Will a Fin ban make an impact on the illegal trade of fins?

Much like elephant ivory, rhino horn and other endangered species products, the only way to truly curb the trade of fins is by not allowing the possession, sale or trade of that product. Any legal trade of animal products will lead to loopholes that allow for the illegal trade to continue. States that ban the act of ‘finning’ but continue to allow the trade of fins, often claim that  they have a handle on what comes and goes. The reality is that keeping the flow of the product going not only keeps the market booming, it also causes illegal finning to continue, whether you officially endorse it or not. 

Closing the legal trade of a product cuts down on poaching. This was clearly demonstrated in the case of the ivory trade. When it was decided to open the market to legally sell stockpiles of ivory, the poaching of elephants immediately increased dramatically. Legal pathways enable the illegal trade of protected and endangered species and unreported catches because these existing channels allow product to be moved easily. Offenses are also harder to catch and prosecute because the burden of proof is on the enforcement agencies. Black markets and illegal fishing will always exist, but making it harder to move fins greatly cuts down on…

• The many fishers that don’t want to break the law, but continued to sell fins anyways because it was easy. They may have also moved fins illegally because there was no way it could be proven or prosecuted if they were caught.

• Many large commercial fishing operations that fish in foreign waters rely on permits purchased from that country ( i.e. for swordfish and tuna). Sharks are a “bycatch” and a bonus income. When fins become illegal, many commercial outfits will not want to risk losing their permits over fins and will instruct their crew and captains to avoid sharks. This has been proven in places like the Marshall Islands. Also, observation of fisheries data showed that shark bycatch went dramatically down in the region around Hawaii after the fin ban passed, showing that incidental catch is not really incidental.

Of course much of this depends on enforcement. But no matter what the capacity is of a particular country or state, enforcing something that is illegal is a lot easier than something that is vaguely illegal, under specific circumstances and only when caught in the act in a certain location.

Last but not least, the majority of restaurant owners do not want to break the law, at least not in the United States. And this cuts down greatly on the demand side. What most people don’t realize is the fact that the U.S. actually used to have quite a high number of restaurants serving shark fin soup. That has changed since fin bans became enacted. It is a lot easier for restaurants to justify to their patrons that they don’t serve soup because it’s illegal, rather than out of ethical reason. Since it is so hard to determine whether fins come from illegal or legal sources, it is believed that fin bans reduce the illegal trade. It is not the perfect solution, but one of the most practical and enforceable legal actions we can take to impact the trade of fins.

Sustainably sourced shark fins?

The theory that providing  ‘sustainably sourced’ fins would be better than letting the illegal trade have 100% of the market may sound positive at first glance, but it is misguided at best.  Are we willing to supply fins from millions of sharks every year to out-compete the illegal market? Because any less would barely be a blip on the global market.  Tracking which fins would actually be sustainably ‘harvested’ or obtained is unrealistic for many reasons. Monitoring and reporting would be nearly impossible. Certification processes would be biased by whomever establishes the standards, which also means it could be different in every country. Such a process also takes years to implement. The situation is too urgent to attempt elaborate fisheries management schemes that may or may not be doable. Furthermore, when a State allows the import and transshipment of fins, they will automatically allow fins from countries that have not made finning illegal.

The argument of ‘wasting a resource’?

Some will argue that we should not be wasting part of the shark when it is already dead. This ignores the fact that most sharks are killed because of the fin in the first place. Not the other way around. We have had to take this route with many other species (elephants, rhinos, narwhals, and great whale species). All of these have bans on ‘trade’ in their parts, but can still be hunted (albeit limited) in certain regions.

Let’s be real, we have proven again and again that we are incapable of keeping greed at bay. We do not use resources holistically by any stretch of the imagination, unless there are some clear lines drawn by the law. Furthermore, if a fishery is not economically viable without selling the fins of sharks, then maybe it simply isn’t viable? Utilizing the whole animal does not make the practice more sustainable. 

What about Shark Bycatch?

Bycatch is defined as unintentional catch that ends up on a line or in nets while the target species (tuna, swordfish, etc.) is pursued. Why would commercial vessels avoid accidental catch of sharks when the fins are a massive cash bonus? And despite of what the industry claims, they do know how to reduce bycatch of sharks, which has been shown when bycatch rates mysteriously dropped in areas where fin sales weren't allowed.

Taking part in the sale of fins, no matter how they were obtained, means you are a willing participant in a trade that is devastating shark populations on a global scale.