Name
Course Instructor
Course
Date of submission
Status of Shark Stocks Protection of all species in the ecosystem, especially the imperiled species, for reasons fundamental among them socioeconomic and environmental is crucial. Debate centering on whether the shark species is imperiled or not, has effects on allocation of funds meant for conservancy efforts. However, the agreement from both sides is on sharks importance and their sustainability as crucial. This expose elucidate positions informing both sides. Further, the expose will identify the most strongly supported side and identify probable lobbies that support either side. Baum and Myers used data on the number of catches to compare the amount of shark species captured in the 1950s and 1990s in addressing their decline in the Gulf of Mexico. They noted that, catches on the Whitetip shark, the most prevalent of the sharks in the 1950s, declined by 99%. Additionally, catches of the Silky and Dusty shark declined by 91% and 79% respectively (142). Thus, this decline historically reflects on the level of humanity’s exploitation, for instance, the disappearance of the Whitetip in the Gulf of Mexico. Effectively, the near disappearance of the species underlines an ecological shift on the pelagic baseline. In another study in the Northwest Atlantic, Baum et al. concluded that there was a 50% decline of all the recorded but one species of shark. This study focused a short period of 15 years between 1986 and 2000 (391). Effectively, the findings emphasized consideration of sharks as endangered species requiring conservatory efforts like any other protected marine predators. Importantly, the decline in the numbers of sharks in the Northwest Atlantic reflects a global phenomenon. Incidentally, consumers globally exert the same pressures on demand and thus overfishing in one part of the world represents a global trend. Both sides of the debate agree on progress in the study of demographic rates and shark population modeling. Thus, both sides agree that this progress ensures accuracy in establishing the status of the shark population. Burgess et al. pointed out that, studies by Baum et al. in 2003 and another one by Baum and Myers in 2004 overstated the decline in shark population. In this regard, Burgess et al. pointed out that, the two studies based their inferences on limited data sets that were inappropriate in estimating the abundance of shark population (“Is the collapse real?”). It is crucial to note that, these two studies were responsible in informing conservatory efforts meant to protect the shark. Burgess et al. further point out that, Baum et al. consideration of some data sets unsuitable while drawing their inferences was wrong and never considered increase of other shark species. (“Reply to Robust estimates”). Thus, discrediting some data sets makes the conclusions biased. Effectively, the establishment of a sharp decline in the number of sharks based on the set of data these researchers used was wrong. Furthermore, failure to use the set of data classified as unsuitable does not validate the other data used in making the conclusions. Thus, their findings posit that conservatory efforts are not essential since there are no threats on sharks.
Informed opinion From the foregoing, both sides raise valid points concerning data on the shark population. However, the issue centers on validity of the set of data used in drawing conclusions. Hence, the side opposed to imperiled sharks discredits the other in the debate by claiming that the set of data used to draw this conclusion was wrong. Nevertheless, the side advocating for conservancy efforts has an upper hand in the debate since it explains the reasons for discrediting some data sets. In this case, Baum, Kehler and Myers observed that, relative abundance indices, such as sampling data in a small geographical area, might adversely underestimate the extent of the declines in the shark population. In effect, this eventually makes the opposing side in the debate lack other basis to support their arguments. It is evident that, societies have moved beyond using fish for survival needs. This is a fact recognized by those identifying with a decline in shark population. As a result, human-fish interactions is not limited to food purposes only but also to angling and sport fishing. In addition, captured sharks are crucial laboratory experiments meant to benefit the human population. Hence, the shark population is on the decline based on these factors as the side advocating their conservation propose. On the other hand, capturing sharks is distressful and even inhumane to some people. Posner argued that, teleost fish, this is the class containing the shark species, has the ability to feel and experience pain. In effect, humanity should respect the shark species and every human being should support the conservation measures. On the other hand, Mackinnon opined that animals, fish included, had interests different from those of human beings and effectively their rights had to be protected (377). Every species is crucial for the ecosystem. Myers et al. noted that, impacts of eliminating top-predators, like sharks, in the ecosystem are far-reaching since they include a release of an intermediate predator from the control of another while subsequently introducing cascades of indirect trophic interactions (1848). Thus, humanity’s persistent exploitation of the sharks is a challenge to the ecosystem regarding its sustenance since sharks occupy the apex-predators position on these trophic interactions.
Probable Lobbies There are groups crucial for conservatory measures; they include Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites) whose aim is to protect species from extinction by their sale. On the other hand, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and The PEW Charitable Trusts, focus their efforts towards conservation and protection of endangered species. Another organization known as Save our Sharks devotes its operation to specifically conserve the sharks. In addition, the Humane Society of the United States of America and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) use their resources in promoting ethical practices on animals. On the other hand, these other three groups are useful in the opposing side of the debate. The first one is The Animal Attack files, associated with George Burgess, who opposes that sharks are imperiled. The other two other bodies namely; It’s Vivisection and Huntingdon Life Sciences advocate use of animals in experimental lab research. From the foregoing, the side opposing that sharks are imperiled do not use statistical data to put across their message. Their reliance on the data sets used by the side advocating for conservatory measures of imperiled sharks is proof they lack the capacity to prove that sharks are not in any danger. On the other hand, the side supporting this debate uses data sets to establish and correlate the fish population in certain periods. As a result, their conclusion that sharks are imperiled underscores the need for conservation measures to protect the available stock.

Works Cited
Baum, Julia K., Daniel G. Kehler, and Ransom A. Myers. Robust estimates of decline for pelagic shark populations in the northwest Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Fisheries. 30.10(2005): 27-30. Print.
Baum, Julia K., and Ransom A. Myers. Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecology Letters. 7(2004): 135-145. Print.
Baum, Julia K., Ransom A. Myers, Daniel G. Kehler, Boris. Worm, Shelton J. Harley, Penny A. Doherty. Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the northwest Atlantic. Science. 299(2003): 389-392. Print.
Burgess, George H., Lawrence R. Beerkircher, Gregor M. Cailliet, John K. Carlson, Enric Cortes, Kenneth J. Goldman, R. Dean. Grubbs, John A. Musick, Michael K. Musyl, Collin A. Simpfendorfer. Is the collapse of shark populations in the northwest Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico real? Fisheries. 30.10(2005): 19-26. Print.
---. Reply to “Robust estimates of decline for pelagic shark populations in the northwest Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Fisheries. 30.10(2005): 30-31. Print.
Mackinnon, Barbara. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. California: Wadsworth Publishing, 2008. Print.
Myers, Ransom A., Julia K. Baum, Travis D. Shepherd, Sean P. Powers, and Charles H. Peterson. Cascading Effects of the Loss of Apex Predatory Sharks from a Coastal Ocean. Science. 315(2007): 1846-1850. Print.
Posner, Pam L. Pain and Distress in Fish: A Review of the Evidence. ILAR Journal. 50.4(2009): 327–328. Print.