Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


7.1 USA


7.1.1 Catches

According to FAO data, US elasmobranch catches have increased considerably since 1950, when they were at 2 600 tonnes, to reach more than 40 400 tonnes in 1997. This growth was not regular, as for a long period catches were extremely limited with a slight exception in the late 1950s when they reached 4 500 tonnes. From 1968-1973 catches were very low, bottoming at 1 000 tonnes in 1972. There has been a spectacular increase since the second half of the 1970s. Catches increased steadily, with the exceptions of 1981 and 1984, from 1 700 tonnes in 1975 peaking at 54 100 tonnes in 1992. Following this they declined to 37 600 tonnes in 1995 but in 1996 they grew again to more than 52 000 tonnes. In 1997 a 22.3% decline was experienced as compared to the previous year. The real total catch of sharks is considered to be higher than that reported due to non-recorded bycatch discards and recreational fisheries.

Figure 57 US elasmobranch catches by species in 1 000 tonnes (1950-1997)

Source: FAO - FIDI..

According to FAO statistics, not identified dogfish and skates represent the two major elasmobranch groups caught by the USA. In 1997 they were respectively 21 020 tonnes and 10 140 tonnes. Other catches were “elasmobranch not identified” with nearly 5 700 tonnes, “rays, stingrays, mantas nei” with 2 500 tonnes,“large sharks not identified” (Squaliformes) with 1 080 tonnes and 1 tonne of blacktip shark and 1 tonne of longfin mako shark. In previous years pelagic thresher, dusky, sandbar, nurse shark, shortfin mako, porbeagle and picked dogfish were reported.

From 1979-1983, most of the elasmobranch catches by the USA was composed of dogfish. These catches declined in 1984 to less than 2 800 tonnes from 6 600 tonnes in the previous year. Since then they have grown, with a few exceptions, to peak at more than 29 600 tonnes in 1996. In 1997 they declined to 21 000 tonnes. Landings of rajiformes have also increased. In 1950 they were only 73 tonnes and, with the exception of 1951, they remained under 100 tonnes until 1970. The relevant growth began from 1983 when they reached 3 400 tonnes, compared with 230 tonnes in the previous year. They peaked at 13 900 tonnes in 1996 and were more than 10 100 tonnes in 1997.

Nowadays, the great bulk of US elasmobranch catches come from the Northwest Atlantic. In 1997 landings in this area were more than 31 300 tonnes, representing 77.5% of the total harvest. 7.9% of catches were from Eastern Central Pacific, 7.7% from Western Central Atlantic and 7.0% from the Northeast Pacific. Until 1980 these catches were quite equally distributed on both coasts of the USA. Landings of sharks on the West Coast have grown steadily through 1985, but have since decreased.

Figure 58 US elasmobranch catches by fishing areas in 1 000 tonnes (1950-1997)

Source: FAO - FIDI.

Major species caught on the East Coast are: picked dogfish, bignose, blacktip, blacknose, copper, bull, dusky, lemon, night, nurse, sandbar, sandtiger, silky, spinner, tiger, scalloped hammerhead and great hammerhead sharks. Usually fisheries target the larger species but other smaller sharks are also caught such as fine tooth, Atlantic sharpnose and blacknose. Pelagic species are often captured as bycatch in the tuna and swordfish fisheries.

On the West Coast picked dogfish dominates catches with landings of 2 270 tonnes annually[113]. Other important species caught are thresher shark, Pacific angelshark (Squatina californica) and shortfin mako. Blue and mako sharks are often captured incidentally. According to estimates derived from NMFS observer data (1990-93), mortality of blue sharks amounts to more than 12 000 annually but earlier the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) estimated this mortality at 15 000-20 000 sharks (300 tonnes) per year. Small amounts of angel shark were captured in the past, except for 1980 and 1986 when catches were more consistent, peaking at 546 tonnes annually. Limited quantities of leopard, bonito sharks, soupfin (tope), big-eye thresher and salmon sharks are caught by commercial or recreational fisheries. The oldest commercial fishery is for tope shark which was established during the 1930s and 1940s because of their huge livers, representing a source of Vitamin A. In the period of boom catches reached 3 400 tonnes annually. This fishery declined after 1941 and the species were nearly decimated in 1944. Fishing has continued for this species during the past two decades but only on a small scale, with catches averaging 68 tonnes to 114 tonnes annually[114]. In the late 1940s there was also a small-scale harpoon fishery for basking sharks, for their livers.

According to Holts[115] and Cailliet et al, at the end of 1970s a series of directed fisheries for sharks was established, mainly in California, but some have declined in the following decade. Directed fisheries for thresher shark started in 1977, peaked in 1982 and 1983 but declined until 1986 when limited area and season legislation was passed due to the decline in catches and the size of specimens. In October 1990 directed fishery for this species was banned and only incidental catches are permitted. Also in 1977, Pacific angelsharks began to be directly fished, peaking at 563 tonnes in 1986. Since then there has been a substantial decline in catches as a consequence of decreasing availability of the species together with imports of cheaper shark meat. In the late 1970s a fishery for shortfin mako began, particularly as a bycatch of the drift-net fishery for swordfish and thresher shark. Mako catches increased from 1977 to 1982, declining in the following years, growing again to peak at 277 tonnes in 1987 followed by a decrease since.

US shark catches have been characterised by fluctuations which were primarily the result of variable market conditions. No extensive fisheries existed until the 1930s, even if there were limited commercial fishery in the late 1800s and early 1900s for shark oil, which was employed for lamps and lubrication. The first directed fisheries in the USA for sharks seem to be those for large sharks like tope and sandbar sharks off Port Salerno in Florida (1936-1959) and mainly for tope sharks in California since the mid 1930s. The target of these fisheries was for shark livers and hides as the oil was employed for vitamin A and the hides were manufactured into leather. Fresh and salted shark, fins and fishmeal were also prepared. The shark oil market enlarged during the Second World War when there was a considerable decrease in the supply of cod liver oil. There was a growth in catches and also the Caribbean and West Indies provided sharks to the company based in Port Salerno. On the East Coast this fishery, composed mainly of sandbar sharks, peaked in 1947 at 10 514 sharks. After severe overfishing in the 1950s this shark fishery was terminated as the advent of the low cost synthetic Vitamin A made it unprofitable and other shark fisheries in the USA dwindled.

Following this, sharks were harvested moderately and only in limited coastal areas. In the USA shark meat was not traditionally highly regarded as a food. Sharks became considered to be an under-utilized species, and the US Government tried to draw fishermen’s attention towards shark fishing and total use of these species (meat, fins, hide, liver and teeth). Successful food product marketing, an increased interest in sport fishing and new international market developments led to an increase in shark fishing. In the early 1970s shark meat consumption began to grow and in the mid 1970s the USA started to export shark fins to the Asian markets, mainly Hong Kong and China, as a result of political and economic variations in Asia. Since 1985 the increase in the US shark fishery became more significant, intensifying the exploitation to meet the growing demand. The domestic market for shark meat enlarged as consequence of a better marketing effort and the concurrent depletion in traditional commercial fisheries. At the same time there was more and more consistent growth in the shark fin export market due to the high demand and rising market value of shark fins, mainly in Asia. Sharks, mainly large coastal species, began to be intensively caught over broad geographical areas with target fisheries expanding principally on the US Atlantic coast. Since 1985 there have been increasing fisheries for large sharks in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic with an eightfold growth in yield from 1984 to 1989. Moreover, as sharks are often being captured as an incidental bycatch of other fisheries, fishermen began to remove the fins of the sharks incidentally caught, attracted by the increasing shark fin prices, instead of releasing the sharks as they did before.

