In February, the municipal board of Avannaata Kommunia decided to regulate the Greenland shark by offering a bounty of DKK 300 per shark heart, targeting 1,000 Greenland sharks — a total of DKK 300,000 from the municipality’s pest control account. The debate has also opened discussions about using Greenland sharks as a resource, for example as dog food or fermented products.

However, Oceans North Kalaallit Nunaat (ONKN) warns that culling will not solve fisheries challenges. Instead, it risks wasting public funds, harming Greenland’s reputation, and diverting attention from long-term solutions that can actually help fishers.

Understanding fishers’ frustrations

Fishers in Greenland face real challenges with Greenland shark, and ONKN acknowledges their frustrations. Greenland sharks can become entangled in trawls, gillnets, and longlines. Removing them takes time, may result in damage and lost gear that is hard to replace in remote areas, and they may lose catch.

However, sharks are not the only cause of gear loss. Their small teeth make it unlikely they bite through ropes unless they struggle for long periods. Harsh weather, strong currents, rocky seabeds, and ghost gear are more common sources of lost gear. Although Greenland sharks may take fish from longlines, their extremely slow metabolism means they require few calories — a single fish can sustain a shark for days.

Culling can backfire – and sharks will return

A bounty scheme risks attracting more sharks rather than reducing their numbers. Greenland sharks rely heavily on their extremely sensitive sense of smell. Dumping fish waste, bycatch — and sharks killed for bounties — can attract more sharks to fishing grounds. Ghost gear continuously supplies carrion that also attracts sharks. In practice, the scheme could backfire by attracting the very animals it seeks to remove.

At the same time, culling would offer only short‑term relief. Despite their slow appearance, Greenland sharks travel surprisingly far: tagging studies show they can swim up to 1,600 km in under six months and may migrate seasonally between northern fjords and southern waters. With annual movements exceeding 2,000 km, sharks removed in Northwest Greenland would quickly be replaced by individuals arriving from other regions — thus, the culling is ineffective in the long run.

A vulnerable species shaped by centuries

Greenland sharks are among the longest‑living vertebrates on Earth — with one specimen estimated at least 270 to possibly 400 years old. A shark alive today may have been born in the 1750s, early in Danish colonization — or even the 1620s, early in the Little Ice Age.

Their slow growth and late maturity around age 150, make them highly vulnerable to overfishing. The species is listed as Vulnerable on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Global Red List, and Canada assess it as a species of Special Concern.

“Greenland sharks are extremely long-lived, highly migratory, and important predators in the Arctic and deep North Atlantic,” says Dr. Julius Nielsen, a Greenland shark expert that has studied sharks in Greenland for more than a decade. “Initiating a bounty system of this magnitude is a risky path — especially if this type of management spreads to other Arctic regions, as it could have an impact on a population which is likely still recovering from the big commercial harvest in the last century,”. Nielsen stresses that any regulation should be based on scientific advice — which this initiative is not.

Global efforts focus on protection — not culling

International efforts are moving toward protection — shark culling is now considered ineffective, outdated, and largely abandoned. Since 2022, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) requires the mandatory release of caught Greenland sharks in the offshore NAFO regulatory area. MSC-certified offshore Greenland halibut fisheries are developing safe handling and release guidelines, as well as excluder grids that allow sharks to escape trawl gear. The municipal cull decision goes against these initiatives — and risks damaging Greenland’s credibility as a responsible Arctic actor at a time of growing global scrutiny of fisheries sustainability.

Sharks are top predators and scavengers that help maintain healthy ecosystems by balancing the food web and removing carrion. Around the world, losses of local shark populations have been linked to cascading ecosystem changes. Although we still have a lot to learn about Greenland sharks, they are the largest fish in Arctic waters and likely play a significant role in Arctic marine ecosystems.

Real solutions require data and collaboration

Shark bycatch is a shared challenge across northern fisheries. Solutions start with better data. As the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources (GINR) noted in Sermitsiaq (3 March), Greenland lacks systematic data on bycatch levels and local shark populations. Fishers also need to improve reporting to the Greenland Fisheries and Hunting Control Authority (GFJK) – when and where sharks are caught, how many, and where gear is lost.

Bycatch data can reveal hotspots where scientists and fishers can test bycatch-reduction methods. Gear modifications also show promise; in Canada, switching longline gangions from nylon to monofilament significantly reduced Greenland shark bycatch. Tagging can show how Greenland sharks use local waters and identify times, seasons, and places to avoid. Retrieving ghost gear and avoiding waste dumping can further limit shark attraction to fishing areas.

ONKN is in dialogue with Oceans North Canada regarding whether it is possible to test new shark‑deterrent technology on Greenland sharks with video documentation — and wish to collaborate with Greenlandic fishers as the project advances. If Greenland aims to use sharks as a resource, GINR will also need funding to assess populations to provide scientific advice to a potential management plan.

A call for effective, science-based action

ONKN calls for collaboration, data collection, and innovation — and urges Greenland to show leadership by choosing modern, science-based solutions over outdated methods. The municipality should reconsider the decision before spending their resources on culls that offer no lasting benefit. Avannaata Kommunia’s funds would be far better invested in long‑term bycatch‑reduction efforts, improved gear solutions, and supporting GINR in closing key research gaps on Greenland sharks.

“Ultimately, a Greenland shark cull is not a long-term solution,” says Parnuna Egede Dahl, special advisor at ONKN. “Any relief would be temporary, while increasing the risk to a vulnerable species. Instead of wasting public funds on short‑term measures, let’s invest in long‑term, science‑based solutions and work with fishers to develop real, lasting improvements.”