100 Million Sharks Killed Every Year, Study Shows

100 Million Sharks Killed Every Year, Study Shows On Eve of International Conference on Shark Protection

And now for something completely depressing;

One of the most comprehensive studies ever compiled on illegal shark killing brings new startling statistics. An estimated 100 million sharks are killed every year around the world, a number that far exceeds what many populations need to recover.

The statistical report, compiled by researchers at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, crunched numbers of reported shark catches globally and used data from nearly 100 former papers to estimate the number of unreported shark deaths every year. In a moving range, the researchers were able to calculate that between 6.4% and 7.9% of sharks of all species are killed annually.

One of the bigger culprits they claim is the massive level of illegal shark hunting to feed Asia's insatiable appetite for shark fin soup.



Another example of Man's inability to live in balance with nature.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

S&F
Humans truly are parasites upon Earth.

That photo makes me want to cry and rage at the same time.

I watched a documentary years ago where the Asians fisheries were catching sharks, cutting of their fins, then throwing them alive back in the water. They could no longer swim and just flittered helplessly to the bottom of the ocean. It would be like cutting the arms and legs off of people and just throwing them in a ditch and watching them squirm.

Obviously, the sharks would soon die.

It makes me physically ill. I felt my whole mood change just after opening this thread and now I'm kind of slumped over and pissed. Humans and their total disregard makes me disgusted.

reply to post by Afterthought


No humans have been conditioned to be parasites on earth, it can and will be fixed but what do you do to help stop it?

knowledge is the way forward the more you learn the less they can control you.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


I don't like sharks, they honestly scare the living daylights out of me. But the illegal fishing of these sharks should stop, especially if the numbers presented in this study are accurate and the species in danger cannot reproduce fast enough to off set the fishing.

But my devils advocate sense is tingling and I cannot not help but be a tad antagonistic right now (plus I'm slightly bored), sorry Blackmarketeer

Another example of Man's inability to live in balance with nature.

Nature is not balanced, it never has been. Perhaps humans do tip the scale more than any other species, but we are not necessarily obligated to preserve the natural state of the world. Flame away friend.

reply to post by jinni73

We are the only creatures who consume more than we need.
I do what I can by not using more than I need and fostering dogs that have been abused and thrown away by disgusting humans.
What do you do?

I'm in no way saying its not a bad thing because I think it is no animal should be treated like these do same goes for all sea creatures whales dolphins I'm just a bit curious by the figure 100 million. Now I just done a quick search of just great white sharks I wish I could post links but I'm on my phone.

Now according to a daily mail article from 2010 there were only 3,500 left. So I thought ok there are alot of sharks in the world so I googled shark species which came to 354 so I rounded up to 360 in case the figure had increased.
So I multiplied 3,500 by 360 and got a fairly low figure. So I hear you say yes bit other sharks could be high in numbers .. But surely not all in total is 100 million.

So what I'm saying is if 100 million are getting killed should we not have any sharks in our oceans by now ?
I don't know apologies for not working out all the figures but just food for thought I'm welcome to any input on my comment but be nice

Whether the figures are wrong or not its still a horrorific way of treating animals. I also appreciate this a mat geo article so I could be wrong

Not trying to belittle the overall message of the thread, but doesn't that 100 million figure seem a bit.....questionable?

In a moving range, the researchers were able to calculate that between 6.4% and 7.9% of sharks of all species are killed annually.

If we assume that the percentage of shark killed is accurate and coincides with the 100 million figure, that means there is about 1.2 billion sharks in the oceans.

Assuming my math is correct, and it's been a long day so it could be wrong, 100 million seems high.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


100 million seemed high to me, too.

But then I started to think about it- it's really not so crazy. We can have billions of an individual species on land and being that the ocean is much larger, it's not unlikely there'd be billions of sharks.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


You're forgetting about the babies which hatch each year. The article states this is a conservative number, and we'd need to drop the figure down to 4.6% to keep it sustainable. From what I've read, we will have depleted most of the oceans of the fish by about mid century. It's unsustainable any which way you look at it.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

100 million seemed high to me, too.

I thought so too, but this confirms it further:

wonderopolis.org...

reply to post by AshleyD


Agreed. Look how many humans are running around. The vastness of the oceans could hold untold numbers of sharks.

From the Op's source:

The 100 million sharks was actually a conservative estimate. Worm’s team found the number could be as high as 273 million sharks killed each year.

Toss this statement into the mix and I have a harder time believing it. I'm no expert on marine life by any means, but for some reason these numbers just seem exaggerated.

Looks like I will have to dig in to this topic a bit when I have the time.

I'm going to set aside my beliefs on killing 100 million of anything a year, and look at it completely objectively.

Let's say there are 5 billion sharks, and they are reproducing at a high rate, let's say 5 sharks for every shark.
Well, that 100 million dead sharks doesn't look so bad, does it? Their population could still be growing, while we get food.
We'd actually be keeping their population in balance, which would in turn keep other fish's population in balance. We could be keeping the life cycle in balance.

My point is we really have no idea what impact this is having on the environment.

I still think it's a sad thing, but we shouldn't make any definitive claims about its effect on the environment.

reply to post by Ghost375

Meanwhile, a shark is talking to another shark, "See, if we eat one or two beach goers a week, we're helping to thin the herd and keep the population of humans to a more manageable level."

That is insane. That is, on average, 274,000 sharks per day. Just 6 years ago the estimate was at 38 million a year or 104,000 a day. Wow.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by jinni73

 

We are the only creatures who consume more than we need.

Totally, 100% false.

Anyway,

Why when there is a huge issue with some animal or something being killed off, and the western world is responsible for this due to pollution or habitat destruction, etc does everyone go into "USA is evil" "The west is evil"

But when the east totally decimates species across the globe, it's no longer an issue of culture, but an issue of humanity?

The west kills off a species = The west is evil, America is evil

The east kills off a species = Humans are evil

China is DESTROYING elephants for Ivory. They are THE place where illegal Ivory goes. The east is destroying many different species of Fish and marine life,

Currently the East is destroying Earth's environment at a rate the west could only dream of, yet where are all the China haters? Where are all the threads about how evil the East is?

Get real, if this was being done by America you would all be clamoring about how evil Americans are and how they don't care about nature. When eastern countries do terrible things, it's not THEIR fault it's humanity's fault.

Anyone see a double standard here?

reply to post by James1982


So, you're calling me a racist or a culturally biased individual because I'm embarrassed to be human on most days.
Whatever. You sound like you have issues and you're using my comment to give you a license to vent.
Also, what other creature besides humans consumes more than it needs? Termites? Viruses? Ants? Dung beetles?
Please do enlighten me.

Originally posted by Afterthought
Also, what other creature besides humans consumes more than it needs? Termites? Viruses? Ants? Dung beetles?
Please do enlighten me.

I won't back the other claim, but it was you that made the claim that humans are the only species that consume more than they need. The burden falls on you to prove that, not the counter argument in my opinion.

Is there a definitive study that shows what you claim?

reply to post by ownbestenemy

No. The burden of proof does not fall on me to prove that. I honestly cannot think of one creature on this planet that consumes more than it needs and is just as wasteful except for humans.
I asked him to enlighten me. What more can I ask if I am obviously ignorant to the facts he is more aware of?

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

No. The burden of proof does not fall on me to prove that. I honestly cannot think of one creature on this planet that consumes more than it needs and is just as wasteful except for humans.
I asked him to enlighten me. What more can I ask if I am obviously ignorant to the facts he is more aware of?

edit on 1-3-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)

You made the claim. Just because you cannot think of another creature (which would assume you have knowledge of all of their habitual lives; including consumption values) doesn't make you right. Yet that is what you are claiming and now you are demanding evidence to the contrary?

Like I said, I don't believe their statement over yours, but you claimed it first and now you are claiming it as fact because "you cannot think of another creature" that could possibly consume more than what they need.

Logically, you are in the wrong here.

ETA: If you are wholly ignorant to the fact how can you possibly make such a claim as you did then?