This intensive fishing pressure has led to a consistent decrease in the population of several shark species that are now considered threatened or endangered with regional extinction. According to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), between the early 1970s and late 1980s the abundance of many shark species encountered along the south-east coast of the USA has declined by as much as 80%. As sharks are slow to recover from over-harvesting, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has approved a series of measures to help shark populations, developing a large-scale shark management plan on the Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico coasts in 1993. The shark fishery management plan (FMP) applies to 73 species, even if only 39 species are effectively managed through a quota system. These 39 Atlantic species of sharks are divided into three categories:

Dogfish, skates and rays are not managed under the plan. The goals are to prevent overfishing; encourage management of stocks throughout their ranges, establish data collection, carry out research and monitoring and increase the benefits to the nation while reducing waste. Among the measures of this initial plan were established fishing year commercial quotas and recreational bag limits. Moreover, it prohibited the use of gillnets over 2.5 km long, the transfer of sharks at sea, required the live release of bycatch and made finning illegal for both commercial and recreational fishermen. Yet, fins from landed sharks can be taken if the carcass is landed too; sharks that are captured must have a specific meat to fin ratio. Total fin landings may not exceed 5% of landed carcass weights. However, it seems that some fishermen elude this system by changing the ratios through adding spoiled and bad meat to the shark parts after weigh-in. Another common crime is to hunt the sharks during the off-season and attribute the fins to fish which are allowed to be caught. A system of data collection and reporting system was partially implemented through mandatory vessel and dealer reporting. This plan also established a shark operations team made up of Council representatives and interested parties, to advise NMFS.

This management took over ten years to be implemented due partly to the lack of appropriate data for assessment of abundance, biology, distribution, life history and catches of sharks[116]. In 1990 the NMFS considered the large coastal sharks as substantially overfished over their maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of 3 400 tonnes. Small coastal sharks were judged as not overfished with a MSY of 3 600 tonnes and pelagic sharks were said to be well-fished, but not overfished with a MSY of 2 800 tonnes. Annual poundage quotas have been set. They are called total allowable catches (TACs), for each of the heavily fished groups.

Some provisions were implemented in the course of 1994 and 1996 and on 2 April 1997 the NMFS prohibited all directed commercial fishing for five species: whale, basking, white, sandtiger and bigeye sandtiger. It established recreational catch-and-release-only for white sharks. The annual commercial quota for large coastal sharks was reduced by 50% from 2 570 tonnes dressed weight to 1 285 tonnes per year. A precautionary commercial quota of 1 760 tonnes dressed weight per year was established for small coastal sharks. The commercial quota for pelagic sharks remained at the level of 580 tonnes dressed weight per year. There was a reduction of the recreational bag limits for all Atlantic sharks. NMFS has combined all sharks into a single bag limit of 2 sharks per vessel per trip, with an additional allowance of 2 Atlantic sharpnose sharks per person per trip. Filleting of sharks at sea is prohibited. NMFS referred to the requirement for species-specific identification by all owners or operators, dealers, and tournament operators of all sharks landed.

No plan for shark management of the West Coast shark fisheries exists. Already populations of several species are said to have fallen dramatically in recent decades and the California Fish and Game Department has since regulated the sport take of some of these species. In 1993 a bill was enacted which protected the white shark from being captured or killed by commercial fishermen along with more limited restrictions on other species and rules against finning. Since August 1997 direct fishing for white shark is prohibited in Californian state waters. Exceptions to the law are made for scientific and educational research and incidental catch in selected net fisheries.

7.1.2 Markets and Trade

Shark meat has only quite recently received wide consumer acceptance as seafood in the USA. There was a flourishing fishery for sharks from 1930-50 but only livers and hides were regarded as valuable. These fisheries disappeared after Vitamin A was synthesized in the early 1950s. Before the 1970s shark meat consumption in the USA was limited to small markets in coastal areas, supplied by small local fisheries. Sharks were considered to be under-utilized and intensive marketing efforts were made to popularise fresh and frozen shark meat as an alternative to tuna and swordfish whose populations were declining. Moreover, shark meat was included into school feeding programmes, where it became particularly appreciated as it is boneless. It was also introduced into the penal system and other institutional outlets. Nowadays, shark meat has an increasing share of US consumer markets and the USA has become a major supplier and consumer of shark meat and fins as well as an importing, exporting and re-exporting nation for various shark products.

According to FAO statistics, US shark production has increased considerably in the last few years to peak at nearly 15 000 tonnes in 1995. In the following two years a substantial decline was experienced in particular in frozen fillets and in 1997 total production fell to 10 200 tonnes of which 46.5% were frozen whole sharks, 28.6% frozen shark fillets and 24.9% fresh or chilled shark fillets. In 1997 production of fresh or chilled shark fillets has experienced a 197.1% increase as compared to the previous year.

Figure 59 US production of fresh and frozen sharks in tonnes

Source: FAO - FIDI.

Customs statistics for US imports and exports of fresh and frozen shark meat are available only from 1989 when they were first reported in a separate customs classification. In that year imports were nearly 2 500 tonnes, of which 92% was fresh. It is only since 1995 that imports of dogfish were separated from those of other sharks in the statistics, with Canada as the major and, since 1997, as the only supplier of dogfish to the USA. In 1998 imports of fresh and frozen sharks were 2 620 tonnes, worth US$3.9 million, a 0.8% decrease in volume and a 13.6 decline in value as compared to 1997, but a 22.1% decrease in volume and a 18.2% decline in value as compared to the 3 370 tonnes, worth US$4.8 million, in 1996. In 1998 imports of dogfish were 1 530 tonnes, valued at US$601 600, while imports of other sharks were 1 100 tonnes, worth US$3.3 million. The great bulk of imports were fresh of which 1 500 tonnes, valued at US$556 000, were dogfish from Canada and 950 tonnes, worth US$2.2 million, were other sharks. Suppliers for these other sharks were Mexico with 414 tonnes, worth US$430 000, Ecuador with 130 tonnes, valued at US$451 000, Canada with 120 tonnes, worth US$293 600 and other countries of Central and South America. Imports of frozen sharks were only 170 tonnes, worth US$1.2 million, of which 21 tonnes were dogfish from Canada and the rest other sharks mainly from Spain, Peru, Nicaragua, Mexico and Hong Kong.

Figure 60 US imports of fresh and frozen sharks in tonnes

Source: NMFS.

In 1989 US exports amounted to 517 tonnes, worth US$1.1 million. In the following years exports increased considerably to peak at nearly 12 100 tonnes, worth US$33.4 million, in 1996. In the following two years US exports have declined substantially to reach 6 850 tonnes, valued at US$19.0 million, in 1998. In 1989 78.0% of the exports were frozen; by 1998 this percentage has reduced to 47.0%. The great bulk of exports, 90.8%, was composed of dogfish, of which 3 110 tonnes, worth US$10.5 million, were fresh and 3 120 tonnes, valued at US$7.5 million were frozen. In 1998 Europe represented the major destination area, taking 80.5% of total US shark exports. France was by far the leading country, receiving 29.4% of total volume of US exports, followed by Germany, UK, Japan, the Netherlands and Canada. The USA usually exports backs to Europe, in particular to France and UK. This product represents 28-30% of the total body weight. Bellies account for another 7% of the round weight and are exported to Germany where they are smoked and used to prepare the German speciality called Schillerlocken. The European market usually prefers larger dogfish.

Figure 61 US imports of fresh and frozen sharks in tonnes

Source: NMFS.

Of the species harvested commercially in the USA, the following are preferred for meat and fillets: mako, common thresher, Pacific angel shark, soupfin, bonito, blacktip and sandbar. Shortfin mako is preferred for meat due to its similarity to swordfish and obtains higher prices than other species. Rays and dogfish are considered less valuable compared with mako and thresher sharks. Much of the imports are dogfish, mainly from Canada, which are processed for re-export. Imports of other sharks consist mainly of pelagic species, with mako, thresher sharks and porbeagles preferred. These species are preferred to dogfish and they are usually marketed to restaurants. Domestic landings of species such as sandbar and blacktip or other coastal sharks are mainly employed for home consumption and are commercialised in supermarkets.

A plus for the US market is that sharks have no bones. Steaks and fillets are baked, fried, barbecued, broiled, poached, steamed, blackened or chunked for kebabs. Fresh and frozen shark steaks and fillets are commonly offered in supermarkets. The steak form continues to be the most popular. Picked dogfish, called spiny dogfish in the USA, has been marketed under the name steakfish. At the beginning shark was marketed as gray fish in the USA but, after they became more acceptable, they were called cape shark or simply, shark.

In February 1999, at the Fulton fish market of New York, the wholesale price for fresh whole blacktip ranged between US$1.76/kg and US$1.87/kg, according to quality; the wholesale price for fresh thresher varied between US$1.30/kg and US$1.45/kg and that for dogfish ranged between US$0.88/kg and US$1.00/kg. In April 1999, at Miami, c&f prices for thresher shark from Costa Rica were US$2.18/kg for H&G, chilled, air-flown, US$3.26/kg for skin-on loins and US$3.35/kg for skin-off loins. Figure 3 shows three price series for fresh mako shark, blacktip shark and dogfish at the Fulton fish market in NY from January 1994 to December 1998.

Figure 62 Fulton fish market NY average prices in US$/kg

Source: NMFS.

Figure 63 displays three c&f price series for thresher shark as chilled, skin-on and skin-off loins in Miami, origin Costa Rica from March 1997 to May 1999.

Figure 63 Fulton fish market NY average prices for thresher shark in US$/kg

Source: INFOFISH Trade News.

In 1998 US exports of shark fins were recorded for the first time at 146 tonnes, worth US$1.3 million, of which 6 tonnes, valued US$43 500, were re-exports to Hong Kong. This latter imported 95.8% of the volume and 98.3% of the value of total US exports of shark fins and the rest went to Japan and China. In the previous years, according to their national statistics, other outlets for US shark fins were Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. The USA began to increase its production and exports of shark fins in the late 1970s, with considerable expansion in the following decades. Increasing Asian demand for shark fin, including the opening of China in the mid-1980s, has also contributed to a significant increase in world shark fin prices which has led to a growth in the number of entrepreneurs in the trade. US processors usually dry or freeze fins whole and export them to Hong Kong and Singapore for further processing. They are then re-imported as fully processed products. Fins of picked dogfish are often processed, yet they are internationally considered of rather lower value than fins from other species. Hammerheads and sandbar shark are considered to be better quality, followed by those from tiger, blacktip, dusky, bull and silky sharks. Fins of better quality are exported to Hong Kong and Singapore.

US imports of dried shark fins have increased considerably recently. In 1975 they were at 45 tonnes, worth US$282 500, with Mexico supplying 71.8% of the total imports. There has been a spectacular increase since the second half of the 1980s. Imports increased steadily from 63 in 1984 peaking at nearly 280 tonnes, worth US$8.4 million, in 1992. Following this they declined, with the exceptions of 1995 and 1997, to 62 tonnes, valued USS1.7 million in 1998. In 1998 major suppliers were Australia, Argentina, Mexico, Hong Kong, Brazil, Gambia, Guatemala and Canada, with countries of Central and Latin America supplying 43.4% of total US imports of shark fins. In 1998 imports from Australia have grown from 1 tonne in 1997 to 22 tonnes. In the previous years other major exporters of shark fins to the USA were Venezuela, Japan, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guyana, Taiwan Province of China and Panama.

Figure 64 US imports of shark fins in tonnes, 1975-1998

Source: NMFS.

There is also an expanding domestic market for shark fins due to the sizeable Chinese population, mainly in urban areas on the East and West coasts such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York. Shark fins imported from Asian countries such as Hong Kong, Korea and Taiwan Province of China consist mainly of dried or processed fins, fin nets or canned shark fin soup. These products are sold in ethnic shops and centres and in restaurants. In September 1998 various shops in China Town in San Francisco were selling the cheapest fins at prices around US$16-18/kg for small fins, unskinned dorsals from species such as blue sharks and small blacktips. Larger fins from tiger sharks, oceanic whitetips and great hammerheads cost US$70-90/kg. Dried common thresher shark tails were sold at US$1 000 per tail. Other fins cured, dried and skinned cost as much as US$140/kg. Giant unskinned fins, probably of basking sharks, cost US$3 000 each. Processed versions of these giant fins, cured and skinned, were marketed at US$5 000.

