long fishing lines.Often by the time the fishermen reachthe hook, the shark has already died.Shark advocates often blur the linesbetween these three methods of sharkremoval, but it is important tounderstand the distinction.

While shark fishing and by-catch docontribute to global shark removal,

7

shark finning enables fishermen to killmassive numbers of sharks on a singletrip. There are no good statistics onshark finning - no one knows whofirst started the practice of finning,and it is unclear how extensive thepractice is today. Fishermen have noincentive to report its practice. But byall accounts, it's by far the leadingmethod to get fins get into the market- other methods of removing sharksfrom the ecosystem pale incomparison.

The incentives are clear. Shark meathas little value, while the fins are oneof the highest priced items on theseafood market. Shark meat needs tobe refrigerated on the boat, whichrequires additional space, while thefins can be dried and stored. A fishingboat can hold 150 sharks, while ashark finning boat can hold around10,000 fins.

In some cases, finning is the direct aimof a fishing vessel, and fishermen seekto bring back as many shark fins asthey can carry. In other cases, finningcan take place on ships fishing fortuna and other species that havelimited space on the vessel andtherefore cannot land the entirecarcass.

The practice of finning was becomingsuch a problem that national andinternational agencies began comingup with strategies to ban the practice.For many countries around the world,the practice of shark finning is nowillegal. But who can truly regulatewhat happens in the open ocean?

Are there more fish in the sea?

It was a Friday afternoon at theCalifornia Academy of Sciences, just afew hours before closing. JohnMcCosker, Chair of Aquatic Biology,slowly led me from the researchentrance to his office, pausing to greeteach of his staff along the way. Beforeour meeting, the research receptionistdescribed the tall, thin McCosker, whois nearing 70, as "just the nicestpossible man." He paused to offer me acup of tea before settling into his chair.

McCosker grew up surfing and scubadiving in Southern California. He wasthe first trained marine biologist toswim with great white sharks, and isconsidered to be a world-renownedshark expert. McCosker spends hisdays educating the public on theimportance of preserving the health ofthe oceans, and has a particularinterest in preventing the worldwidedepletion of the shark populations.McCosker's fear is if we don't dosomething to protect these animals,our oceans will be filled with nothingbut jellyfish. "When I was a kid, I wasalways told, 'Don't worry, there'salways another fish in the sea,"' hesaid. "I don't know if they tell kids thatanymore."

Sharks are the apex predators of themarine ecosystem - the top dogs ofthe sea - and play an importantecological role. By keeping preyspecies populations in check, theybalance their marine environments.Like humans, sharks have nopredators of their own and exist at thetop of their food chain. While theeffects of apex predators onecosystems have been studied on land,

8

such as in wolf populations, marinepredators have not been extensivelystudied, in part because of thedifficulties involved in researching themassive frontier that is the openocean. Scientists don't know, forexample, what the true population ofsharks is. A method to measure theocean's contents just doesn't exist.

If fishermen knew how many sharkswere out there, and how long it takesfor them to reproduce, they would bemore cautious with their allowablecatch limits, said McCosker. Instead,he believes that fisheries are trying toget away with fishing just a little bitmore, enough to keep the fishery alive.But these numbers doesn't align withwhat the shark populations canwithstand, he said. "I feel for thesefolks, but at the same time I feel forthe health of the oceans more."

One of the primary reasons why theremoval of sharks can be sodevastating is related to their slowgrowth rate and reproductive capacity.Sharks take a long time to reachsexual maturity (whale sharks don'treach sexual maturity until aroundage 30), have a long gestation period(for spiny dogfish, this can be up to 24months), and produce few pups(hammerhead sharks usually havebetween 12 to 15 pups in a litter).This varies considerably from otherfish species that tend to be fastgrowing and reproduce at a young age.An adult female fish can producethousands or even millions of eggseach reproductive cycle. Sharks are, inthese respects, more similar to marinemammals such as whales than theyare to fish.

For some, the environmental impactof removing sharks from the oceanthrough fishing, finning, or by-catchmay seem intuitive. If you remove allthe sharks, the populations of the mid-level carnivores, such as snappers,explode. The snappers then eat all theplant-eating fish - parrotfish, forexample. And when the parrotfish aregone, algae and sea grass explode andthe coral reefs deteriorate. Thisphenomenon is known as a trophiccascade.

The truth is, scientists don't know forcertain what happens when youremove sharks from the ecosystem.The removal of a top-level marinepredator is unprecedented. It wouldbe like killing off all the lions in theSerengeti. Maybe the cheetahs or theleopards would assume their role,maybe not. Based on availableevidence, it's possible to venture aguess as to what the outcome of sharkremoval will be. "There's a wholebunch of theory that would suggesthow important they are, but in termsof actually documenting what happensto the ecosystem after you removesharks, that's a little bit trickier," saidSimon Thorrold, senior scientist at theWoods Hole Oceanographic Institute.

