BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER | | Senator Fran Pavley, Chair | | 2011-2012 Regular Session | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- BILL NO: AB 376 HEARING DATE: June 14, 2011 AUTHOR: Fong URGENCY: No VERSION: May 19, 2011 CONSULTANT: Marie Liu DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes SUBJECT: Shark fins. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW Section 7704 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits the sale, purchase, commercial delivery, or possession on a commercial vessel of any shark fin that has been removed from the carcass. Fins of the thresher shark may be removed and possessed on a commercial fishing vessel so long as the fins are unaltered and the corresponding carcass is in possession. Several other sections of the Fish and Game Code put restrictions on the commercial taking of shark including a prohibition of the taking of any white shark (§8599) and a prohibition on taking of shark and swordfish with a drift gill net without an appropriate permit (§8561). Furthermore, Fish and Game regulations establish recreational take restrictions for a number of specific shark species including Leopard, soupfin, mako, thresher, and blue shark. Federal law regulates the shark fishery under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This act has been amended, including by the Shark Conservation Act of 2010, to prohibit the landing of sharks without their fins attached. Federal law also prohibits shark finning. Shark finning, as described by the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries) in its 2009 annual Shark Finning Report to Congress, is the "practice of taking a shark, removing a fin or fins (whether or not including the tail), and returning the remainder of the shark to the sea. Because the meat of the shark is usually of low value, the finless sharks are thrown back into the sea and subsequently die." Since sharks need to continuously swim to breath, the finned shark either suffocates to death or 1 is preyed upon. PROPOSED LAW This bill would prohibit the possession, sale, offer for sale, trade, or distribution of a shark fin. Specifically, this bill would: Define "shark fin" as the detached tail or fin of an elasmobranch (shark) that may be raw, dried, or otherwise processed. Exempts the possession of shark fins for scientific or educational purposes by a person with a valid permit issued by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG). Exempts the possession of shark fins by a person who holds commercial or recreational permit or license to take or land sharks. Until January 1, 2013, allow a restaurant to possess, sell, trade, or distribute shark fin that is prepared for consumption and was possessed by that restaurant as of January 1, 2012. Includes findings and declarations regarding the ecological importance of sharks, the worldwide decline in shark populations, sharks' susceptibility to decline, the loss of tens of millions of sharks to shark finning, the role of the shark fin market driving shark population declines, and the high mercury content of shark fin which is dangerous to consumers' health. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT According to the author, "Sharks are overfished and exploited for their fins at alarming rates that are unnecessary for human consumption and unsustainable for the overall health of our seas. Sharks are top predators that are critical to the ocean ecosystem, without them, the health of the world's oceans marine life will decline. Scientists have found that shark populations have decreased dramatically in recent years, with some species at risk of extinction." A coalition of primarily environmental organizations including the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Defenders of Wildlife, and the United Angles of Southern California, state in support of the bill, "Sharks are in serious trouble as a result of the international shark fin trade, with some populations declined by 99%. The demand for high-value shark fin (as opposed to other low-value shark products) continues to drive the decimation of sharks. Sharks are critical apex predators that keep our ecosystems working. Banning the shark fin trade is the only way to save sharks- fin trade bans just like AB 376 have been enacted or are 2 poised to be enacted in other US states and in countries around the world. Our regulations cannot deter actors in international waters, but ending the fin trade here can." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION The Asian Food Trade Association opposes the bill because they believe that if the shark fin is to be banned, then shark meat and all shark related commercial products should also be banned. Otherwise, the bill unfairly targets the Chinese and Asian eating habits. Much of the opposition to this bill is from individuals, restaurant and business owners, and family associations. While these individuals have not collaborated officially as a single group, several individuals collectively met with legislative offices, including this committee's staff. The group argues that: Sharks as a whole are not endangered as evidenced by the lack of shark species classified as threatened or endangered in the US and the listing of only 3 shark species by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Finning is no longer a widespread practice and that sharks are caught by all nations and races for their meat. The shark fin is a valuable by-product of fishing for shark meat. The passage of this bill will result in thousands of jobs lost and the loss of tax revenue from the sale of shark fin. Federal and international finning laws are effective. Banning shark fin is discriminating against a single culture because this would be the only state ban of a food product, the bill only bans the fin and not other shark products, and the bill aims to protect sharks when there are more threatened fish species including bluefin tuna and wild salmon. COMMENTS Sharks are important to marine ecosystems. Sharks are generally top predators, thus their populations influence their prey's distribution which causes a "domino effect" through the whole food web. For example, sharks often suppress the number of smaller predators that consume smaller fish and shellfish, including commercially important species. Thus, in the northwest Atlantic, large shark declines have corresponded with a decrease in commerciallyvaluable bay scallops. Because sharks have very large migratory ranges, the significant loss of sharks is 3 predicted to result in complex changes to the ocean ecosystem. Growing concern over shark populations. NOAA Fisheries, in its 2009 annual Shark Finning Report to Congress, states, "Many shark species are characterized by relatively late maturity, slow growth, and low reproductive rates, which can make them particularly vulnerable to overexploitation. Concern has grown about the status of shark stocks and the sustainability of their exploitation in world fisheries, as demand for some shark species and shark products (i.e., fins) has increased." Numerous scientific studies have noted significant population declines for specific shark populations and geographic areas. For example, two highly cited studies found that shark species in the northwest Atlantic are estimated to have declined 40-89% since the late 1980s, and oceanic whitetip and silky sharks in the Gulf of Mexico have declined by over 99% and 90% respectively. Baum, J.K., R.A. Myers, D.G. Kehler, B.Worm, S.J. Harley, and P.A. Doherty. (2003). Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science. 17 January 2003, 299: 389-392. Baum, J.K. and R.A. Myers. (2004). Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecology Letters. 7: 135-145. More generally, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has finished a 10-year effort to evaluate all chondrichthyan fishes (sharks and their relatives) that have been described in scientific literature before the end of 2007. The IUCN found that of the 881 species of chondrichthyans globally, nearly a third are at higher levels of concern ("critically endangered," "endangered," and "vulnerable"). Open ocean sharks are particularly vulnerable with 58% of the species being "threatened" with extinction. There is however also considerable uncertainty because there is insufficient population data for many chondrichthyan species. The committee may wish to consider whether there is substantial scientific information suggesting that many shark species are threatened and facing significant population declines. Fishing, particularly fishing driven by the demand for shark fins, plays a predominate role in causing population declines. NOAA Fisheries has concluded that since the mid-1980s, a number of shark populations in the United States have declined, primarily due to overfishing. The IUCN also has concluded that 4 sharks are primarily threatened by fishing. Of the fishing threat, more than half of the threat is a result of by-catch and about a third of the threat is a result of directed commercial fishing of sharks. Since shark fins account for 40% of the value in the reported shark trade but comprise only 7% of the volume, the IUCN states that, "it has become increasingly clear that the international demand for shark fins is the driving force behind most shark fisheries today." The IUCN further states, "Historically most sharks- especially those taken in high-seas fisheries- were discarded because of their low value and difficulties associated with storing their meat on board. The situation began to change in the 1980s when the demand for shark fin soup in Asian cultures began to grow. Shark fins are one of the world's most expensive fishery products, and of much higher value than shark meat." Can sufficient global shark protections be achieved through US and state fishing laws? A 2006 study that examined shark biomass in the shark fin trade concluded that there is significant underreporting of shark fin harvest, as the shark fin biomass in the fin trade was three to four times higher than the reported shark catch figures. This high level of underreporting and the fact that there is a large variance in other countries' shark fishing laws and enforcement, indicates that there are substantial gaps globally for shark protection. The committee may wish to consider whether sufficient protection of shark populations can be achieved without changes in the international shark market, regardless of the severity of US and state fishing laws. Trade bans, on the other hand, can have impacts on the international shark trade that cannot be achieved with domestic fishing regulations. The Legislature has in the past has attempted to affect international trade of other animals, including a ban on the sale and possession of parts from zebras, cheetahs, tigers, elephants, and leopards (Penal Code §650o). Is it appropriate or fair to ban one part of the shark rather than the entire shark? According to the author, the intent of this measure is to address the overfishing of sharks. Because the fin market is such a significant driver in the shark trade, a ban on shark fin can sufficiently reduce the shark market. The author states, "The minimal or nonexistent market for other low-value shark parts and shark meat (which reports state is exported from the United States for only $1 per pound), does not 5 put shark populations at risk of collapse. Conversely, the high value of fins (which can fetch $600 or more a pound) incentivizes overfishing and the practice of finning. The situation is very much like the ivory trade ban - elephants were primarily targeted for high-priced ivory, though meat, hides and other products find limited market. Opponents, however, argue that banning only the fin disproportionately impacts one cultural group, as shark fin soup is almost the sole use for shark fin. Similar efforts. Recently, Washington, Hawaii, Guam, and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands enacted legislation to eliminate the shark fin trade within their territorial boundaries. The Oregon Legislature just passed legislation this month that would establish a shark fin ban. Also, a member of China's parliament has introduced a measure this year that would ban shark fin in China. SUPPORT Asian Pacific American Ocean Harmony Alliance (Sponsor) Monterey Bay Aquarium (Sponsor) 7th Generation Advisors Action for Animals Animal Place Aquarium of the Bay Asian Americans for Community Involvement Asian and Pacific Islanders California Action Network Betty Yee, Member, State Board of Equalization Born Free USA Cal Coast California Academy of Science California Association of Zoos and Aquariums California Coastal Commission California Coastkeeper Alliance California League of Conservation Voters California Travel Association COARE Coastside Fishing Club County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisor Defenders of Wildlife Environment California Environmental Defense Fund Food Empowerment Project Green Chamber of Commerce Heal the Bay Jim Toomey - Sherman's Lagoon Natural Resources Defense Council 6 Ocean Conservancy Oceana Orange County Baykeepers Orange County Coastkeeper Pacific Environment PawPAC Planning and Conservation League Reef Check San Francisco Baykeeper SeaStewards Shark Savers Sierra Club California Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Los Angeles Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Santa Cruz The Bay Institute The Body Glove The Humane Society of the United States The Nature Conservancy The Sportfishing Conservancy United Anglers United Anglers of Southern California WildAid Wildcoast Numerous individuals OPPOSITION Asian Food Trade Association Asian Nutrition and Health Association Chung Chou City, Inc. National Chinese Welfare Council of Los Angeles County Oriental Food Association Stockton Seafood Center, Inc. Numerous individuals (including business owners, family associations) 7