A remarkable market for shark skin leather has developed in the USA. Dogfish hide was used in pre-industrial times for sandpaper. Shark leather was of great interest to the leather industry and shark hides to the tanning industry[117]. The US Company “Ocean Leather Corporation” monopolised the world production of shark leather for decades since 1925, handling around 50 000 shark skins annually in the mid-1980s. Now it no longer exists and only one tannery uses shark skins, along with other skins, for the production of exotic leathers. Once shark leather was mainly used for cowboy boots in Texas and also for small leather goods like watchstraps and belts. The manufacture of these boots is now marginal due to a decline in popularity. With the growing economic importance of shark meat in the USA, the use of shark skin for the production of leather has become less profitable and interesting. Sharks are usually sold as headed or headed and gutted carcasses, with the skin intact in order to protect the meat and avoid oxidation. Furthermore, sharks have to be immediately bled, dressed and iced after they are caught to prevent urea from contaminating the meat, but exposure to fresh water or to ice usually damages shark skins. Shark skins are more often imported, with Mexico as the major supplier. Unfortunately shark skin has not been identified with its own commodity code in US statistics since 1989, when US imports were the highest recorded at 36 800 skins, in large part from Mexico. Data on the effective actual volume of this trade is not available.

From 1930-50 shark oil was used in the production of vitamin A, with tope as the preferred species, but this manufacture ended when vitamin A was synthesised in the 1950s. Nowadays, there is a limited production of shark liver oil capsules, which is directed more at external markets than the domestic one. Yet, shark liver oil is now being promoted and sold as a cure for cancer in the same way as cartilage, albeit on a slightly smaller scale, and also as a cure for arthritis, psoriasis and many other ailments. One of the uses of liver oil is as an ingredient in Preparation H, an over-the-counter haemorrhoid ointment produced in the USA and distributed internationally[118]. Shark liver oil has been used for the tanning and curing of leather. Squalene is used in pharmaceuticals and cosmetic products such as skin creams. A 2 oz[119] cream made with shark liver oil and shark cartilage is sold at US$24.95. A 4 oz purifying squalene mask against acne is marketed at US$28.00. Import statistics for shark liver oil are available from 1972 to 1988, but they were rather limited, totaling 103 730 kg over the whole period.

The USA represents one of the major producing country of products such as powder, creams and capsules manufactured from the cartilage of sharks. These products are sold on the domestic market and pre-packaged cartilage products are marketed and exported to about 35 countries under a variety of brand names. These products have been claimed to be beneficial in a great variety of diseases: arthritis, psoriasis colitis, acne, enteritis, phlebitis, rheumatism, peptic ulcers, haemorrhoids, herpes simplex, melanoma, recently also AIDS and, above all, cancer. Shark resistance to cancer has created a new market for shark cartilage as an alternative medicine, even though its benefits are unproved. Shark cartilage is considered beneficial in inhibiting the growth of tumours by impeding the vascularization of malignant tissues (angiogenesis). At the present time, the FDA classifies shark cartilage as a dietary food supplement.

There are different ranges of retail prices according to the products and brands:

Products such as jaws, teeth and fossil teeth are usually sold in local curio trades, especially in coastal tourist areas.

Table 24 US elasmobranch catches by species in tonnes


1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

Dogfish sharks nei

1 945

1 499

1 850

1 405

1 158

1 109

1 108

1 614

2 932

2 524

Raja rays nei

73

184

95

92

54

47

38

52

42

57

Sharks, rays, skates, etc. nei

48

397

163

216

367

272

503

345

232

289

Rays, stingrays, mantas nei

547

677

1 150

1 422

1 343

1 317

1 690

1 835

1 163

1 608

Large sharks nei

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Blacktip shark

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Longfin mako

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Nurse sharks nei

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Picked dogfish

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Shortfin mako

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Sandbar shark

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Thresher

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Dusky shark

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Mackerel sharks, porbeagles nei

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Porbeagle

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total

2 613

2 757

3 258

3 135

2 922

2 745

3 339

3 846

4 369

4 478




1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

Dogfish sharks nei

1 549

1 105

931

1 065

1 607

1 479

1 372

891

511

464

Raja rays nei

61

36

45

43

47

68

44

86

48

65

Sharks, rays, skates, etc. nei

330

606

367

322

310

313

347

872

251

240

Rays, stingrays, mantas nei

855

1 071

1 060

926

1 084

1 000

979

765

790

762

Large sharks nei

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Blacktip shark

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Longfin mako

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Nurse sharks nei

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Picked dogfish

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Shortfin mako

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Sandbar shark

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Thresher

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Dusky shark

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Mackerel sharks, porbeagles nei

