SIZE: To about 12 ft (3.7 m).
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
* First dorsal fin sloping, originating over or slightly before free tips of pectoral fins
* Second dorsal fin with free tip length rarely more than twice fin height
* Color gray or bluish-gray above, white below
* Interdorsal ridge
U.S. DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT
Cape Cod, MA, and Georges Back to FL, including Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Continental waters inshore to outer continental shelf and adjacent oceanic waters.
Source: http://na.nefsc.noaa.gov/sharks/species/dusky.html
NOAA Fisheries Service produces an annual report on U.S. implementation the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000. The 2008 Annual Report to Congress is available online (note that this document does not reflect updates from 2009-2010): http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/intlbycatch/rpts_shark_finning.htm
SHARKS at CITES CoP15
The United States and co-sponsor Palau have submitted a proposal to list
scalloped hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna lewini) in CITES Appendix II, with
the following species listed as “look-alikes” due to similar-looking
fins that are highly valued in the market:
• Great hammerhead sharks (S. mokarran);
• Smooth hammerhead sharks (S. zygaena);
• Dusky sharks (Carcharhinus obscurus); and
• Sandbar sharks (C. plumbeus).
The United States and Palau also submitted a proposal to list oceanic
whitetip sharks (Carcharhinus longimanus) in CITES Appendix II.
In comparison to other marine species, sharks are slow to mature and produce few young, making them especially vulnerable to overfishing. The greatest threats to both the scalloped hammerhead and oceanic whitetip sharks are harvest for the international fin trade and bycatch, which have resulted in significant population declines for both species. Shark fins are highly valued particularly in Asia and Asian markets around the world, where fins are consumed primarily as shark fin soup. The United States has proposed CITES Appendix-II listings for these shark species to ensure that international trade, including trade in their fins, is legal and sustainable.
A CITES Appendix-II listing does NOT prohibit harvest; it requires
regulation of international trade. Should these listing proposals be
adopted, sharks taken within a country’s own Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ) for domestic consumption would not be regulated by CITES. Sharks
taken within a country’s own EEZ and subsequently exported, and sharks
taken on the high seas would be subject to CITES requirements.
Link to the US/Palau proposal: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/prop/E-15-Prop-15.pdf
There is also a progress report and recommendations regarding the conservation and management of sharks and stingrays:
