Twenty-six boxes of shark fins seized in Anchorage. Credit: USFWS

USFWS

The crate did not look unusual at first glance. It was labeled as car parts, one of thousands of shipments moving through the port of Anchorage, Alaska. But something about it prompted a closer look and when inspectors opened it, they did not find machinery or metal. Instead, they found about 50,000 shark fins, dried, preserved and packed for transport across the globe.

That moment in October 2025 set off a chain reaction. What began as a single suspicious shipment quickly expanded into a broader investigation led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service known as “Operation Thunder,” a codename for a worldwide operation “against the illegal trafficking of wild fauna and flora.” Coordinated by INTERPOL and the World Customs Organization (WCO), with the support of the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC), the operation sought to intercept and seize illegally traded wildlife and forestry commodities across the global supply chain and identify, disrupt and dismantle criminal networks involved in these types of environmental crime. In the USA, officials tracked similar consignments moving through multiple ports across the country, including Louisville and Cincinnati. Every single one was traveling the same route, from Mexico to Hong Kong, passing through the United States as a waypoint. And every single one was tied to the same smuggling network.

Part of what makes this bust so appalling is that it unfolded against a backdrop of increasingly strict laws. In the United States, shark conservation policy has been evolving for decades. The Shark Finning Prohibition Act (signed in 2000) made it illegal to remove fins at sea and discard the body, targeting one of the most wasteful practices in fisheries. More recently, the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act (2023) went further, largely banning the possession, transport and sale of shark fins within the country. Similar trends are playing out elsewhere. The European Union, for example, introduced its first restrictions on shark finning in 2003, then strengthened those measures in 2013 to require that sharks be landed with fins naturally attached. The United Kingdom followed with the Shark Fins Act 2023, tightening rules on the import and export of detached fins.

On paper, this looks like progress because regulations have expanded, enforcement tools have improved, and awareness of the issue has grown. And yet, shipments like this one still move through global supply chains.

When authorities further examined the seized fins to properly ID them, they found that many belonged to two species: the bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus) and the silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis). While very different animals at first glance, they share something important: both are highly vulnerable to fishing pressure, and both have ended up heavily involved in the global fin trade. Regarding the first point, they both share life history traits that make them particularly vulnerable to overfishing; they grow relatively slowly, take years to reach sexual maturity and produce relatively few offspring compared to many bony fish. That means their populations cannot rebound quickly once numbers decline. Remove too many individuals, and recovery can take decades, if it happens at all. This vulnerabily is one of the reasons both are listed under Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Appendix II. In other words, countries can still trade these species, but only with proper documentation showing the catch is legal and sustainable. In the fin trade, not all fins are valued equally, but both bigeye threshers and silky sharks produce fins that are considered commercially desirable. For silky sharks in particular, their abundance in tuna fisheries has made them one of the most commonly traded species in the global fin market.

The idea behind Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Appendix II is that when the rules are properly enforced, they deter and penalize illegal, poorly documented or unsustainable international trade. By reducing that pressure, the goal is to help stabilize populations and support their long-term recovery. In theory, the “support trade that is legal and sustainable” system should work. In practice, the reality is much messier. Case in point, this find in October. One does not just mislabel a shipment of shark fins worth over $1 million as “car parts” in an attempt to avoid paperwork. That is a deliberate effort to bypass a system designed to prevent overexploitation. It just goes to showhow adaptable illegal wildlife trade networks can be. When regulations tighten in one area, traffickers just find new routes or new methods. And while it seems counterintuitive to send these “goods” through the USA, it’s not uncommon for shipments to pass through multiple countries before reaching their final destination because it creates ample opportunities for concealment. This sort of behavior underscores the limitations of enforcement. The fact that these shipments is intercepted is a success, and for good reason. But it also raises an uncomfortable question of how many similar shipments have not been caught? Wildlife trafficking is one of the largest illegal trades in the world, and sharks are a major part of that equation. International trade is a major driver of shark overexploitation, with a 2015-2021 study revealing that fins from protected, threatened species were prevalent in Hong Kong — the world’s largest trading hub — despite international bans like CITES. The market here is sharply split between products that are legal and those that are not, depending on the species involved and the international regulations that govern them. (And, yes, the fins investigators discovered were destined for the high-end markets of Hong Kong.)

So the question becomes: what actually works? Is it stricter enforcement at ports? Better international cooperation? Stronger penalties for traffickers? Or is the most effective approach one that targets demand directly, shifting cultural norms and consumer behavior over time? There is no single answer. It is likely a combination of all these strategies, but each comes with its own challenges. Enforcement requires resources and coordination. Policy changes can be slow. Cultural shifts take time and sensitivity.

Unfortunately, progress in this field is not linear. Gains in conservation can be offset by new pressures and successes can and do coexist with setbacks. The presence of protected species in illegal trade does not necessarily mean the system has failed entirely, but it does suggest that it is under strain.

What happens next is not just about enforcement agencies following up on leads but whether the broader system evolves. How will we close the gaps that traffickers exploit? Will consumer attitudes continue to shift away from shark fin products so demand weakens and ultimately the want for these animals goes away? The answers to those questions will shape the future of sharks in our oceans and whether conservation efforts can keep pace with a trade that is constantly adapting.

As this case shows, that future is still very much uncertain.