Greenland’s Plan to Kill 1,000 of the World’s Slowest Sharks, Which Can Live 400 Years, Sparks Concern

**Greenland Sharks at the Centre of Controversy over Fisheries Management**

Greenland sharks, remarkable creatures known for their longevity, have sparked considerable debate in Greenland as tensions between fishers and conservationists mount. Recently, the Avannaata municipality proposed a culling of 1,000 of these sharks, a move that was met with strong opposition and was ultimately halted due to legal concerns raised by the national government.

Officials in Avannaata initially sanctioned a bounty of 300 Danish kroner (approximately £34) for each shark heart, providing an financial incentive to local fishers targeting the species. This plan, reported by The Guardian, aimed to alleviate perceived damage to valuable halibut and cod fishing gear caused by the sharks. The scheme was intended to be financed through the municipality’s pest control budget, but it was scrapped when questions arose about its legality.

Fishers have voiced their frustration regarding the impact of Greenland sharks on their livelihoods. Henrik Jensen, a halibut fisher based in Ilulissat, lamented the loss of nearly 6,000 hooks in recent months, attributing damages to the sharks. He highlighted that such setbacks could amount to financial losses of around 30,000 kroner (approximately £3,400) in just a single day.

Mayor Lars Erik Gabrielsen of Avannaata has expressed the necessity of protecting fishers’ incomes and ensuring that traditional food sources remain accessible to local communities. “We need to safeguard the income of fishers and the catch so that we can continue to eat the foods that we have relied on for generations,” he stated, reflecting widespread concerns among the fishing community.

However, conservationists caution against the idea of culling, stressing the vulnerability of Greenland sharks. Scientists highlight that these sharks can take up to 150 years to reach sexual maturity and can live for over 400 years, resulting in a painfully slow recovery rate for their populations. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified the species as vulnerable in 2020, marking them as particularly sensitive to overfishing.

Nick Dulvy, a marine conservationist with Simon Fraser University, emphasised the biological fragility of Greenland sharks, stating they are among the most sensitive species in the ocean to the pressures of overfishing. The implications of a cull could have far-reaching effects, as it could exacerbate the existing strain on the species’ population.

Among the concerns raised by the conservation community is that even if a cull were to occur, new sharks would migrate in to replace those removed due to the species’ extensive movements across vast oceanic distances. According to research by Julius Nielsen, a specialist in Greenland sharks, this could render any culling efforts ineffective. He cautioned against initiating such a bounty programme, describing it as a “risky path”.

Moreover, conservationists argue that the finger-pointing at Greenland sharks is a misdiagnosis of deeper issues within the fisheries sector. Jenseeraq Poulsen, director of the conservation group Oceans North Kalaallit Nunaat (ONKN), noted that fishers also face challenges such as overcrowded waters, stringent quotas, and increasing operational costs. He suggested that sharks have become a convenient scapegoat for underlying structural problems within the industry.

In a bid to address the fishing community’s grievances without resorting to lethal measures, Poulsen proposed alternative solutions. He recommended compensation for loss of gear and the exploration of non-lethal shark deterrent technologies. Rebekka Nygård Bak, who advises Greenland’s fisheries ministry, echoed a collaborative approach, advocating for the enforcement of regulations requiring bycatch-friendly equipment and improved reporting practices.

As the debate continues, the future of Greenland’s fisheries and the fate of Greenland sharks remain intertwined in a complex discussion about sustainability, tradition, and ecological responsibility. The challenges faced by fishers and the need to protect vulnerable species highlight the delicate balance that must be struck in managing natural resources effectively.