Download Great White Shark Population Decline and Conservation and more Exercises Fish Farming in PDF only on Docsity!
Prop. 11.
Proposal to include Carcharodon carcharias
(Great White Shark) on Appendix I of the
Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
A. PROPOSAL ..............................................................................................
B. PROPONENT............................................................................................
C. SUPPORTING STATEMENT....................................................................
1. Taxonomy......................................................................................................................... 1.1 Class.................................................................................................................................... 1.2 Order................................................................................................................................... 1.3 Family ................................................................................................................................. 1.4 Species ................................................................................................................................ 1.5 Scientific Synonyms............................................................................................................. 1.6 Common Names .................................................................................................................. 2. Biological Parameters...................................................................................................... 2.1 Distribution ....................................................................................................................... 2.2 Habitat Availability............................................................................................................ 2.3 Population Status ............................................................................................................... 2.4 Population and Geographic Trends .................................................................................... 2.5 Role of Species in its Ecosystem......................................................................................... 2.6 Threats .............................................................................................................................. 3. Utilisation and Trade....................................................................................................... 3.1 National Utilisation ........................................................................................................... 3.2 Legal International Trade .................................................................................................. 3.3 Illegal Trade ...................................................................................................................... 3.4 Actual or Potential Trade Impacts...................................................................................... 3.5 Captive Breeding or Artificial Propagation for Commercial Purposes ................................
4. Conservation and Management..................................................................................... 4.1 Legal Status..................................................................................................................... 4.1.1 National ................................................................................................................. 4.1.2 International........................................................................................................... 4.2 Species Management ....................................................................................................... 4.2.1 Population Monitoring ............................................................................................ 4.2.2 Management Measures............................................................................................ 4.3 Control Measures............................................................................................................. 4.3.1 International Trade.................................................................................................. 4.3.2 Domestic Measures..................................................................................................
5 Information on similar species……………………………………………………………..
6 Other Comments........................................................................................................... 11
BIBLIOGRAPHY: ..........................................................................................
RANGE STATE RESPONSES CITED: .........................................................
APPENDICES................................................................................................
A. Scientific Synonyms ..................................................................................................................
B. Common Names ........................................................................................................................
C. Range States..............................................................................................................................
Summary
Evidence from beach netting, game fishing and commercial captures all reporting declining captures of the Great white shark indicates that the population of the species is in decline. Evidence suggests that the population may have declined by at least 20% over the last three generations. In some areas the species is considered to have declined by substantially more than this over that period. The population, though widespread, is considered to be small in comparison to other shark species, and, particularly when compared to most other marine fish species, the species has a very low reproductive rate. The decline, in its major range areas, is considered to be ongoing. The species hence meets criteria A(i) and C(ii) of Annex 1 of Res.Conf. 9.24.
Trade in specimens of the species, though not well documented, is known to occur. Trade is particularly apparent in jaws and teeth of the species as these are easily identified. Trade is also known to occur in fins and other body parts though the quantities are not well known. Trade is continuing from areas where the species is fully protected, which include the major range States for the species. The assistance of CITES in minimising or eliminating this trade would assist in arresting the decline of the species.
have been reports of sightings of the shark in the tropical south-west Indian Ocean, including Madagascar, Mauritius and Kenya (where a pregnant female was taken in 1996 in an artisanal fishery) (Natal Sharks Board). All individual sharks in these cases appear to be large (greater than 4 metres). This suggests that equatorial waters may be a deterrent to large-scale movement but not a complete barrier. Consequently, populations may not be genetically isolated (Fergusson 1996).
Figure 1: Dominant distribution of Carcharodon carcharias (Great white shark).
Source: Last and Stevens 1994
Studies of Great white sharks sighted at pinniped colonies indicate that the sharks appear to be largely transient, with a few longer term residents (Klimley and Anderson 1996, Strong et al. 1992). A number of studies indicate that some populations appear often to be small and highly localised, with a high degree of site attachment. For example, in one study in the Spencer Gulf area (South Australia), 36% of sharks were resighted always in their original location (Strong et al. 1992). A further study in South Africa found that of 147 Great white sharks tagged, 30 individuals were resighted 59 times (20.41%), one of which was resighted 10 times. Of the 147, all but two were resighted at the same area in which they were originally observed (Ferreira and Ferreira 1996). The resighting of individual Great white sharks at particular localities is well documented in other areas of the world (Bruce 1995), such as Western Cape (South Africa) (Cliff et al 1996) and California (Klimley and Anderson 1996).
A number of studies have also indicated that there is a degree of spatial segregation of Great white sharks by sex (Strong et al. 1992; Bruce 1992; Cliff et al 1989 in Bruce 1992), with females frequenting areas that are generally more accessible to fishermen (Murphy 1996). One study off the coast of South Australia recorded a predominance of females off inshore islands, and a predominance of males adjacent to offshore islands (Strong et al. 1992). This segregation can fluctuate with location and over time (Strong et al. 1996).
2.2 Habitat Availability
Within its range states, the Great white shark is often found close in shore to the surfline and even penetrates shallow bays in continental coastal waters. In waters along the continental shelf, Great white sharks generally locate near the surface, or at the bottom from 16 to 32 metres depth (Goldman et al. 1996). Average depth is 20 metres (Strong et al. 1992).
While Great white sharks are widely distributed, they seem more common in some locations (see above), with particular areas seen as important pupping grounds. Coastal areas are a preferred habitat, and their population level could be affected by coastal habitat degradation. The risk of this occurring is heightened by the fact that much of the species habitat is in areas with dense human populations. Beach meshing, often employed in areas of the Great white shark’s preferred habitats, also threatens to reduce
population numbers. Great white sharks caught by beach meshing programs are usually small (less than 3 metres), and in many cases, particularly off eastern Australia, are smaller than 2 metres. This suggests that these programs operate close to pupping grounds or in juvenile nursery habitats. However, while beach meshing undoubtedly is detrimental to smaller specimens, the widespread occurrence of similar small sized Great white sharks in areas where beach meshing is not undertaken suggests that nursery habitats are also probably widespread (B.Bruce, CSIRO, pers. comm.).
2.3 Population Status
Available data on absolute or total population numbers for the Great white shark is extremely limited. As large commercial fishing fleets do not target Great white sharks, information on the volume of catches and landings is poor. As such, its population status is uncertain. What is apparent from work done on sharks, however, is that it is uncommon to rare compared to most sharks. It appears to be relatively scarce compared to most other widely distributed species, and its population is considered to be declining. This is reflected in the fact that the Great white shark is listed as ‘vulnerable’ on the 1996 IUCN World Conservation Union Red List of Threatened Species. This listing recognises that a decline of at least 20 per cent has been observed, inferred or suspected over the last 10 years, or over three generations.
Pregnant females are rarely reported. Little is known, therefore, about the reproductive rate and behaviour of the species. Compagno et al. (1997) reported that the species may have an unusually low fecundity rate for elasmobranchs, and a long gestation period, with relatively few adult females being pregnant at any one time. Great white shark females do not reproduce before reaching 4.5 – 5.0 metres in length, and have a relatively small litter of around two to ten pups (sometimes as high as 14) (Francis 1996). It is thought that they do not reproduce every year, and that their gestation time is longer than 12 months (Camhi et al. 1998). This is typical of many K-strategists, making them vulnerable to exploitation. (‘K-strategist’ species are defined has having slow development, relatively large size, and producing only a small number of offspring at a time.)
Tagging studies of Great white sharks off the South African coast (for the region Richards Bay in KwaZulu-Natal to Struis Bay in Western Cape) between 1989 and 1993 provide average estimates of 1279 sharks in the region (Cliff et al. 1996), while Strong et al. (1996) have estimated that there could
be approximately 200 at Dangerous Reef in South Australia (in an area of approximately 260 km^2 ). The Endangered Species Scientific Subcommittee (ESSS) in Australia, estimated that the Australian population numbered fewer than 10,000 mature individuals, and that it has undergone a continuing decline of at least 10% over the past three generations (about 30 years). ESSS also estimated that around 500 Great white shark mortalities may occur due to human activities in Australian waters each year. The assessment of the Great white shark’s population status is supported in that New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania have listed Great white shark as ‘vulnerable’ on their threatened species legislation.
2.4 Population and Geographic Trends
Although there are no quantitative estimates of Great white shark global population size, there are a number of trend analyses, local population estimates, and anecdotal information sets that indicate stock declines in recent years. Reliable data comes from a number of sources including beach meshing programs, gamefish captures and catch per unit effort information from commercial captures. A number of studies, and anecdotal evidence in North America, South Africa and Australia, all indicate that numbers may be declining. As the studies available have been in Southern Australia, U.S.A. and South Africa – the major range areas of the Great white shark – they are likely to be indicative of similar trends elsewhere. There is a however a relative scarcity of long term monitoring and studies of populations outside of these areas, and inconsistent methodologies make it difficult to compare data.
Sport-fishing data from the east coast of North America and south-eastern Australia indicate declines in the proportions of Great white sharks taken relative to other shark species caught over the last several decades (Bruce 1992; Casey and Pratt 1985). For example, a study by Pepperell (1992) recorded a decline in the number of Great white sharks relative to other sharks caught by game fishermen off the coast of south-eastern Australia of 1:22 in the 1960s, to 1:38 in the 1970s to 1:651 in the 1980s (other sharks largely consisted of shortfin, mako, blue, tiger and, until 1979, white nurse). This decline in
consists mainly of a variety of teleost and elasmobranch fishes, while marine mammals are a major part of the diet for larger sharks (Last and Stevens 1994; Cliff et al. 1996).
It is difficult to predict accurately what impact a continued decline of the Great white shark may have on the ecosystem, “in the absence of more precise information, however, the roles of these fishes should not be underestimated. Indiscriminate removal of apex predators from marine habitats could disastrously upset the balance within the sea’s ecosystems” (Last and Stevens 1994: 7 ).
2.6 Threats
The major impacts on Great white shark populations are largely a result of human actions including
- direct and incidental fishing pressure,
- decline in the abundance of its prey,
- protective beach meshing,
- intensified targeted commercial and sports fisheries for trophies,
- degradation of the sharks habitat, and
- incidental catch of the species in commercial and artisanal fisheries.
Increasing human population in coastal areas may lead to degradation of important inshore feeding and reproduction habitat for Great white sharks. The proximity of Great white shark habitat to human populations further increases the chances of sharks being killed in targeted fisheries or as a by-catch.
The species is known to investigate actively human behaviour. They are bold and inquisitive in their approach to vessels and fishing gear. This innate behaviour increases the likelihood of being killed by humans, intentionally or not.
The negative image of the Great white shark, and the fear it inspires in humans, often precipitates unwarranted killing of the species. The impact of these actions is made worse by the proximity of Great white shark staging and breeding areas to coastal human populations. Examples include: campaigns to kill Great white shark after shark attacks, disregard of conservation and management measures, and eradication measures such as beach-meshing. Compagno 1996 (in Marshall and Barnett 1997) documented Great white shark mortality of 80% from entanglement and drowning in beach-meshing operations in Natal, South Africa.
As mentioned above, Great white sharks mature late, have few young with few adult females pregnant at one time, and have long gestation periods (Camhi et al. 1998). These characteristics make them vulnerable to over-exploitation and minimise the amount of sustainable yield that can be obtained from the stocks.
Because Great white sharks, though generally rare, appear to form local populations, the species is highly vulnerable to over-exploitation if there is strong fishing pressure within that area. Evidence suggests they can easily be exploited to the point of extinction, even where relatively few are regularly removed from an environment. For example, research off the Farallon Islands suggested that the removal of just four Great white sharks greatly reduced, and possibly eliminated the entire local population of Great white sharks (Ainley et al. In Cailliet et al. 1985).
Direct pressure on Great white shark populations comes from their being targeted for their teeth, jaws and fins, or when they become a nuisance to fishing operations (Bruce 1992). Great white shark teeth and jaws have significant economic value (Compagno et al. 1997). A jaw of a Great white shark from Gans Bay, recently recovered after being stolen, was valued at US$50,000. Small jaws may be sold for as much as US$15,000, and individual teeth from small sharks for US$600 (IUCN Shark Specialist Group 1998).
There is also reportedly a commercial market for neonates (Camhi et al. ). The South African Museum recently obtained the headless carcass of a juvenille Great white shark (estimated at about 1.6 metres long), allegedly killed by a commercial fisherman (IUCN Shark Specialist Group 1998).
Basic economics would indicate that as Great white shark populations continue to decline, the economic value of these curios will increase, possibly leading to increased targeting, and over-exploitation, as well
as growth of an underground sales network or black market for highly lucrative Great white shark products (Compagno et al. 1997).
Fishers generally target the larger sharks for their teeth and jaws, which could have a significant impact on population numbers in the long term. The Great white female reaches sexual maturity only when she is approximately 4.5 to 5 metres long, compared to males that reach sexual maturity at 3.5 to 4 metres long, when about twelve or fourteen years old (Camhi et al. 1998). Hence it is the reproductively active females and larger males that are being targeted.
An increased trade in shark products in general promotes the catch of the Great white shark as incidental catch of other shark fisheries. The Great white shark is an incidental catch of fisheries that use longlines, hook-and-line, fixed bottom gillnets, fishtraps, herring weirs, and trammelnets, harpoons, and bottom and pelagic trawls, as well as purse seines (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations 1999). Strong et al. (1996) found through studies in South Australia, that 10% of Great white shark were observed bearing short remnants (less than 2 metres) of longlines and gill nets. Bruce (1992) found in the lower Spencer Gulf, South Australia, that 30% of Great white sharks sighted had evidence of a previous encounter with commercial fishing gear. These, of course , were the fish that had survived their encounter with fishing equipment.
A further direct threat to the Great white shark is from sports fishing. Big game sports fishers such as Alf Dean and Bob Dyer from the 1950s, and the film ‘Jaws’ in the 1970s, led to a dramatic increase in game fishing for this shark (Ellis and McCosker 1991). This direct targeting of Great white sharks, together with developments in fishing equipment and growth in human population and affluence, is likely to have increased its mortality rate in recent decades.
Inadequate population data means that it is almost impossible to know what percentage of the shark population is being killed, and what chances it has to recover from these losses. In light of this lack of data, it is imperative that precautionary measures be considered in assessing this proposal.
Finally, inadequate protective legislation on a global scale, lack of local enforcement where protective legislation is in place, and disregard of protective measures all form significant threats to shark population numbers (Compagno et al. 1997).
3. Utilisation and Trade
3.1 National Utilisation
Some of the uses for sharks species in general include meat, skins, organs, and tissues for human consumption, liver oil extracted for vitamins, carcass used for fishmeal and fertiliser, skin for leather, cartilage for medicines, fins for shark-fin soup and even meat or small specimens for fish bait. Information regarding the utilisation of Great white sharks in particular is often limited, as national fisheries statistics usually do not include this species, or as it is hard to differentiate from other shark by-products (Rose 1996). However, Great white shark is known to be used for leather (but is not necessarily a preferred species) and its liver oil has generalised uses (Rose 1996).
Liberia reports that the Great white shark is often consumed in that country as a daily source of protein, especially in the coastal cities and towns, and notes unconfirmed reports that the tissue is used as surgical stitches (Forestry Development Authority, Republic of Liberia).
As noted above, the most prized products of the Great white shark are its teeth and jaws, particularly for sale to tourists and tourist shops, and the status that comes from its capture. Jaws from a Great white shark caught in New Zealand were recently purchased by a UK collector, who also had offers for jaws from animals caught off Chile and Mexico (Fergusson et al. 1996).
3.2 Legal International Trade
It is difficult to ascertain the current level of trade occurring in Great white shark products. In many cases, shark products are not identified down to species level.
There is also a significant amount of misreporting of trade. For example, in 1993, South Africa recorded no export of shark fins to Taiwan, whereas Taiwan records show 3.28 tonnes of shark fin
4. Conservation and Management
4.1 Legal Status
4.1.1 National
South Africa established the precedent for domestic protection of Great white shark, when it prohibited the intentional killing or sale of the species on 11 April 1991 (Rose 1996). Namibia followed South Africa, by becoming the second nation to protect the Great white shark in 1993. The species also received protection in California in 1994 (Rose 1996), and later in Florida_._ It is also protected in the Maldive Islands (Rose 1996).
In Australia, the Great white shark was listed as vulnerable under the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 in 1997, and is therefore protected in Commonwealth waters. It is also protected under fisheries legislation in the waters of all States and Territories of Australia. Great white shark has been listed as ‘vulnerable’ on the threatened species legislation of New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania.
In the United States, the species received protection in California in 1994 (Rose 1996), and later in Florida_._ The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is the primary domestic legislation governing management of U.S marine fisheries. Until recently, Atlantic sharks (including Great white sharks) were managed under a 1993 fishery management plan (FMP) which permitted limited harvest of Great white sharks. Acting under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the U.S Secretary of Commerce, through the U.S National Marine Fisheries Service, replaced the 1993 shark FMP with a new policy that covered Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and sharks in April 1999. This new FMP prohibits the landing and sale of Great white shark throughout its range in U.S waters of the Atlantic ocean and adjacent seas (U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 1999).
New Zealand has a ban on commercial targeting of Great white shark, though the sharks may be sold if taken as by-catch (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd, New Zealand).
4.1.2 International
In 1996 the World Conservation Union (IUCN) listed the Great white shark as vulnerable on its Red List of Threatened Species.
A 1996 agreement between Australia and Japan ( Subsidiary Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan concerning Japanese Tuna Longline Fishing 1996 ) specifies that all sharks caught by Japanese tuna longliners within the Australian EEZ be either released alive and undamaged, or retained whole (Rose 1996). It also specified that details be recorded on individual shark species both retained and discarded.
4.2 Species Management
4.2.1 Population Monitoring
South Africa has informed Environment Australia that there are a number of research projects currently underway in parts of Africa that aim to help our understanding of the rate of mortality and population size of the Great white shark. However, a lack of uniformity between the projects, and possible antagonisms between research groups means that the projects are restricted to smaller sample groups from which it is difficult to draw conclusions (Natal Sharks Board).
The Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is currently studying the migration, biology, and abundance of the Great white shark. While the majority of this work is occurring in South Australia, studies are extending to other Australian waters.
4.2.2 Management Measures
In Australia, Environment Australia is drafting a recovery plan for the species (under the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 ), and the CSIRO project mentioned above may also establish a basis for Great white shark conservation and management.
The April 1999 U.S shark/tunas/swordfish FMP (mentioned previously) contains several habitat conservation initiatives for coastal and offshore habitats utilised by Great white sharks. These include ways to mitigate the impact of fishing gear, marine sand/minerals mining, offshore oil and gas operations, coastal development, dredging and disposal of dredge material, agriculture, aquaculture, navigation, marinas and recreational boating, and ocean dumping. This FMP bans the landing and sale of Great white shark in the U.S species range, mandates detailed logbook reports from commercial shark fishermen, and limits Great white shark sportfishing to catch and release (U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 1999).
The FAO has prepared an International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-SHARKS). If adopted at the next FAO Conference (in November 1999), the plan will require states concerned with the management and conservation status of shark species, actively to identify and report on species-specific biological and trade data on sharks caught in their waters and by their vessels in foreign waters. It also encourages states to adopt a national plan of action for conservation and management of shark stocks (Shark-plan) if sharks are regularly caught in their waters, or by their vessels. The objective of the IPOA-SHARKS is to ensure the conservation and management of sharks and their long-term sustainable use (FAO Fisheries Department 1999).
4.3 Control Measures
4.3.1 International Trade
None
4.3.2 Domestic Measures
While there are protective measures in place in Australia, South Africa, Florida, California, the Maldives and Namibia, the control measures in place have, in some cases, limited impact, evidenced by the fact that shark teeth and jaws are still freely available from California and South Africa, despite the current trade bans (Fergusson et al. 1996).
5 Information on similar species
The Great white shark is the third largest shark, after the Whale shark and Basking shark. The United Kingdom has drafted a proposal to list Basking shark on Appendix II, and the United States of America a proposal to list Whale shark on Appendix II. Hence the three largest species would all be listed on CITES if the three proposals are all accepted.
The jaws and teeth of the larger individuals of Great white shark are distinctive and easily identified by a non-expert. A non-expert can identify the jaws of smaller Great white sharks, though there is the potential for some confusion with other coastal shark species, especially tiger sharks.
The fins of the species are most easily confused with the fins of the Whale shark and Basking shark. A large fin is almost certainly from one of the three species. The fins of smaller individuals of the species may potentially be confused other coastal shark species.
To distinguish between the three species and other species of shark the proponent parties are preparing identification sheets.
6 Other Comments
Several nations are currently endeavouring to protect the Great white shark within their own waters. Legislation was seen by these nations as pre-emptive to protect an “unabundant, poorly known apical predator that has great notoriety, a high commercial value and is the subject of much negative human interest” (Bruce 1995: 14). However, as the Great white shark is widely distributed, and possibly has some degree of transoceanic movement, domestic measures may only have limited effect, while unregulated international trade undermines individual attempts at protection of this species. International cooperation would greatly enhance the success of the domestic measures in certain countries, and encourage other nations to adopt their own. An Appendix I listing would help ensure that all CITES parties are brought to the same international standard.
Bibliography:
Baillie, J. and Groombridge, B. (1996). 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN Species Survival Commission.
Bruce, B.D. (1992). Preliminary Observations on the Biology of the White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias , in South Australian Waters. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 43 , 1-11.
Bruce, B.D. (1995). The protection of the white shark: A research perspective. Southern Fisheries. 3 : 2, 11-
Cailliet, G.M., Natanson, L.J., Welden, B.A and Ebert, D.A. (1985) Preliminary Studies on the Age and Growth of the White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias , Using Vertebral Bands. Memoirs. 9 : 49-60.
Camhi, M. (1998). Sharks on the Line. A Statement By State Analysis of Sharks and Their Fisheries. National Aububon Society, Living Oceans Program. pp158. Islip, New York..
Camhi, M., Fowler, S., Musick, J., Bräutigam, A., and Fordham, S. (1998). Sharks and their relatives. Ecology and Conservation. Occasional Paper 20 of the IUCN Species Survival Commission.
Casey, J.G. and Pratt, H.L.Jr. (1985). Distribution of the white shark, Carcharodon carcharias , in the western North Atlantic. South. Calif. Acad. Sci., Mem. 9 : 2-14.
Chen, H.K. (Ed) (1996). An overview of shark trade in selected countries of Southeast Asia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya.
Cliff, G., Dudley, S.F.J. and Jury M.R. (1996). Catches of White Sharks in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa and Environmental Influences. In “Great White Sharks: The biology of Carcharodon carcharias ” (Klimley, A.P. and Ainley, D.G. Eds.), pp 351-362. Academic Press Inc., California.
Cliff, G., Van Der Elst, R.P., Govender, A., Witthuhn, T.K. and Bullen, E.M. (1996). First Estimates of Mortality and Population Size of White Sharks on the South African Coast. In “Great White Sharks: The biology of Carcharodon carcharias ” (Klimley, A.P. and Ainley, D.G. Eds.), pp 393-400. Academic Press Inc., California.
Compagno, L.J.V., Marks, M.A. and Fergusson, I.K. (1997). Threatened fishes of the world: Carcharodon carcharias (Linnaeus, 1758) (Lamnidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 50 : 61-62.
Ellis, R. and McCosker, J.E. (1991). Great White Shark. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Fergusson, I.K. (1996). Distribution and Autecology of the White Shark in the Eastern North Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. In “Great White Sharks: The biology of Carcharodon carcharias ” (Klimley, A.P. and Ainley, D.G. Eds.), pp 321-345. Academic Press Inc., California.
Fergusson, I.K., Compagno, L.J.V. and Marks, M.A. (1996). Great White Shark. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Ferreira, C.A. and Ferreira, T.P. (1996). Population Dynamics of White Sharks in South Africa. In “Great White Sharks: The biology of Carcharodon carcharias ” (Klimley, A.P. and Ainley, D.G. Eds.), pp 381-391. Academic Press Inc., California.
Fleming, E.H. and Papageorgiou, P.A. (1997). Shark Fisheries and Trade in Europe. TRAFFIC, Europe.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Carcharodon carcharias (Linnaeus, 1758) (1999). URL: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FISHERY/sidp/htmls/default.htm. Last updated May 10, 1999.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Fisheries Department. The International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. URL: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FISHERY/ipa/manage.htm. Last updated March 29, 1999
Francis, M.P. (1996). Observations on a Pregnant White Shark with a Review of Reproductive Biology. In “Great White Sharks: The biology of Carcharodon carcharias ” (Klimley, A.P. and Ainley, D.G. Eds.), pp 157
- Academic Press Inc., California.
Gadig, O.B.F. and Rosa, R.S. (1996). Occurrence of the White Shark along the Brazilian Coast. In “Great White Sharks: The biology of Carcharodon carcharias ” (Klimley, A.P. and Ainley, D.G. Eds.), pp 347-350. Academic Press Inc., California.
Goldman, K.J., Anderson, S.D., McCosker, J.E., and Klimley, A.P. (1996) Temperature Swimming Depths and Movements of a White Shark at the South Farallon Islands, California. In “Great White Sharks: The biology
of Carcharodon carcharias ” (Klimley, A.P. and Ainley, D.G. Eds.), pp 111-120. Academic Press Inc., California.
Gordon, I. (1995). Great white hunted. Habitat Australia. Oct. 9-10.
IUCN Shark Specialist Group (1998) Shark News: Newsletter of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/organizations/SSG/newsletter.htm. Last updated May 12, 1999.
Klimley, A.P. and Anderson, S.D. (1996). Residency Patterns of White Sharks at the South Farallon Islands, California. In “Great White Sharks: The biology of Carcharodon carcharias ” (Klimley, A.P. and Ainley, D.G. Eds.), pp 365-373. Academic Press Inc., California.
Lai Ka-keong, E. (1983). Shark fins – processing and marketing in Hong Kong. Infofish Marketing Digest (5/83): 35-39.
Last, P.R. and Stevens, J.D. (1994). Sharks and Rays of Australia. CSIRO Division of Fisheries.
Marshall, N.T. and Barnett, R. (1997). Trade in Sharks and Shark Products in the Western Indian and Southeast Atlantic. TRAFFIC East/South Africa.
Murphy, R.C. (1996). A Plea for White Shark Conservation. In “Great White Sharks: The biology of Carcharodon carcharias ” (Klimley, A.P. and Ainley, D.G. Eds.), pp 5-6. Academic Press Inc., California.
Parry-Jones, R. (1996). TRAFFIC report on shark fisheries and trade in South Korea. In Phipps, M.J. (Comp.). TRAFFIC [East Asia] report on shark fisheries and trade in the East Asian region. TRAFFIC East Asia – Taipei.
Pepperell, J.G. (1992). Trends in the Distribution, Species Composition and Size of Sharks Caught by Gamefish Anglers off South-eastern Australia, 1961-90. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 43 , 213-225.
Presser, J. and Allen, R. (1995). Management of the white shark in South Australia. SA Fisheries Management Series, Paper 6, May 1995. Primary Industries, South Australian Department of Fisheries, Adelaide.
Reid, D.D. and Krogh, M. (1992). Assessment of Catches from Protective Shark Meshing off New South Wales Beaches Between 1950 and 1990. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 43 , 283-296.
Rose, D.A. (1996). “An overview of world trade in sharks and other cartilaginous fishes”, A TRAFFIC Network Report. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Smale, M.J. (1996). Trade in shark and shark products in South Africa, In ‘The World Trade in Sharks: A Compendium of TRAFFIC’s Regional Studies’. TRAFFIC Network Report.
Stoessell, T. (1993). ‘Investigation of the International Shark fin Trade’. Unpublished Report, TRAFFIC USA.
Strong, W.R. Jr., Murphy, R.C., Bruce, B.D. and Nelson, D.R. (1992). Movements and Associated Observations of Bait-attracted White Sharks, Carcharodon carcharias : A Preliminary Report. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res 43 , 13-.
Strong, W.R. Jr., Nelson, D.R., Bruce, B.D. and Murphy, R.D. (1996). Population Dynamics of White Sharks in Spencer Gulf, South Australia. In “Great White Sharks: The biology of Carcharodon carcharias ” (Klimley, A.P. and Ainley, D.G. Eds.), pp 401-414. Academic Press Inc., California.
Range State Responses Cited:
Natal Sharks Board. Summary of research findings on great white sharks. Received through Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria, South Africa.