The studies that have been conductedare often controversial. In part, this isbecause these studies occur out innature, rather than in controlledlaboratories. In natural environments,other factors might interfere with theresults, such as weather patterns,climate change, or variations in theresearch settings. For example, theremay be differences in theenvironments where sharks areplentiful as compared to where they

9

have been overfished that caninvalidate the findings. There's no wayto control for these factors in a naturalexperiment. Some scientists rely onmodels to predict what happens in anecosystem, but these too have theirproblems.

In 2010, Francesco Ferretti and hiscolleagues from Dalhousie Universitybrought together all of the existingstudies and models that looked at theecological effects of shark removal.They found that even a little bit offishing pressure is enough to causemajor decreases in shark populations,especially for larger shark species. Themodels the authors reviewed alsoshow that a trophic cascade is possible- the interaction that occurs when apredator influences its preypopulation and behavior, which thenaffects the survival of the next feedinglevel lower down.

Despite the data limitations,researchers have been askingthemselves: does the lack of reliabledata really matter? The focus seems tohave shifted from what do we know towhat do we need to know? How welldo scientists and policy makers needto understand these ecosystems inorder to better regulate or potentiallystop shark fishing (and finning)entirely? McCosker argues that if youhave limited evidence on whathappens when you remove sharks, butknow there is potential it could causeenormous harm to the oceans, thensimply stop removing the sharks. Therisk alone says that it's not worth it.But fishermen and shark findistributors whose livelihoods dependon the market may not agree.

Steve Palumbi is the Director ofStanford's Hopkins Marine Station. Hefeels that it's a mistake to say thatsharks are definitely required tomaintain the health of the oceans. Wecan't say that with the little data wehave available, he said. But we can saythey play an important ecological roleand here are some examples of that."Can the ocean do without big sharks?"said Palumbi. "Why would we have toanswer that question before westopped killing them all?"

Some policy makers feel they don'thave the time to wait for additionaldata and instead are working withwhat is available. Shark populationshave declined significantly. What willit take to bring them back? It may beimpossible to regulate the open ocean,but at the very least, they can regulatewhat's happening on land. Manybelieve that shark fin bans are theonly option. If you can't beat themarket, shut down the market.

Playing by the Rules

There are eight states in the U.S. thathave banned the possession and saleof shark fins. California is the mostrecent After a two-year phase-inperiod, lawmakers said that as of July1, 2013, no one could legally possessshark fins in the state. The bill wasdiscussed in several other states withmajor fisheries, includingMassachusetts, Florida, and Texas, butultimately the fin ban was not passed.

While the market for shark finsremains open in 42 of the 50 states,the practice of shark finning has beenbanned nationally. The U.S. enacted a

10

law to ban finning called the SharkFinning Prohibition Act, which wasput into place in 2002. This actallowed fishing vessels to land sharkfins as long as the weight of the finswas less than five percent of the totalweight of sharks on board the vessel.The European Union adopted a similarlaw in 2003, called the Removal ofShark Fins regulation.

There were several loopholes in theU.S. law, however, and sharkfishermen quickly exploited them. Forexample, multiple fins could becollected for each shark carcass thatwas kept, so finning practices couldtechnically continue as long as the fivepercent ratio was upheld. In addition,the regulations only applied to fishingvessels. They said nothing about non-fishing vessels. So finners couldcontinue to hunt for sharks and selltheir catch, as long as they transferredall of the marketable fins to a non-working ship before bringing them toshore.

It wasn't until 2010 that the U.S.regulation was amended to moredirectly ban finning practices. Thenew law clearly states that all finslanded in the U.S. must be attached tothe sharks. Only after landing can thefins be removed and marketed. Toenforce these regulations at a federallevel, the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Association (NOAA)Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement(OLE) is responsible for investigatingany report of shark finning practices.In 2011, there were three violations ofthe national finning ban, which werementioned in a report to Congress in2012. One case report detailed a

violation by fishermen on acommercial shrimp boat:

Officers with the LouisianaDepartment of Wildlife andFisheries (LDWF), whileconducting a Federal fisheriespatrol pursuant to the NOAAOLE Joint EnforcementAgreement (JEA) Program,boarded a commercial shrimpfishing vessel actively fishing inFederal waters. During thecourse of the boarding, acrewman was found to be inpossession of shark fins with nocorresponding shark carcasses.Further investigation located146 sharkfins and revealed thatthe vessel did not possess therequired HMS permit. The sharkfins were seized as evidence andthe case is currently underreview by the NOAA Office of theGeneral Counsel EnforcementSection.

Despite the fact that officials are nowenforcing shark finning regulationsaround the world, it is unclear whatimpact these regulations have had onthe shark fin market globally.

To enforce the state-level bans on theshark fin market, individual statesemploy their own regulationstrategies. In California, for example,the Department of Fish and Wildlifeconducts fish business inspections,also known as FBIs. These inspectionsare part of normal business practiceand are intended to track the sale ofdifferent fish, including shark fins."The way we make sure these fisherystocks don't collapse is we requireaccounting records for every step of

11

the process, from when the fish arecaught to when they're sold todistributors back on the dock to whenthey're sold to a restaurant to whenthey're ultimately sold to a consumer,"said Lieutenant Pat Foy of theCalifornia Department of Fish andWildlife.

