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.

Survey and impact assessment of derelict fish traps in St. Thomas and St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands

Since 2001, NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment’s (CCMA) Biogeography Branch (BB) has been working with federal and territorial partners to characterize, monitor, and assess the status of the marine environment across the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). At the request of the St. Thomas Fisherman’s Association (STFA) and NOAA Marine Debris Program, CCMA BB developed new partnerships and novel technologies to scientifically assess the threat from derelict fish traps (DFTs). Traps are the predominant gear used for finfish and lobster harvesting in St. Thomas and St. John. Natural phenomena (ground swells, hurricanes) and increasing competition for space by numerous user groups have generated concern about increasing trap loss and the possible ecological, as well as economic, ramifications. Prior to this study, there was a general lack of knowledge regarding derelict fish traps in the Caribbean. No spatially explicit information existed regarding fishing effort, abundance and distribution of derelict traps, the rate at which active traps become derelict, or areas that are prone to dereliction. Furthermore, there was only limited information regarding the impacts of derelict traps on natural resources including ghost fishing. This research identified two groups of fishing communities in the region: commercial fishing that is most active in deeper waters (30 m and greater) and an unknown number of unlicensed subsistence and or commercial fishers that fish closer to shore in shallower waters (30 m and less). In the commercial fishery there are an estimated 6,500 active traps (fish and lobster combined). Of those traps, nearly 8% (514) were reported lost during the 2008-2010 period. Causes of loss/dereliction include: movement of the traps or loss of trap markers due to entanglement of lines by passing vessels; theft; severe weather events (storms, large ground swells); intentional disposal by fishermen; traps becoming caught on various bottom structures (natural substrates, wrecks, etc.); and human error.