SATURDAY SUPPLEMENT: Our wars with the jaws

I have to make a confession; I've never watched Jaws, though that's not to say that I wouldn't recognise the memorable two-tone theme. For years, whether it be from personal experience, or from watching teeth-nibbling terrors like Jaws, man has had a negative empathy with Sharks. Even the name is enough to spark ripples on some people's composure. But trepidations aside, we as both a sophisticated and sympathising species have perhaps become too beastly ourselves. This week, the most accurate assessment of commercial fishing suggests 100 million sharks are being killed each year and despite the fact that establishing an accurate rate is difficult, the rate of exploitation is far too high. In 2010 alone, it is predicted that between 63 and 273 million sharks were slaughtered around the world, and this rate hasn't varied substantially in the last 13 years. In some waters, there's more chance of netting marooned treasure than a fin, and now fishing fleets are simply changing location.

When I peeled back a few decades of National Geographic to catch some glimpse of how sharks have been portrayed throughout history, I was astounded to see that the efforts to protect endangered species have most often than not, been rather small-scale and unavailing. In the February 1968 edition, for instance, the core body of the article focuses on just how useful sharks are in the world markets, rather than to raise much needed awareness. Shark livers, I learned, contain quantities of Vitamin A. Until the 1950s, sharks would be slaughtered just for the contents of this one single organ, and it hailed high income for both Japanese and Californian fishermen. From the middle of the 20th century onwards, we learned how to make the vital Vitamin A in large quantities and there is now little demand for shark liver. However, this doesn't stop them from being on the receiving edge of a bullet.

In August 1981, six years after Jaws snapped onto our screens, Australian diver Rodney Fox gave the National Geographic his thoughts on sharks after a serious attack he suffered in 1963. 462 stitches are threaded across the scar; a visual memory of a dive that didn't work out as planned. However, despite his injury "he decries those who kill 'great whites' solely for jaws" as they "bring as much as $1000." Earlier on in the article, Japan was criticised for a poor attempt at protecting sharks. "Despite Japan's leadership in aquaculture and marine conservation, the Japanese public seems unaware of the need to protect sharks." Perhaps the public requires more information and awareness; after all, how can you protect something if you don't know what's threatened? The article closed on a sombre note: "Because we like to swim and dive in an environment unnatural for our species, is it right for us to kill off tens of thousands of harmless residents to ensure our peace of mind?" The Israel Nature Reserve Authority set up a conservation facility off the south coast of the Sinai Peninsula. "We may come to appreciate and understand sharks. As we become more familiar with sharks, the move to protect them may spread."

11 years passed after that '81 article was published, and yet the scene was one of much similarity, if anything more dire. National Geographic from December 1992, took an angle at Whale Sharks; a species in fast decline, and regularly harpooned from small fishing boats. There's a rather arrogant comment from Tokiharu Abe, a Japanese scientist, who said "Japanese fishermen don't like to kill". The truth is, they much prefer to kill sharks than go out of business. From reading, I sensed no immediate efforts to protect the Whale Shark; most reserves were and still are too small to keep up with the number of sharks lost everyday. A thread of hope hangs off the last line of the article: "Shark populations dwindle around the world from overfishing for their fins, fear and vilification are giving way to a more farsighted active concern."

It's only until I reach for the April 2000 National Geographic article on the issue, that I sense some urgency; some sense of impending doom; some switch in consensus. "When Jaws was written, it was genuinely considered that they were anthropophagous- they ate people. Now we know that almost every attack is an accident." Sharks, more often than not, mistake humans for their natural prey. Back in 1975, "it was OK to demonise an animal. Besides, sharks appeared to be infinite in number. No longer." I would have to protest at the sheer length of time it's taken for that to be realised, but at least it has. Scientists estimated the population of some species "dropped by 80%." After much research, two separate issues were highlighted. As well as the fact that sharks are regularly slaughtered for small, yet valuable organs, they're not reproducing at a rate sufficient to maintain a stable population.

The 2000 article tried to seek out a world population count. "We don't even know how many there are around Australia. Not very many though," came the answer. With very little left of some of the most threatened species, the article goes on to state "there has been no public outcry to Save the Sharks." Is our fear for shark perhaps too large? Maybe here's a species we just don't want to protect? Yet, the article concludes with oh so familiar cry of hope: "For them to be driven to extinction by man, a relative newcomer, would be more than an ecological tragedy, it would be a moral travesty."

This week's report calculates about 100 million sharks are caught every year; a figure that has come some way since 2007. I turn the pages of my last shark-infested article, from the March 2007 edition. "73 million sharks die annually for fins" is the rather precise estimate given just 5 years ago, 27 million less than today's figure. Indeed, the issue is, if anything, worsening. "The Oceanic Whitetip- one of the most abundant sharks just three decades ago- is critically endangered." 

Ironically, just like every article I read in research for this week's supplement, I conclude my own article with a sense of hope, though perhaps that's what's been the problem all along. Perhaps mere hope is simply not enough? What is needed now is fast and conscious effort from all countries, not to protect sharks as such, but to inspire economic development. For once a country is developed, it can rely less on the primary fishing industry, and then, at last, can the shark swim without fear.  I do believe that the old saying: "it's scared of you more than you're scared of it" has never been more true.