During the FBI, officials rely onaccounting records to aid in theirinvestigation. The records indicatewhat type of fish restaurant ownershave in stock, whether it aligns withthe reported data, and if that matcheswith the records from the businesswho distributed the fish to them in thefirst place." For the first six monthsthe shark fin ban was in place, therewere approximately four citationsissued to those caught in possession ofillegal fins in California - tworestaurants, a wholesaler, and anherbal shop.

The rise and fall of a shark fintycoon

It was mid-January in San Franciscoand the weather was unseasonablypleasant - 74 degrees and not a cloudin the sky. Unfortunately, it was thebeginning of the worst droughtCalifornia had experienced in years. Ina matter of days, the governor woulddeclare a state of emergency.

Michael Kwong was leaning againsthis car finishing up a cigarette outsideof Philz - a hipster hotspot and hisfavorite coffee shop in the MissionDistrict of San Francisco. It was aSaturday at 9:00 a.m. and the line atPhilz was nearly out the door.

I had called Kwong about a weekearlier to ask if he'd be willing to meetwith me during my trip to the BayArea. "How did you get this number?"he asked. Truthfully, through a fairlyintensive Google search, I told him. Ihad tracked down his business listingafter seeing his name in severalarticles covering the recent ban of theshark fin market in California. Heagreed to meet a few days after Iarrived in the city.

The tall, 42-year-old Kwong turned tome. "So what's your angle here?" heasked. More than anything, I wantedto get a perspective from someonewho is in the industry. How was heaffected by the ban? What were hisopinions on it? I needed the other sideof the story. I explained that I washoping to disentangle the effects offinning from fishing and by-catch, andto better understand the true burdenof shark removal. He seemed pleasedwith my answer and said it was goodthat I understood there was in fact adifference between finning andfishing. We ordered our coffee and satdown at one of the community tables,struggling to hear one another overthe other customers.

As the owner and operator of a sharkfin processing company - Hop Woo,Inc. (also referred to as Kwong Yip,Inc.) - Kwong's industry had been hithard by the fin ban. He explained thathis business was currently "onsabbatical until further notice."Kwong's grandfather was the first tostart processing shark fins back in1906, initially as a side business. Butas the demand for shark fins grew sodid the business, until it became a full-time enterprise. Kwong's father took

12

over the company from hisgrandfather. Then in the 1980s,Kwong began his own training in thefamily trade. Because his father'sEnglish wasn't very good, Kwongplayed a key role in the business froman early age.

Back then, he said, "a lot of Americanfishermen had no clue what to do with[shark fins]. As time went on, and theybecame more of a desired commodity,fishermen started to learn and westarted finding more fisheries thatwere apt to take processed shark fins."

Kwong explained that he wasfrustrated with the recent shark finban and felt that conservationists andshark advocacy groups weremisrepresenting his industry. "Thestories and the way theenvironmentalists are painting thepicture of this industry - it's nasty," hesaid. "It's just wrong. They have theirblinders on, saying look at thenumbers."

The numbers he was referring to arethe estimated numbers of sharkskilled each year, which is nowreported to be 100 million. This figurehas been controversial, not onlybecause it represents a wide range ofestimates - from 63 million to 273million sharks - but because it relieson traditional data measurements toestimate the numbers of animalsbeing caught, such as fishermenrecords or data from officialsobserving the fishermen. The reportscan be unreliable, as not all fishermenaccurately document their catch - insome countries, reporting isvoluntary. In other cases, fishermendownplay their catch so as to avoid

interference from authorities. Despitethe controversy around the figures,however, environmentalists agree thatshark fishing is depleting sharkpopulations on a global scale.

After several minutes of straining tohear one another over the drone inthe caf6, Kwong and I decided to movelocations. We walked over to thegarden terrace near the apartment Iwas renting for the week. As soon aswe sat down, away from the chaos ofthe caf6, Kwong seemed to be morerelaxed. As we talked, he asked mewhat I knew about the fishingindustry. I told him about my friendwho is a tuna fisherman in Gloucesterand who has been affected by thechanging regulations in Massachusetts- his catch limits have decreased tothe point where he can no longersustain his business. Ah, then youunderstand, he said. With that, heleaned back in his chair and unfolded.

Kwong explained that his frustrationwith the conservationists and policymakers did not relate to shark finning- a practice he didn't agree with."Even to this day, does finning go on? Idon't doubt it," he said. But because ofthe federal regulations in place, "itdoesn't land in the U.S." Instead, hisanger was over the decision to ban theentire shark fin market in California.Such a ban meant that the possessionor trade of shark fins, even thosecaught legally and in regulated waters,was forbidden.

So for example, if a fisherman caughtseveral sharks on one of his trips andlanded the sharks with the fins stillattached, as per U.S. regulation, hecould sell the meat but he would need

13

to throw away the fins. "In the state ofCalifornia, we can't do anything with[the fins]," he said. "It's a waste. Thisnew ban forces us to waste." Withouta new policy to overturn the stateruling, Kwong's business wouldundoubtedly go under. "In the state ofCalifornia, I'm done," he said.

Kwong's primary business had beenwholesaling to restaurants. Around 98to 99 percent of the clientele wereAsian - it was a very a nichecommunity. The soup has littlerelevance outside of the Asiancommunity, said Kwong. "If you put abowl of shark's fin in front of someguy in Wisconsin, he'd be like what thehell? It's a different culture, differentpeople." Given the size of the AsianAmerican community in SanFrancisco, there was considerablelocal demand for his product.

The California shark fin ban wasintroduced during a state assemblymeeting back in 2011. Followingspeeches from representatives bothfor and against the ban, the stateassemblymen allowed several minutesfor an open microphone. Kwong wasfrustrated that the speakersadvocating for the market to remainopen were coming at the argumentfrom the point of view that the banwas a form of discrimination: theysaid it was unfair to Asian Americanpopulations. But Kwong didn't agree.He felt the ban was unfair for industry- it was shutting down his business.Not only that, he was frustrated withthe quality of the speakers' English,with their public speaking abilities,and that "for lack of a better word,they were putting people to sleep." Sohe walked up to the stage. All you're

going to do is push our businessesoutside of the state, he recalled saying."I'm not a representative, but no otherindustry person was voicing."

The ban may be in place now, butthere continues to be an undergroundmarket for shark fins, said Kwong. "Inthe state of California, can you get abowl of fins? Yes. It's about 50 percentmore expensive than two years ago.Unfortunately, it's mislabeled a lot oftimes, and they might even ask you tosit over there in a corner and keep itquiet."

One possibility that Kwong hadconsidered was moving to anotherstate where the ban was not in effect,such as Nevada. But he didn't want todo this, he said. California was hishome; it had always been his home. Hewas at a loss as to why the state feltthe need to call for this ban. Hisbusiness had been in good legalstanding. He shouldn't be penalizedfor a practice he condemned. "We'vehad a wonderful relationship with theFood and Drug Administration, NOAA,National Marine Fisheries, CaliforniaFish and Game, Department ofHealth," he said. "We've had noproblems; we've had no citations.

"That's the only way, and the rightway, to do business. That's why we'rehere so long. I mean, you try to do anykind of shifty, nasty stuff - it's justdumb. You won't last very long."

About ten days after my meeting withKwong, the California Department ofFish and Wildlife identified arestaurant outside of San Francisco -

14

Hong Kong East Ocean Seafood inEmeryville - that was selling shark finsoup. Following an investigation, thewildlife officers caught the restaurantin possession of illegal shark fins andissued a citation. As with previousinvestigations, they sought todetermine where the shark fins werecoming from.

The wildlife investigators arrived at awarehouse in San Francisco, followingup on a lead from the restaurant. Itdidn't take long for them to find thefins - in part because of the sheerquantity in the owner's possession.The officers collected 2,138 pounds ofshark fins boxed up inside two trucksparked behind the warehouse - aquantity that likely representedthousands of sharks.

Violation of the California state fin lawis considered to be a misdemeanoroffense, punishable by up to sixmonths in jail and a fine of $1,000. Ofthe estimated four citations that havebeen issued in the state, in all cases itwas for small amounts of shark fin -less than 10 pounds. To Foy'sknowledge, no jail time has beenissued to date.

It was by far the biggest shark fin bustsince the ban went into effect. And theman at the heart of the enterprise?Michael Kwong.

"It's the judge's job to match thepunishment with the crime," said Foy."I would expect that a person who wasconvicted of possession of less than 10pounds of shark fin for sale wouldhave less of a sentence than someonewho is in possession of 2,138 poundsof shark fin."

It was not possible to tell whetherthese fins came from sharks that werefished for legally or if they had beenfinned. One potential way to find out isto look at the species of shark fins."There was considerable variation inthe species," said Foy. He recalledthere were black fin and whitetipshark fins mentioned - two speciescurrently on the endangered list.There were also some very large finsthat had not yet been identified.

Since the citation, Kwong has refusedto speak to reporters. I talked to himbriefly at the end of March, but he saidhe was unwilling to give a statementbefore his hearing.

The regulations in place are meant tolimit the supply of fins available in themarket. Clearly there are loopholes,which Kwong tried (and failed) toexploit, but the hope is that over time,with pressure on both the supply anddemand side of the shark fin market,the market will dry up. For some, thequestion is whether such a drasticstep is needed, given the fact thatshark fin soup is so engrained inChinese culture. What if there were away to simply reduce the size of themarket and drive up the cost of thefins? Such a market, in theory, wouldcontain only species of sharks that arenot endangered, whose populationsare flourishing. Is it possible? Andcould it be regulated?

Sustainable shark fishery

Two large orange buoys floated on thesurface of the water off the coast of

15

Chatham, Massachusetts, as the sharkdivers, which included researcherGreg Skomal, fastened the locks on thealuminum cage underneath thesurface. In front of the cage floated anenormous whale carcass - placedthere by the researchers to lure in thesharks. Sure enough, after a fewminutes, an 18-foot white shark swamout of the depths toward them,lunging at the carcass. The seconddiver - a videographer - focused onthe shot as the shark tore off a piece ofwhale meat.

As suddenly as it appeared, the whiteshark turned from the whale andswam toward one of the buoys thatwere holding the cage to the surface ofthe water. For a moment, it got stuckbetween the cage and the buoys,unable to swim away. If the sharkdetached the buoys, the cage wouldfall to the ocean floor, likely carryingthe divers down with it. In its struggleto free itself, the shark thrashed andinadvertently unlocked the cage -exposing Skomal and thevideographer. Skomal quickly workedto shut the lock while thevideographer continued to film.Eventually the shark freed itself andswam away, leaving Skomal and thevideographer shaken but inpossession of some incredible footage.

Although it may have looked like astunt to satisfy the hungry fans ofDiscovery's shark week, in fact,Skomal was in Chatham to researchthe white sharks and learn about theirmigratory behavior. He wanted tounderstand what brought them backto the Cape in such large numbers.iiThe footage that aired on theDiscovery Channel during 2011's

Shark Week was titled "Jaws ComesHome" and included a dramaticrendition of the event that was likelyto satisfy many fear-craving sharkfanatics.

Skomal is a biologist who has beenworking with the Massachusetts'Division of Marine Fisheriesresearching shark species for morethan 20 years. He has spent the betterpart of his life tagging and trackingsharks to understand theirmovements, ecology, and populationsizes. He uses the data to manage andconserve shark populations.

A market ban on shark fins doesn'tmake sense to Skomal, who findshimself arguing as much withconservationists as he does withfishermen. The demand for shark finsis unlikely to disappear anytime soon,he said. "But if you can feed that beastwith sustainable shark fisheries, on aglobal basis, the supply may go downbut the price will go up - that's abetter route to take than trying to shutdown a market that's driven by acultural theme that has been aroundfor hundreds if not thousands of years,"he said.

A sustainable shark fishery refers to afishery targeting sharks whosepopulations are thriving and can befished for without affecting theirnumbers. The fishing limits woulddepend on how many sharks can bereplaced through reproduction.Threatened or vulnerable sharkspecies would have very low catchlimits. Endangered sharks would beoff limits.

Another important focus ofsustainable fisheries would be limiting

16

unnecessary by-catch for fishermentargeting other fish through use ofdifferent baits, hooks, or in some casesbanning fishing when sharks areknown to be present in large numbers.A sustainable fishery would alsopromote the full use of the shark, notsimply the fins.

Simon Thorrold of the Woods HoleOceanographic Institute agrees withthe concept of sustainable fisheries.Thorrold has worked with Skomal onseveral shark tagging and trackingexpeditions, including one that wasled by a non-profit group calledOcearch in July 2013 off the coast ofCape Cod, Massachusetts. "At thispoint, there's no reason why sharksshould be treated any differently thanany other species of marine fish," hesaid.

Building this type of shark fishery isnot the only method to address theproblem of finning, however. Skomaland Thorrold agree that it's alsoimportant to address the demand sideof the equation. For Thorrold, it's not aquestion of using one method or theother. We still have to get people off ofthe idea of consuming shark fin soup,he said, because there aren't enoughsharks in the sea to feed that currentdemand. Applying both methodstogether - curbing demand andrunning sustainable fisheries - is apotential solution to the threat ofshark removal.

Not everyone agrees with the conceptof sustainable fisheries, however. Oneissue is that the fin market is currentlytoo large and it will be impossible toshrink it to a sustainable level.Another issue is that the plentiful

species they are targeting, such asspiny dogfish, are not highly covetedas compared to the endangeredspecies, some advocates say. "I thinkthe industry sees a potential marketwhere there isn't one," said DavidMcGuire of Sea Stewards, a sharkadvocacy group.

Some argue that there's no reason tokeep the shark fishing industry openat all, given the important role sharksplay in ocean ecosystems. The servicesthat sharks provide are more valuableto the fishermen than the shark finitself, said McCosker. "There's nojustification for it. Let them go and fishfor something else."

Another risk to the sustainable fisheryconcept is the potential risk ofexploitation. "Anytime you have theselegal fisheries, it creates a vehicle forthis massive illegal trade," said ChrisFischer, director of Ocearch. Forexample, the sale of Atlantic billfishhas been illegal for years, said Fischer.But the sale of Pacific billfish was legal.So fishermen began selling "Pacificbillfish" into the U.S., but in fact theywere simply killing Atlantic billfishand relabeling them as Pacific billfish.A small legal channel was beingleveraged for a big illegal trade.Because it's difficult to differentiatebetween the fins, it's a similarsituation here. "The bad guys willleverage the legal system at a scalethat's 5,000 times bigger than thelegal system," said Fischer.

Genetic Testing

As Fischer said, it can be impossible totell the fins apart. A shark fin is a fin is

17

a fin. So in a sustainable fishery, howwould you regulate? It's often difficult,if not impossible, to tell what speciesit originates from merely by looking atit. How could officials know that thefin on the market came from aregulated species of shark that is stillplentiful, as opposed to an endangeredspecies of shark, or one that wasfinned? Would a sustainable sharkfishery simply open the door tomassive exploitation, as Fischerpredicted? Some feel that the sharksthemselves could help to addressthese issues: the answer, perhaps, liesin their DNA.

