Fishy catch landed at the market
Two sharks were confiscated by the fisheries department last week after inspectors suspected they were the protected great whites.
Although regulations stipulate that all fish taken to the market must be intact on the outside, the sharks were missing their head, tail and fins and inspectors could not immediately verify the species, a government spokesman said.
The fisherman responsible, who insisted they were not great whites, was asked to retrieve the missing body parts for further analysis - and it was eventually established they were mako sharks.
The spokesman said since the species is not protected, the fisherman was let off.
Alex Buttigieg, an expert on sharks, said despite being relatives, great whites were much bigger than mako sharks that were faster and fed on a different diet. The latter were also not as dangerous.
Nature Trust congratulated the department on its "prompt response and thorough investigation, which shows commitment and determination to protect the sharks".
It said this showed determination to clamp down on illegal fishing. Earlier this year, the EU announced an action plan for the conservation and management of sharks, which protects them from being fished for their fins, a delicacy used in an oriental soup.
3 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
v.pulis
Aug 20th 2009, 00:03
@Bob Kelly
You missed this part of the article Bob!
The fisherman responsible, who insisted they were not great whites, was asked to retrieve the missing body parts for further analysis - and it was eventually established they were mako sharks.
Bob Kelly
Aug 19th 2009, 14:51
Difficult to see their teeth with the heads removed!
v.pulis
Aug 19th 2009, 14:31
Mako sharks differ from great whites in teeth formation. great whites having triangular serrated teeth while makos have longer thinner teeth. The shape of their heads is also different with makos having a more tapering snout. So identification shouldn't have been that difficult.