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Porbeagle

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total

2 795

2 818

2 403

2 356

3 048

2 860

2 742

2 614

1 600

1 531




1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

Dogfish sharks nei

500

100

-

-

994

668

3 210

3 147

3 523

8 771

Raja rays nei

100

100

100

100

96

147

55

171

351

66

Sharks, rays, skates, etc. nei

200

200

200

400

246

273

458

486

800

1 435

Rays, stingrays, mantas nei

100

-

-

-

69

70

192

15

249

245

Large sharks nei

800

1 100

700

1 300

836

559

140

906

957

541

Blacktip shark

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Longfin mako

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Nurse sharks nei

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Picked dogfish

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Table 24 US elasmobranch catches by species in tonnes (continued)


1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

Shortfin mako

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sandbar shark

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Thresher

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Dusky shark

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Mackerel sharks, porbeagles nei

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Porbeagle

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

1 700

1 500

1 000

1 800

2 241

1 717

4 055

4 725

5 880

11 058




1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

Dogfish sharks nei

7 601

8 343

8 807

6 567

2 754

5 247

5 041

6 428

4 568

5 808

Raja rays nei

684

297

231

3 411

4 099

3 930

4 190

5 035

5 798

6 642

Sharks, rays, skates, etc. nei

1 772

1 944

2 161

1 998

2 180

2 392

2 522

3 222

6 195

7 432

Rays, stingrays, mantas nei

901

140

337

294

178

178

171

267

185

206

Large sharks nei

263

272

172

123

127

159

167

232

365

324

Blacktip shark

-

-

-

-

0

0

0

0

0

0

Longfin mako

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Nurse sharks nei

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Picked dogfish

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Shortfin mako

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

2

7

Sandbar shark

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Thresher

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

21

17

Dusky shark

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

4

Mackerel sharks, porbeagles nei

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Porbeagle

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

12

32

3

Total

11 221

10 996

11 708

12 393

9 338

11 906

12 092

15 204

17 169

20 445




1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997



Dogfish sharks nei

16 236

15 606

19 200

22 764

21 242

23 904

29 638

21 021



Raja rays nei

11 342

11 212

12 473

8 103

8 846

6 454

13 891

10 142



Sharks, rays, skates, etc. nei

6 352

4 887

6 228

5 088

6 331

4 947

3 643

5 689



Rays, stingrays, mantas nei

204

2 958

14 779

168

48

430

1 554

2 488



Large sharks nei

320

699

1 100

1 773

1 071

1 470

3 317

1 083



Blacktip shark

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1



Longfin mako

1

5

12

-

5

-

0

1



Nurse sharks nei

0

0

0

0

-

214

-

-



Picked dogfish

-

-

-

-

-

128

-

-



Shortfin mako

19

64

59

71

66

5

-

-



Sandbar shark

0

0

55

31

24

1

-

-



Thresher

12

16

105

14

23

1

-

-



Dusky shark

70

47

69

23

20

-

-

-



Mackerel sharks, porbeagles nei

1

-

-

-

49

-

-

-



Porbeagle

19

16

13

39

64

-

-

-



Total

34 576

35 510

54 093

38 074

37 789

37 554

52 043

40 425



Source: FAO - FIDI.


[113 ]CAILLIET G.M., HOLTS D.B. and BEDFORD D., “A review of the commercial fisheries for sharks on the West Coast of the USA”, pp. 13-29 in Shark Conservation. Proceedings of an International workshop on the conservation of Elasmobranchii held at Taronga Zoo, Sydney, Australia, 24 February 1991, 1993.
[114 ]CAILLIET G.M., HOLTS D.B. and BEDFORD D., idem.
[115 ]HOLTS D.B, “Review of US West Coast commercial shark fisheries”, Marine fisheries review, 50 (1), pp. 1-8, 1988.
[116 ]BONFIL R., idem.
[117 ]KREUZER R., AHMED R., idem.
[118 ]ROSE D.A., idem, 1998.
[119] 1 oz (ounce) = 28g

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page