Stanford's Hopkins Marine Station,located in Pacific Grove, California, issituated on Monterey Bay, directlynext to the world-famous Aquarium.After a terrifying drive from SanFrancisco along the windy, cliff-hugging Route 17, 1 arrived in PacificGrove to meet with the Director of theHopkins Marine Station, StevePalumbi. Sporting a gray ponytail, the57-year-old Palumbi was speakingwith a young researcher as Iapproached. "I'll be ready in just a fewminutes," he said. "Feel free to wanderabout. The only thing is, there's awhole colony of harbor seals in thatregion and they're pretty skittish, sotry to stay away." Harbor seals in thebackyard. Naturally.

I walked outside. Sun glistened off thewater while cormorants dried theirwings on rocks jutting out into thebay. A pair of divers clad in wetsuitsemerged unexpectedly from thewater. Several researchers sippedcoffee on picnic tables overlooking the

water, perched in front of theirlaptops. World-famous shark expertsplayed basketball in the driveway.

Palumbi is perhaps best known for hiswork using molecular genetictechniques to identify species ofwhales, dolphins, and even sharkswhose products are available incommercial markets. He has had hisshare of controversy around genetictesting of marine animals. Back in theearly 1990s, Palumbi and hiscolleague decided to investigatereports about the whaling industry inJapan. There were rumors that theexistence of legal whale hunting forresearch purposes was serving as acover for illegal hunting ofendangered species.

They traveled to Japan to investigate.Because they weren't able to transportthe meat they purchased out of thecountry, they set up a lab within theirhotel room and conducted DNAanalyses on what they collected. Theydetermined that not only was thewhale meat from endangered speciesof whales - such as Humpback and Finwhales - but that there were alsodolphins and porpoises that werebeing marketed as Minke whale meat.It became both a conservation issue aswell as a public health one, as thedolphin and porpoise meat containedhigh levels of mercury and thereforewere particularly dangerous forpregnant women.

In the early 2000s, Palumbi turned hisattention, if somewhat unofficially, togenetic testing of shark fins. Thisprocess has a potential role in sharkfishing and finning regulation. In ashark fishery regulated through the

18

use of DNA testing, for example, onecould test a sample of the fins withineach shipment to determine whetherthey came from the regulated species- one that's abundant - as opposed toan endangered species. Theprocedures would be similar to thoseused in the U.S. to regulate meatsafety. If a couple of pieces of meat areabove a particular bacterial count, thewhole shipment must be discarded.Similarly, if even one shark fin is froman endangered species, as indicated bythe DNA test, the entire shipment ofshark fins would be discarded and thefishermen would face the ensuingpunishment.

As with any new regulatory system,there would undoubtedly be flaws."The problem with [testing a sample]is how do you unkill a shark?" saidMcCosker. While it's true the sharksthat didn't meet the guidelines wouldhave already been sacrificed, the ideais that the fines or penalties imposedwould be severe enough to preventthe fishermen from repeating thesame mistake. In other words, itwould be a scare tactic.

DNA testing of shark fins developedinto a new method of genetic testingcalled genetic stock identification(GSI). GSI allows researchers todetermine not only the species ofshark but also the geographic origin.In 2009, researchers from StonyBrook University collected samplesfrom 62 dried Hammerhead shark finsfrom the Hong Kong market. Afterexamining each fin's mitochondrialDNA sequence, they determined that57 of the 62 fins could be traced to theAtlantic or Indo-Pacific regions. Thisinformation also has the potential to

help regulate the industry - if thereare regions where shark species aredeclining, perhaps those regionswould be off limits for shark fishing.The ability to name the species as wellas the location where it came fromwould give more power to theregulators.

So why did you decide to start testingshark fins? I asked Palumbi. He leanedback in his chair. Back in 2002, he wasteaching a molecular ecology class andsearching for a class project -something to demonstrate the powerof genetic testing. He considered whatmight be interesting - what would fallinto the category of "I can't tell what itis but the DNA might," he said. Hedecided on shark fins. So each year, hegave the students $20 and sent themto Chinatown in San Francisco to buythe highest quality fins they couldfind. Over time, $20 afforded smallerand smaller fins. It was clear themarket was shifting.

In 2011, the hearings in California toban the shark fin market wereoccurring in Sacramento. Palumbi'secology class was sitting on data thatcould be relevant to the hearings, butthe sample sizes were so small theycouldn't make a substantial case. Theevidence they had collected suggestedthat the shark fin market in Californiawas voracious, said Palumbi. In thisstate alone, it was sucking in sharksfrom all over the world. "It's the blackhole of shark fins," he said. "That'swhat we would have concluded, butwe couldn't prove it." Not only that,there wasn't much interest on the partof lawmakers as to which sharkspecies were being targeted. "It didn'toccur to anyone to ask that question,"

19

Palumbi said. Instead, the discussionrevolved around human economicconcerns - the cultural relevance,what it will do to the vendors, andwhether there are alternatives.

