Conservation Appeal - Porbeagle & Spurdog

[x]

Folks,

I'd appreciate if anyone could print off the following letter, sign it, stick it in an envelope and mail it to the fisheries minister (address details below).

Please take 10 minutes and lend a hand with this - that's not a lot to ask in return for the hours of pleasure you get from angling, is it? It's a matter of urgency as the EU CITES group will meet 18-19 December and a lot of countries are not yet decided on the issue - so we need to 'help' make a few minds up. As in, within the next few days. So please, get writing.

Further details can be found on the Shark Alliance website at http://www.sharkalliance.org


Mr John Browne,
Office of the Minister of State,
Leeson Lane,
Dublin 2



Dear Mr Browne,

On behalf of myself and concerned recreational sea anglers nationwide, I am writing to express our strongest support for Germany?s proposals to list spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) and porbeagle sharks (Lamna nasus) under Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). We are hopeful that all European Union (EU) Member States will recognize the conservation potential and sound basis of these proposals and will vote next month to forward them to the Fourteen Conference of the Parties (CoP14) to CITES.

As you may be aware, sharks generally grow slowly, mature late and produce few young. These characteristics make shark populations especially prone to overexploitation and long-lasting depletion. Spiny dogfish and porbeagle sharks are no exceptions to this rule. In fact, the severe depletion of their populations in several parts of the world is exceptionally well documented, leading to the addition of both species to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, as Vulnerable Globally, Endangered in the Northwest Atlantic, and Critically Endangered in the Northeast Atlantic. Both species enter international trade in substantial volumes and are therefore highly relevant for CITES attention.

European demand for spiny dogfish meat is driving directed fisheries which target pregnant females and result in serial depletion of populations around the world. Today, most spiny dogfish stocks are overfished, some of them seriously so, and yet the majority of fisheries are inadequately managed or completely unrestricted. Rebuilding programs are rare and where they do exist, suffer from lack of cooperation or compliance. For instance, fishing mortality under the US Atlantic spiny dogfish management plan, in place since 2000, has been roughly three times target levels in most years due largely to state defiance. Last month, US Atlantic states ignored technical recommendations and voted to increase the state spiny dogfish quota by 50% and allow trip limits four times the levels advised by scientists. The vast majority of US dogfish landings are exported to other countries.

Porbeagle sharks have been subject to targeted fisheries for decades and are also often retained when taken as bycatch. The meat of porbeagle sharks is highly prized, particularly in Europe, while the large fins are valuable in the Asian shark fin market. Lucrative demand in the face of little or no fishing restriction has led to porbeagle declines in many regions, most dramatically in the North Atlantic. Overexploitation has driven mature females of the Northwest Atlantic population to just 12?15% of former levels. Despite being recognized as ?species of concern? in the US and Canada, targeted porbeagle shark fishing has not yet been halted. ICES advice for no fishing of the the Northeast Atlantic population has not been adopted. There is no management for southern hemisphere porbeagle populations outside of New Zealand.

Bilateral management of shared spiny dogfish and porbeagle shark stocks is lacking. Fisheries data reporting and monitoring of international trade are also inadequate in most range states. Beyond cooperation between the EU and Norway, there are no regional or international management measures in place for these species.

Proposals from Germany to list spiny dogfish and the porbeagle shark were discussed at the 2004 meeting of the CITES Animals Committee?s Shark Working Group. The 2004 Working Group report states that the Group ?reviewed the technical merits of Germany?s draft proposal, and most members agreed that spiny dogfish appeared to meet the criteria for listing in CITES Appendix II.? The Working Group did not deviate from this position in its 2006 meetings.

Spiny dogfish and porbeagle sharks also meet the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) criteria for CITES listing, falling in the lowest productivity category of the most vulnerable species (those with an intrinsic rate of increase under 0.14 and a generation time longer than 10 years). The extent and rate of population declines have exceeded the recommended qualifying levels for listing. Appendix II listings for these species are also wholly consistent with the FAO International Plan of Action for Sharks.

Improvements in the management of fisheries and monitoring of trade for these shark species are urgently needed, but are not being provided under existing regimes. We recognize that an Appendix II listing would have little if any effect on EU dogfish and porbeagle fisheries or on rebuilding the woefully depleted stocks of the Northeast Atlantic. We believe strongly, however, that Appendix II listing can prompt (or improve the effectiveness of) management action in countries currently exporting dogfish and porbeagle sharks from depleted populations, and can help ensure that developing fisheries for these species, that will supply European demand in the future, are sustainable.

We applaud Germany?s persistent intention to act as a responsible consumer of vulnerable spiny dogfish and porbeagle sharks. We are also impressed with the thorough analysis and solid information presented in the CITES listings proposals for these imperiled species. We respectfully urge all Member States to vote in favor of advancing them on the behalf of the European Union for consideration at CITES CoP14.


Thank you for considering our views.

Sincerely,



SIGN YOUR NAME HERE !!!!!



(include club memberships/numbers etc if you wish - if you put your address on the top of the letter, you might even get a reply - if so, do let us know)

[MC]

what about us lads up north can we get involved?

[Andy Elliott]

what about us lads up north can we get involved?

Yes
Post it to...


Ben Bradshaw
Department of Environment,
Food & Rural Affairs,
Nobel House,
17 Smith Square
, London,
SW1P 3JR


Andy

[MC]

many thanks will get that done.

[x]

I think Lord Rooker is still technically the NI fisheries minister, but rather than split the postbag, just send it to Ben Bradshaw.

[Tanglerat]

Less than ten mins work. :D

c'mon folks, whatcha waiting for?

[petekd]

Well said Tanglerat, copied, pasted, printed, signed, stamped and posted...... 5 mins, a sheet of paper, an envelope and 48c of a stamp lads.....not a big deal is it.

[samo]

sent

regards,

samo

[corbyeire]

yea i sent it - is that what you wanted - happy now :twisted:

[nige]

done

[cortaz]

8)

[samo]

Sandman i got a response from the bloke i sent that letter to have you received one yet

[fishinmidget]

late.........but done

[corbyeire]

got the ole "weve got your letter" letter - if they spent as much time on their work as on the fancy paper, stamped with a golden harp and pictures representing - communications, broadcasting, energy marine and natural resources :roll:

[corbyeire]

got the ole "weve got your letter" letter - if they spent as much time on their work as on the fancy paper, stamped with a golden harp and pictures representing - communications, broadcasting, energy marine and natural resources :roll:

[Tanglerat]

I'd hate to have been holding my breath.......... Got a reply yesterday, dated December 8th, envelope postmarked 13th Feb!

Usual waffle from a minion, thank you for writing, will bring your viewpoint to attention of minister etc etc.

Is this really how much importance they bring to our concerns?

[corbyeire]

in short - yes - not enough people - or the right people - making it a problem - for OUR representatives :roll: