Historical knowledge of sharks: ancient science, earliest American encounters, and American science, fisheries, and utilization

In western civilization, the knowledge of the elasmobranch or selachian fishes (sharks and rays) begins with Aristotle (384–322 B.C.). Two of his extant works, the “Historia Animalium” and the “Generation of Animals,” both written about 330 B.C., demonstrate knowledge of elasmobranch fishes acquired by observation. Roman writers of works on natural history, such as Aelian and Pliny, who followed Aristotle, were compilers of available information. Their contribution was that they prevented the Greek knowledge from being lost, but they added few original observations. The fall of Rome, around 476 A.D., brought a period of economic regression and political chaos. These in turn brought intellectual thought to a standstill for nearly one thousand years, the period known as the Dark Ages. It would not be until the middle of the sixteenth century, well into the Renaissance, that knowledge of elasmobranchs would advance again. The works of Belon, Salviani, Rondelet, and Steno mark the beginnings of ichthyology, including the study of sharks and rays. The knowledge of sharks and rays increased slowly during and after the Renaissance, and the introduction of the Linnaean System of Nomenclature in 1735 marks the beginning of modern ichthyology. However, the first major work on sharks would not appear until the early nineteenth century. Knowledge acquired about sea animals usually follows their economic importance and exploitation, and this was also true with sharks. The first to learn about sharks in North America were the native fishermen who learned how, when, and where to catch them for food or for their oils. The early naturalists in America studied the land animals and plants; they had little interest in sharks. When faunistic works on fishes started to appear, naturalists just enumerated the species of sharks that they could discern. Throughout the U.S. colonial period, sharks were seldom utilized for food, although their liver oil or skins were often utilized. Throughout the nineteenth century, the Spiny Dogfish, Squalus acanthias, was the only shark species utilized in a large scale on both coasts. It was fished for its liver oil, which was used as a lubricant, and for lighting and tanning, and for its skin which was used as an abrasive. During the early part of the twentieth century, the Ocean Leather Company was started to process sea animals (primarily sharks) into leather, oil, fertilizer, fins, etc. The Ocean Leather Company enjoyed a monopoly on the shark leather industry for several decades. In 1937, the liver of the Soupfin Shark, Galeorhinus galeus, was found to be a rich source of vitamin A, and because the outbreak of World War II in 1938 interrupted the shipping of vitamin A from European sources, an intensive shark fishery soon developed along the U.S. West Coast. By 1939 the American shark leather fishery had transformed into the shark liver oil fishery of the early 1940’s, encompassing both coasts. By the late 1940’s, these fisheries were depleted because of overfishing and fishing in the nursery areas. Synthetic vitamin A appeared on the market in 1950, causing the fishery to be discontinued. During World War II, shark attacks on the survivors of sunken ships and downed aviators engendered the search for a shark repellent. This led to research aimed at understanding shark behavior and the sensory biology of sharks. From the late 1950’s to the 1980’s, funding from the Office of Naval Research was responsible for most of what was learned about the sensory biology of sharks.

A history of the Connecticut River and its fisheries

(PDF contains 15 pages)

A history of fishing with explosives and poisons in Hong Kong waters

Fishing with explosives is still being practiced aroung Hong Kong. The first legislation against blast fishing was passed in Hong Kong in 1903. Since then, successive legislation has increased the penalties and fines on blast fishing and fishing with poisons. However, the problem has not been eliminated as enforcement puts pressure on the resources of the marine police. It would be more effective to educate the local communities on the destructive effects of these practices and make them more vigilant and responsible in controlling them.

History of Molluscan Fishery Regulations and the Shellfish Officer Service in Massachusetts

Oysters, Crassostrea virginica, and softshell clams, Mya arenaria, along the Massachusetts coast were harvested by European colonists beginning in the 1600’s. By the 1700’s, official Commonwealth rules were established to regulate their harvests. In the final quarter of the 1800’s, commercial fishermen began harvesting northern quahogs, Mercenaria mercenaria, and northern bay scallops, Argopecten irradians irradians, and regulations established by the Massachusetts Legislature were applied to their harvests also. Constables (also termed wardens), whose salaries were paid by the local towns, enforced the regulations, which centered on restricting harvests to certain seasons, preventing seed from being taken, and personal daily limits on harvests. In 1933, the Massachusetts Legislature turned over shellfisheries management to individual towns. Local constables (wardens) enforced the rules. In the 1970’s, the Massachusetts Shellfish Officers Association was formed, and was officially incorporated in 2000, to help the constables deal with increasing environmental problems in estuaries where fishermen harvest mollusks. The constables’ stewardship of the molluscan resources and the estuarine environments and promotion of the fisheries has become increasingly complex.

The history of fish communities, biodiversity and environment of Lake Victoria and the lessons learnt

The first fishery survey of Lake Victoria was conducted between 1927 and 1928 (Graham 1929). Atthat time, the lake had a diverse fish fauna and the fishery was dominated by two endemic tilapiine cichlids; Oreochromis esculentus (Graham 1929) and O. variabilis (Boulenger 1906). There were a number of other species such as Protopterus aethiopicus Heckel 1851, Bagrus docmac (Forsk.) 1775, Clarias gariepinus (Burchell), Barbus species, mormyrids, Synodontis spp, Schilbe intermedius (Linn.) 1762 and Rastrineobola argentea Pellegrin, 1904 that were also abundant in the lake most of which made a significant contribution to the fishery (Graham 1929, Worthington 1929, 1932, Kudhongania & Cordone 1974). Haplochromine cichlids were represented by at least 300 species more than 99% of them endemic (Greenwood, 1974; Witte et al., 1992 a & b). The fishery of Lake Victoria was similar to that of lakes Kyoga and Nabugabo (Worthington 1929; Trewavas 1933; Greenwood 1965, 1966; Beadle 1962, 1981). There were also important fisheries on the inflowing rivers of Lake Victoria, the most important of which were Labeo victorianus and Barbus altianalis (Cadwallader 1965). The small sized species notably Rastrineobola argentea and haplochromines cichlids were not originally commercially exploited.