Preferred conservation policies of shark researchers

David S. Shiffman, Neil Hammerschlag

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

There is increasing concern about the conservation status of sharks. However, the presence of numerous different (and potentially mutually exclusive) policies complicates management implementation and public understanding of the process. We distributed an online survey to members of the largest professional shark and ray research societies to assess member knowledge of and attitudes toward different conservation policies. Questions covered society member opinions on conservation and management policies, personal histories of involvement in advocacy and management, and perceptions of the approach of conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to shark conservation. One hundred and two surveys were completed (overall response rate 21%). Respondents considered themselves knowledgeable about and actively involved in conservation and management policy; a majority believed scientists have a responsibility to advocate for conservation (75%), and majorities have sent formal public comments to policymakers (54%) and included policy suggestions in their papers (53%). They believe sustainable shark fisheries are possible, are currently happening today (in a few places), and should be the goal instead of banning fisheries. Respondents were generally less supportive of newer limit-based (i.e., policies that ban exploitation entirely without a species-specific focus) conservation policy tools, such as shark sanctuaries and bans on the sale of shark fins, than of target-based fisheries management tools (i.e., policies that allow for sustainable harvest of species whose populations can withstand it), such as fishing quotas. Respondents were generally supportive of environmental NGO efforts to conserve sharks but raised concerns about some NGOs that they perceived as using incorrect information and focusing on the wrong problems. Our results show there is an ongoing debate in shark conservation and management circles relative to environmental policy on target-based natural resources management tools versus limit-based conservation tools. They also suggest that closer communication between the scientific and environmental NGO communities may be needed to recognize and reconcile differing values and objectives between these groups.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)805-815
Number of pages11
JournalConservation Biology
Volume30
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2016

Fingerprint

shark
sharks
researchers
nongovernmental organizations
nongovernmental organization
shark fishery
fisheries
advocacy
conservation status
environmental policy
conservation policy
fishery management
natural resource management
policy
fisheries management
resource management
fishing
animal communication
sales
natural resource

Keywords

  • conservation planning
  • especies amenazadas
  • fisheries
  • fishes
  • marine
  • marino
  • peces
  • pesqueras
  • planeación de la conservación
  • protected areas
  • threatened species
  • áreas protegidas

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Ecology
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation

Cite this

Preferred conservation policies of shark researchers. / Shiffman, David S.; Hammerschlag, Neil.

In: Conservation Biology, Vol. 30, No. 4, 01.08.2016, p. 805-815.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Shiffman, David S. ; Hammerschlag, Neil. / Preferred conservation policies of shark researchers. In: Conservation Biology. 2016 ; Vol. 30, No. 4. pp. 805-815.
@article{5fbb65e6f07540c0980c6e647492c28a,
title = "Preferred conservation policies of shark researchers",
abstract = "There is increasing concern about the conservation status of sharks. However, the presence of numerous different (and potentially mutually exclusive) policies complicates management implementation and public understanding of the process. We distributed an online survey to members of the largest professional shark and ray research societies to assess member knowledge of and attitudes toward different conservation policies. Questions covered society member opinions on conservation and management policies, personal histories of involvement in advocacy and management, and perceptions of the approach of conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to shark conservation. One hundred and two surveys were completed (overall response rate 21{\%}). Respondents considered themselves knowledgeable about and actively involved in conservation and management policy; a majority believed scientists have a responsibility to advocate for conservation (75{\%}), and majorities have sent formal public comments to policymakers (54{\%}) and included policy suggestions in their papers (53{\%}). They believe sustainable shark fisheries are possible, are currently happening today (in a few places), and should be the goal instead of banning fisheries. Respondents were generally less supportive of newer limit-based (i.e., policies that ban exploitation entirely without a species-specific focus) conservation policy tools, such as shark sanctuaries and bans on the sale of shark fins, than of target-based fisheries management tools (i.e., policies that allow for sustainable harvest of species whose populations can withstand it), such as fishing quotas. Respondents were generally supportive of environmental NGO efforts to conserve sharks but raised concerns about some NGOs that they perceived as using incorrect information and focusing on the wrong problems. Our results show there is an ongoing debate in shark conservation and management circles relative to environmental policy on target-based natural resources management tools versus limit-based conservation tools. They also suggest that closer communication between the scientific and environmental NGO communities may be needed to recognize and reconcile differing values and objectives between these groups.",
keywords = "conservation planning, especies amenazadas, fisheries, fishes, marine, marino, peces, pesqueras, planeaci{\'o}n de la conservaci{\'o}n, protected areas, threatened species, {\'a}reas protegidas",
author = "Shiffman, {David S.} and Neil Hammerschlag",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/cobi.12668",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "805--815",
journal = "Conservation Biology",
issn = "0888-8892",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Preferred conservation policies of shark researchers

AU - Shiffman, David S.

