Shark Protection: Federal Laws, CITES, and RFMOs

Shark protection laws operate on three levels: national statutes that ban finning and the fin trade, endangered-species listings that shield specific populations, and international agreements — chiefly CITES — that regulate cross-border commerce in shark products. In the United States, the core framework is built from the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000, the Shark Conservation Act of 2010, and the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act of 2022, backed by Endangered Species Act listings and complemented by fin-trade bans in 14 states and three territories. Globally, CITES now controls trade in more than 143 shark and ray species, and a growing list of countries have banned shark fishing outright in their waters.

Why the Laws Exist

More than a third of shark and ray species are threatened with extinction, and overfishing is the driver. A 2021 reassessment in Current Biology put the figure at 37.5%, with overfishing acting as the sole threat for roughly two-thirds of those species.¹ The IUCN’s most recent summary gives a best estimate of 38%, in a range of 33% to 45%.² A December 2024 NOAA Fisheries analysis covering 1,199 species over 50 years confirmed that targeted fishing for fins, meat, and liver oil, along with bycatch, remain the primary killers, and that the largest species have declined first and most sharply.³ Three species are now listed as Critically Endangered and Possibly Extinct, which would make them the first documented global marine fish extinctions caused by overfishing.

U.S. Federal Shark Laws

The United States has built its shark protections in layers, each statute closing loopholes in the one before it.

The Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000

The first federal measure amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to outlaw finning, the practice of slicing off a shark’s fins at sea and dumping the body. It prohibited possessing shark fins aboard a fishing vessel without the corresponding carcass.⁴

The Shark Conservation Act of 2010

Signed on January 4, 2011, this law tightened the earlier ban by requiring that all sharks landed in the United States have their fins “naturally attached” to the carcass through some portion of uncut skin. It also created a rebuttable presumption that fins weighing more than 5% of the total carcass weight were taken illegally, and directed the U.S. to identify foreign nations whose vessels fish sharks without comparable protections.⁵ Commercially fished smooth dogfish were exempted.

The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act of 2022

Enacted on December 23, 2022, as part of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, this law bans the possession, sale, purchase, or transport of detached shark fins or any product containing them. It took effect immediately, with no grace period for existing inventory.⁶ Narrow exceptions cover scientific research by museums and universities (with a permit), noncommercial subsistence use, and the smooth dogfish and spiny dogfish fisheries in the Atlantic.⁴ As of November 2024, NOAA Fisheries has said it does not intend to issue additional implementing regulations, considering existing statutes sufficient.

State Fin Bans

Even before the federal sales ban, 14 states and three U.S. territories had prohibited shark fin trade on their own. Hawaii went first in 2010, followed by California, Washington, and Oregon in 2011, and a wave of additional states through 2020, when New Jersey and Florida became the most recent to act.⁷ Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa adopted bans between 2011 and 2012. NOAA Fisheries has found that these state laws do not conflict with federal fisheries management authority.⁴

Endangered Species Act Listings

NOAA Fisheries lists a range of shark species under the Endangered Species Act. Endangered species include all five sawfish species, the daggernose shark, the striped smoothhound shark, and certain distinct population segments of the scalloped hammerhead shark. Threatened listings cover the oceanic whitetip shark, the narrownose smoothhound shark, and additional scalloped hammerhead populations.⁸

In April 2026, NOAA proposed listing two tope shark populations, Southern Africa and the Southwest Atlantic, as threatened. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2026, with a public comment period running through June 15, 2026.⁹ Four other tope shark populations, including the Northeast Pacific population off California, Oregon, and Washington, were not proposed for protection. The action followed a 2022 petition by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Defend Them All Foundation, and a 2024 lawsuit over the agency’s failure to respond.¹⁰

Bills in the Pipeline

The SHARKED Act (Supporting the Health of Aquatic Systems through Research, Knowledge, and Enhanced Dialogue) passed the U.S. House of Representatives by voice vote on January 21, 2026. It would direct NOAA Fisheries to convene a task force on shark depredation, the problem of sharks removing hooked fish from anglers’ lines. A prior version passed the House in February 2024 but expired without Senate action; the reintroduced bill is sponsored by Representatives Rob Wittman, Darren Soto, Daniel Webster, and Marc Veasey and awaits Senate consideration.¹¹ Representative Daniel Webster has separately introduced the Florida Safe Seas Act of 2025, which would ban shark feeding in federal waters off Florida, extending a state-water prohibition already in place.¹²

International Trade Rules: CITES

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) controls cross-border commerce in shark products through its appendix system. Appendix I species cannot be traded internationally for commercial purposes. Appendix II species may be traded only with permits proving the trade is legal, traceable, and sustainable. Appendix III requires certificates of origin.¹³ CITES does not reach domestic fishing or sales within a country’s own waters; its authority runs only to international trade.

How the List Grew

CITES first listed sharks in 2002, adding basking sharks and whale sharks to Appendix II. The white shark followed in 2004. The list expanded substantially in 2013 with porbeagle sharks, oceanic whitetip sharks, three hammerhead species, and manta rays. Silky sharks, three thresher species, and devil rays came in 2016; shortfin mako sharks, giant guitarfishes, and wedgefishes followed in 2019.¹³

The largest single expansion came at CITES CoP19 in November 2022, when parties voted to list the entire requiem shark family (Carcharhinidae) under Appendix II, along with the remaining hammerheads and 37 guitarfish species. Those listings pulled an estimated 90 to 95% of shark species commonly fished for their fins under CITES controls.¹⁴

CoP20 and the First Appendix I Shark

At CITES CoP20 in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, in late November 2025, parties voted to transfer the oceanic whitetip shark to Appendix I, imposing a complete ban on international commercial trade. It was the first time a shark species received that level of CITES protection. Panama championed the proposal with support from 13 other nations. Manta rays, devil rays, and whale sharks were also elevated to Appendix I at the same meeting.¹⁵ CoP20 also added gulper sharks, smoothhound sharks, and the tope shark to Appendix II, and set zero export quotas for wedgefish and giant guitarfish.¹⁶

The Enforcement Gap

Paper protections and market reality are far apart. A study in Science Advances analyzing nearly 20,000 samples from Hong Kong markets between 2014 and 2021 found that fins from four of the five species listed in 2013 remain widespread in trade. Oceanic whitetip fins appeared at 70 times the rate expected from official reporting, and hammerhead fins at 10 times the expected rate. Eighty-one percent of shark-fin-exporting countries had never filed a single trade report for the listed species despite evidence of continuing exports. Countries identified as probable hubs of illegal trade include Spain, Taiwan, the United Arab Emirates, the Philippines, Ghana, and Brazil.¹⁷

Other International Frameworks

Regional Fisheries Management Organizations

RFMOs oversee shark rules on the high seas, and their record is mixed. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas adopted the first international finning regulation in 2004 and later prohibited retention of oceanic whitetip, hammerhead, and bigeye thresher sharks, but proposals to set shortfin mako catch limits and require fins-attached landings have been voted down. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization have stalled on similar moves.¹⁸ Since 2015, five of the world’s 14 RFMOs have adopted fins-attached policies, including the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.¹⁹

The CMS Sharks MOU

The Convention on Migratory Species maintains a Memorandum of Understanding for migratory sharks. As of 2025, it has 49 signatories, including the EU, and covers 37 species. Its conservation plan focuses on research, sustainable fisheries, habitat protection, awareness, and international cooperation.²⁰

Notable Country Laws

The United Kingdom’s Shark Fins Act, passed on June 29, 2023, bans the import and export of detached shark fins and any product containing them. A fins-naturally-attached rule has been in place since 2009.²¹
Canada’s Bill C-68, adopted in 2019, prohibits importing or exporting shark fins not naturally attached to a carcass.¹⁹
The European Union has required a fins-naturally-attached policy for all EU-registered vessels worldwide since 2013. After a citizens’ initiative signed by over one million Europeans, the European Commission is assessing whether to ban the trade in loose shark fins entirely, with a decision on next steps expected in late 2026. EU shark fin exports average about 2,200 tonnes per year, nearly all blue shark.²²
Palau declared its entire exclusive economic zone a shark sanctuary in 2009, outlawing commercial shark fishing with penalties up to $250,000 per criminal violation and $500,000 per civil violation. The Palau National Marine Sanctuary, fully operational since January 1, 2020, designates 80% of national waters as a no-take marine protected area.²³²⁴

Palau, Honduras, and the Maldives have gone further still, banning all shark fishing in their territorial waters and creating full shark sanctuaries.¹⁹

Where Protections Are Working

The NOAA analysis identified regions where shark diversity remains relatively intact thanks to active management: U.S. and Canadian waters, the northeastern Atlantic off western Europe, the southwestern cape of South Africa, and the waters around Australia and New Zealand. International trade rules now cover more than 143 shark and ray species, encompassing over 85% of the global fin trade.³ What remains, as the Hong Kong market study shows, is turning those rules into consistent enforcement across dozens of countries and thousands of ports.

1
IUCN Red List. Overfishing Drives Over One-Third of All Sharks and Rays Toward a Global Extinction Crisis
2
IUCN Red List. Summary Statistics
3
NOAA Fisheries. Global Extinction Risk of Sharks and Rays Is High; United States May Provide Haven
4
NOAA Fisheries. Shark Management Laws
5
U.S. Congress. Public Law 111-348
6
NOAA Fisheries. Frequently Asked Questions: Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act
7
Shark Allies. The Timeline of Fin Trade Laws
8
NOAA Fisheries. Shark Conservation
9
NOAA Fisheries. Proposed Listings and 12-Month Determinations: Tope Sharks Under Endangered Species Act
10
Center for Biological Diversity. International Tope Shark Populations Proposed for Protection Under U.S. Endangered Species Act
11
SeafoodSource. US House Passes SHARKED Act Again
12
SeafoodSource. Florida Representatives Want to Ban Shark Feeding to Stop Red Snapper Depredation
13
Shark Stewards. CITES Sharks
14
BCSSMZ. CITES Turns the Tide for Shark Conservation: Breakthrough at CoP19
15
WCS Newsroom. Historic Victory for Sharks as Oceanic Whitetips Upgraded to Appendix I at CITES, Banning International Trade
16
Born Free USA. Imperiled Shark and Ray Species Win Unprecedented Protection at the CITES CoP20
17
FIU News. Global Study Reveals Widespread Illegal Shark Fin Trade Nearly Decade After International Protections
18
IUCN SSG. RFMOs
19
Animal Welfare Institute. International Shark Protection Measures
20
CMS. Sharks MOU
21
UK Government. Government Introduces Law Banning International Shark Fin Trade
22
European Commission. Stop Finning – Stop the Trade Initiative
23
Palau Government. The Shark Haven Act of 2009
24
Marine Conservation Institute. Palau National Marine Sanctuary