Although Palumbi believes that asustainable shark fishery is"intellectually conceivable," he too isconcerned about the potentialexploitation of such a market. As helearned with the whale meat work, ifthere is even a small window for legalproduct, particularly if that product ishighly valuable, there is great risk ofillegal products entering the market.

The price tag for a DNA test regulationsystem would be manageable,assuming the testing would occur on asample of fins rather than every finthat entered the market. "If you havesavings of economies of scale - youcould go from fin to sequence for $5,"he said. That means a fin has to beworth substantially more than $5 tobe worth it.

Unfortunately, these genetic testingtechniques still do not tell scientistswhat they want to know more thananything - the true population of thesharks. As of now, there are onlyestimates on population sizes basedon what can be seen and monitored inthe water. It's nearly impossible toknow what effect you're having on thepopulation through shark removalwhen you don't know what the actualpopulation is.

What we do know is that sharks areanimals with some of the lowestreproductive rates in the ocean, aswell as some of the longest maturationtimes. Because of that, they're going to

have a really low sustainable huntingrate, said Palumbi. For people who areused to working with sustainable fish,it's just not the same. Sharks producejust a few pups in a litter, compared tofish that can lay millions of eggs. Evenin a regulated market, how could thepopulations ever catch up?

Synthetic shark fin soup

For conservationists concerned abouthow to quell the overwhelmingdemand for shark fin soup, one viableoption is to create a synthetic sharkfin that maintains the same propertiesas actual shark fin and can create agelatinous texture within the soup. Afew chefs are already pursuing thisidea.

In Hong Kong, mock shark fin gainedpopularity in the 1950s and 1960s forChinese who were unable to afford thereal thing. It is now being used bychefs who are seeking ways toreproduce the delicacy withoutfeeding into the shark fin market.

Corey Lee is a James Beard Award-winning chef and owner of Benu - ahigh-end restaurant located indowntown San Francisco. Lee hasdeveloped a recipe for shark fin soupthat uses synthetic shark fin.iii "Sharkfin is an obvious ingredient to thinkabout because it has such a strongpresence in Chinese cooking and isvery symbolic - more in terms of whatit represents than what it offers on thepalette," said Lee.

To develop the product, Lee workedwith a company called CP Kelco - oneof the largest manufacturer's of

20

hydrocolloids, a substance derivedfrom ingredients such as seaweed thatforms a gel when it's in the presenceof water. Hydrocolloids are also usedin food products such as jelly or Jell-Oto create a gelatinous texture. Lee'sinitial tests using hydrocolloidsinvolved side-to-side comparisons toreal shark's fin using both sight andtaste until he created a texture for theshark's fin substitute he was satisfiedwith.

Lee decided to use faux shark's finback in 2008 - years before the stateof California elected to ban the sharkfin market. He said it was neverintended to be a political statement,but instead reflected his personalperspective on the issue. "The reasonpeople want to serve shark fin is notfor the taste, although the texture isreally unique," he said. "It's becauseit's rare and expensive - and it's forthose reasons that it's served atbanquets and for special occasions."

When Lee first began servingsynthetic shark fin soup, he received anumber of threatening emails frompeople who assumed the soup usedreal shark's fin. After he and his staffmade it clear the shark's fin wasactually of the synthetic variety, therestaurant was contacted by variousmarine conservation groups who wereinterested in promoting its use insome way. Lee wasn't interested inthat either. He simply wanted to servea dish with unique meaning.

For some, despite the historicalrelevance, the allure of shark fin soupremains elusive, particularly when itcomes to the taste itself. "Personally Iwould say shark fin soup is not

delectable," said McCosker. "It's closeto terrible. It's sort of like washed sockwater."

But for many, it's less about the tastethan what it signifies. It's about theluxury of the fish, the historicalsignificance, and for those who believein it, the nutritional value of it. "If youcan somehow deliver that feeling in adifferent way without real shark fin, Idon't think there's a need for it," saidLee.

Soup to Nuts: What's the Answer?

From enhancing legislation tosustainable fisheries to syntheticshark fin soup - efforts to address theissue of shark depletion are seeminglyendless. And yet despite these efforts,both the market for shark fins andglobal catch rates have continuedunabated.

Some conservationists and advocacygroups blame the lack of progress onglobal collaboration. "NorthernCalifornia, Australia, New Zealand -you have a couple of kingpins reigningover their kingdoms and they don'twant anyone to come in because theymight not be the king or queenanymore," said Chris Fischer ofOcearch. "They're not really intocollaboration, they're not really intoocean or shark first. They're into beingthe man, or being the woman. So wehave to disrupt this...the ocean needsour help now."

Regardless of the variouscontroversies around sharkconservation, today scientists are leftwith unanswered questions about the

21

cost of shark removal to the world'soceans. Fishermen whose livelihoodsdepend on the shark fin industry havehad to contend with rapidly changinglaws and regulations around theircatch quotas. And a cultural delicacythat was once revered is nowconsidered to be distasteful.

The laws alone aren't cutting it.Michael Kwong didn't get away withhoarding shark fins, but there areundoubtedly others who aremanaging to slip through the cracks inthe system - exploiting the loopholesor turning to illegal channels. In recentyears, reporters and conservationistsworking to expose the industry wereshot at by pirate shark finners inSouth America. In the meantime,shark populations are collapsing -some populations have declined by anestimated 90 percent over the last 30

years. If a sustainable shark fisherywill lead to exploitation, genetictesting is limited to only a sample offins, and synthetic shark fin souphasn't gained favor, then what do wedo?

If the demand for fins and the practiceof shark finning continue at thecurrent rate, human interference willforever change the nature of ouroceans. In precisely what way, wecan't be sure. Conservationists andshark advocates are now turning tothe next generation to gainmomentum in turning the tide. Byeducating today's youth on the impactof shark fin consumption, they hope tostem the future demand for shark finsand relieve the pressure on one of theocean's key predators. Dishonoringshark fin soup may be our onlyanswer.

22

Bibliography:

Anon. "Zhong guo peng ren bai ke quan shu (China culinary art encyclopaedia)."Zhong guo da bai ke quan shu chu ban zhe (China encyclopedia publishers), 1995.

Chapman, D., Pinhal, D., and Shivji, M. "Tracking the fin trade: genetic stockidentification in western Atlantic scalloped hammerhead sharks Sphyrna lewini."Endangered Species Research, 2009.

Clarke, S., Milner-Gulland, E., and Bjorndal, T. "Social, Economic, and RegulatoryDrivers of the Shark Fin Trade." Marine Resource Economics, 2007.

CNN. "Better than the real thing: Hong Kong's imitation shark's fin." CNN, 27 May2011.

Cook, S. "Trends in shark fin markets: 1980, 1990, and beyond." Chondros, 1990.Denyer, S. "In China, victory for wildlife conservation as citizens persuaded to giveup shark fin soup." Washington Post, 19 Oct 2013.

Ferretti, F., Worm, B., Britten, G., et al. "Patterns and ecosystem consequences ofshark declines in the ocean." Ecology Letters, 2010.

Fowler, S., Cavanagh, R., Camhi, M., et al. "Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status ofthe Chondrichthyan Fishes." IUCN, 2005.

Interview with Chris Fischer, Director of Ocearch. October 24, 2013.

Interview with Corey Lee, Head Chef of Benu. January 18, 2014.

Interview with David McGuire, Director of Sea Stewards. December 17, 2013.

Interview with Fio Micheli, Professor at Stanford University's Hopkins MarineStation. January 17, 2014.

Interview with Greg Skomal, Program Manager, Senior Marine Fisheries Biologist,Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game. October 22, 2013.

Interview with John Mandelman, Research Director at the New England Aquarium.October 16, 2013.

Interview with John McCosker, Chair of Aquatic Biology at the California Academy ofSciences. December 20, 2013.

23

Interview with John McCosker, Chair of Aquatic Biology at the California Academy ofSciences. January 21, 2014.

Interview with Lieutenant Patrick Foy, California Department of Fish and Wildlife.February 25, 2014.

Interview with Michael Kwong, Owner, Hop Woo, Inc. January 18, 2014.

Interview with Peter Pyle, Staff Biologist, Institute for Bird Populations. December13, 2013.

Interview with Simon Thorrold, Senior Scientist at Woods Hole OceanographicInstitute. October 24, 2013.

Interview with Steve Palumbi, Director of Stanford University's Hopkins MarineStation. January 17, 2014.

Love, M. "Great White Sharks Return to Cape Cod I Jaws Comes Home." NFN News, 8July 2011. [Video footage available here:http://naturefilmsnetwork.com/blog/2011/07/great-white-sharks-return-to-cape-cod-jaws-comes-home/].

McCosker, J. "Declaration of Dr. John E. McCosker in Support of Motion for Leave toFile Brief as Amicus Curiae. Case No. 4:12-cv-03759-PJH." United States DistrictCourt, 2012.

National Marine Fisheries Service. "2011 Shark Finning Report to Congress." NOAA,2012.

Pollack, A. "Shark Cartilage, Not a Cancer Therapy." New York Times. 3 Jun 2007.

Rose, D. "An Overview of World Trade in Sharks and Other Cartilaginous Fishes."TRAFFIC International, 1996.

Stacey, N. "Boats to Burn: Bajo Fishing Activity in the Australian Fishing Zone." ANUE Press, 2007.

Thomson, C. "Catonsville native has escaped death twice while filming sharks."Baltimore Sun, 29 July 2011.

Vannuccini, S. "Shark Utilization, Marketing and Trade: FAO Fisheries TechnicalPaper 389." Food and Agriculture Organization, 1999.

Wagner, E. "Are You Eating What You Think You're Eating?" Slate, 29 Jan 2013.

24

Worm, B., Davis, B., Kettemer, L, et al. "Global catches, exploitation rates, andrebuilding options for sharks." Marine Policy, 2013.

Wyatt, E. "Peter Benchley, Author of 'Jaws,' Dies at 65." New York Times, 13 Feb2006.

25