AU - Hammerschlag, Neil

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

N2 - There is increasing concern about the conservation status of sharks. However, the presence of numerous different (and potentially mutually exclusive) policies complicates management implementation and public understanding of the process. We distributed an online survey to members of the largest professional shark and ray research societies to assess member knowledge of and attitudes toward different conservation policies. Questions covered society member opinions on conservation and management policies, personal histories of involvement in advocacy and management, and perceptions of the approach of conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to shark conservation. One hundred and two surveys were completed (overall response rate 21%). Respondents considered themselves knowledgeable about and actively involved in conservation and management policy; a majority believed scientists have a responsibility to advocate for conservation (75%), and majorities have sent formal public comments to policymakers (54%) and included policy suggestions in their papers (53%). They believe sustainable shark fisheries are possible, are currently happening today (in a few places), and should be the goal instead of banning fisheries. Respondents were generally less supportive of newer limit-based (i.e., policies that ban exploitation entirely without a species-specific focus) conservation policy tools, such as shark sanctuaries and bans on the sale of shark fins, than of target-based fisheries management tools (i.e., policies that allow for sustainable harvest of species whose populations can withstand it), such as fishing quotas. Respondents were generally supportive of environmental NGO efforts to conserve sharks but raised concerns about some NGOs that they perceived as using incorrect information and focusing on the wrong problems. Our results show there is an ongoing debate in shark conservation and management circles relative to environmental policy on target-based natural resources management tools versus limit-based conservation tools. They also suggest that closer communication between the scientific and environmental NGO communities may be needed to recognize and reconcile differing values and objectives between these groups.

AB - There is increasing concern about the conservation status of sharks. However, the presence of numerous different (and potentially mutually exclusive) policies complicates management implementation and public understanding of the process. We distributed an online survey to members of the largest professional shark and ray research societies to assess member knowledge of and attitudes toward different conservation policies. Questions covered society member opinions on conservation and management policies, personal histories of involvement in advocacy and management, and perceptions of the approach of conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to shark conservation. One hundred and two surveys were completed (overall response rate 21%). Respondents considered themselves knowledgeable about and actively involved in conservation and management policy; a majority believed scientists have a responsibility to advocate for conservation (75%), and majorities have sent formal public comments to policymakers (54%) and included policy suggestions in their papers (53%). They believe sustainable shark fisheries are possible, are currently happening today (in a few places), and should be the goal instead of banning fisheries. Respondents were generally less supportive of newer limit-based (i.e., policies that ban exploitation entirely without a species-specific focus) conservation policy tools, such as shark sanctuaries and bans on the sale of shark fins, than of target-based fisheries management tools (i.e., policies that allow for sustainable harvest of species whose populations can withstand it), such as fishing quotas. Respondents were generally supportive of environmental NGO efforts to conserve sharks but raised concerns about some NGOs that they perceived as using incorrect information and focusing on the wrong problems. Our results show there is an ongoing debate in shark conservation and management circles relative to environmental policy on target-based natural resources management tools versus limit-based conservation tools. They also suggest that closer communication between the scientific and environmental NGO communities may be needed to recognize and reconcile differing values and objectives between these groups.

KW - conservation planning

KW - especies amenazadas

KW - fisheries

KW - fishes

KW - marine

KW - marino

KW - peces

KW - pesqueras

KW - planeación de la conservación

KW - protected areas

KW - threatened species

KW - áreas protegidas

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027922023&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85027922023&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/cobi.12668

DO - 10.1111/cobi.12668

M3 - Article

C2 - 26662225

AN - SCOPUS:85027922023

VL - 30

SP - 805

EP - 815

JO - Conservation Biology

JF - Conservation Biology

SN - 0888-8892

IS - 4

ER -