By Sharon Young
Every year for the past 19 years, the sleepy island of Martha's Vineyard, off the coast of Massachusetts, plays host one of the most brutal contests in the country—the Oak Bluffs Monster Shark Tournament. This year's event, orchestrated by the Boston Big Game Fishing Club attracted hundreds of participants for the express purpose of catching, and sometimes, killing sharks, who are already among the most overfished creatures in the world.
Approximately 240 boats participated in the 19th Annual Oak Bluffs Monster Shark Tournament, reportedly hooking up to 2,500 sharks and bringing 46 dead sharks back to land over the course of three days in mid-July. While the official winner, a man from Massachusetts who caught a pair of 378-pound porbeagles, reportedly walked away with a boat and trailer worth about $85,000, the true media sensation this year was a group of fishermen who missed the tournament reporting deadline by mere minutes.
The tardy fishermen landed a 1,191-pound tiger shark, but brought the animal to the dock six minutes after the tournament closed, meaning they were not eligible for the competition. Despite the setback, they became media darlings. News outlets from Boston to Melbourne, Australia wrote about their near miss, and the major American morning news programs devoted significant airtime to this "amazing shark tale," complete with requisite images of the giant fish, as if these fishermen were locked in a life-and-death struggle ripped from the pages of Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea.
Their shark adventure, of course, was nothing so noble, even if Massachusetts state shark biologists repeatedly tried to justify the Oak Bluffs tournament by claiming it provides information to help them understand shark populations. The truth is, the Oak Bluffs Monster Shark Tournament not only glorifies—and how else can one describe the endless pictures of smiling fishermen next to their dangling, bloody sharks?—the capturing and killing of a widely misunderstood fish, but it directly contributes to the dwindling populations of sharks.
For these reasons and more, Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The HSUS recently wrote ESPN President George Bodenheimer to ask the sports network not to broadcast the tournament this fall. ESPN2 is currently scheduled to start airing a one-hour edited version of the tournament on Sept. 12, with other airings later in the month.
"Contests like this one glorify the gruesome deaths of some of the ocean's most fascinating and least understood creatures," Wayne wrote. The 90% declines in global shark populations should, he continued, "incite us all to protect these magnificent and ancient creatures, not seek to kill more of them."
As of this date, ESPN remains determined to broadcast the event, apparently because last year's debut airing of the tournament attracted a sizable number of viewers. You can help convince ESPN that broadcasting the Oak Bluffs Monster Shark Tournament should not come down to the number of viewers, but the number of sharks still living—which is shrinking annually.
The Trouble with Sharks
As a result of large commercial fisheries, worldwide shark populations have plummeted by 90% in the past half century. In particular, porbeagle sharks, frequently caught in the Oak Bluffs tournament, are classified as "endangered" by Canada's Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada and "near threatened" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Likewise, blue and tiger sharks, also popular at the Oak Bluffs tournament, are listed as "near threatened" by the IUCN.
What's more, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has for some time been concerned about the status of all of the shark species. The UN's concern no doubt grows from its own FAO estimates: Total world landings of sharks grew from around 272,000 metric tons in 1950 to a 760,000 metric tons in 1996; some estimate that nearly a 100 million sharks are killed annually, whether as a targeted species or as bycatch.
Such numbers led the FAO in 1999 to adopt an International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, a voluntary plan that asks states to "adopt a national plan of action for conservation and management of shark stocks if their vessels conduct directed fisheries for sharks or if their vessels regularly catch sharks in non-directed fisheries." Other international bodies have followed suit, either by urging nations to ban shark finning (the killing of sharks for their fins, usually used for shark fin soup) or by providing stronger protections for certain species of sharks.
No Need to Study
No one needs to kill sharks to learn about them these days. Innovative research involving the tagging of sharks with satellite-linked transmitters provides more reliable information on shark movements, activity patterns at sea, the effects of fisheries on their populations, and information on sub-populations within a species. There is already a great deal of scientific literature available as a result of tagging studies.
Of course, there was a time when people killed animals to study them, as was the case in John James Audubon's day when he shot birds before painting them. Pro-whaling nations such as Japan and Norway continue to argue that they need to kill whales to study them, although this argument is roundly disputed by reputable scientists outside of those countries. (The validity of this notion is also greatly undermined by the fact that meat from whales killed in so-called scientific whaling ends up on the plates of consumers.)
The United States does not condone either the sport or commercial hunting of whales, even if there is something that might be learned from their bodies after their death. No more should Americans condone shark killing tournaments that promoters justify by claiming that we can learn something from the carcasses brought in for the sake of spectacle.
It is doubtful that studying sharks caught in tournaments provides any meaningful data. Experts in the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) have commented that the blue sharks caught in tournaments "could not be used as a measure of population health, due to the fact that derby fishers understandably target the largest sharks for their catch." Furthermore, the DFO noted that the sex ratio was skewed toward males, biasing the sampling.
Shark Tourneys Are Different
Around the country, there are a number of fishing tournaments for species such as striped bass and bluefish. However, unlike large sharks, striped bass and bluefish are often cited as success stories in the fishery management arena. Their comeback from record low populations 30 years ago is a result of tight quotas, size limits, and the great reproductive capacity of both species.
By contrast, the reproductive capacity of large sharks is extremely limited. Female porbeagle sharks, for example, do not reproduce until around age 13, and give birth to around four live pups per year. A number of shark species, in fact, do not reach sexual maturity until their teens, and some give birth to only one or two young each year.
Any reduction to shark numbers, therefore, has a more significant impact to shark populations. In this light, you could argue that shark tournaments are manifestly reckless, not helpful, in promoting the recovery of any shark species.
What You Can Do
Tell ESPN that you don't want it to broadcast the Oak Bluffs Monster Shark Tournament. Remind the network that the tournament is not only cruel, but also a celebration of unsustainable slaughter. Say that you would find it more exciting and enjoyable to watch sharks live in the ocean than being killed by fishermen.
Write directly to ESPN head George Bodenheimer:
George Bodenheimer, President
ESPN Inc. and ABC Sports
ESPN Plaza
Bristol, CT 06010
Sharon Young is The HSUS's Marine Issues Field Director.
