How policy inconsistencies may hinder mortality reduction of sharks and ray —and fuel misconceptions of actual levels of protection

Sharks and rays are the most threatened vertebrates on Earth. While conservation policies have expanded significantly over the past 20 years, mortality levels remain too high and criticism of shark and ray protection measures... [ view full abstract ]

Sharks and rays are the most threatened vertebrates on Earth. While conservation policies have expanded significantly over the past 20 years, mortality levels remain too high and criticism of shark and ray protection measures is persistent. The critiques include listing too few species, lack of implementation, inadequate funding and low capacity for enforcement; however, studies have not assessed whether the policies are actually enforceable, whether policy inconsistencies reduce the likelihood of species listings and management effectiveness, or whether the levels of protection and the public perception of protection are uniform. We conducted an international, regional and national level policy analysis looking for inconsistencies that may hinder reduction in mortality of sharks and rays. Policies and fishery management tools were assessed for levels of threat versus level of protection and whether country signatories, species, areas, penalties, and exemptions are consistent across interventions. We identified gaps that may limit management effectiveness and identified loopholes where continued exploitation is possible. Strengthening of shark and ray conservation and management policies is possible if the same rigor applied to conservation science is also applied when writing policy interventions.  Without uniform definitions underlying policy, the interpretation of management decisions, and of success, are likely to be based less on science and more on social values and political expediency. This talk will discuss the gaps identified by our analysis and explore our perceptions of protection of threatened sharks and rays.