Before the organizations and nations behind the introduction of commercially fished marine species to CITES settled on sharks as the test species, a number of different marine species were considered.

(Mention should be made of Doc. 11.36 by Australia and the United States calling for study of seahorses and other members of the Syngnathidae family. The same inherent problems associated with CITES involvement with commercially fished marine species sought for food can be argued for seahorses. Once so tangential a species is declared "endangered" or "threatened" with extinction, a wide range of legal penalties can be imposed by member nations which would throw commercial fisheries that inadvertently disturb the species or their habitat in any way into a chaotic situation.)

Signatory nations and extreme NGOs early in the preparations leading to COP 11 had discussed and preliminarily offered any number of commercially-sought species for possible listing on Appendix I or II. Among them were the Atlantic bluefin tuna, Southern bluefin tuna, and the Patagonian Toothfish (Chilean Sea Bass). However, sharks were chosen, in part, because they elicit intense and broad reaching emotional response from a great cross-section of the public.

Young and older humans, alike, are in awe of sharks and fascinated by their very existence. Much like the mystique of the tiger and elephant, sharks illicit worldwide recognition among the public, press and policy-makers. The potential for political, media, and public opinion manipulation using the "plight" of the shark as the driving force is great. Therefore its selection as the "icon" species for the effort to inject commercially fished marine species into the CITES venue was deemed most desirable.

In their respective analyses of the three shark proposals facing COP 11 delegated, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and IWMC World Conservation Trust acknowledge that options for shark management other than CITES exist and may be more preferable.

In its analysis of the basking shark proposal, IUCN writes "two reviewers suggest that development of management under the IPOA-Sharks (International Plan of Action) may be more appropriate than through CITES (Jostein 2000; Kaneko 2000)." Its whale shark analysis states "Kaneko (2000)…concludes that CITES listing may be premature." At best, the strongest argument IUCN offers for Appendix II listing of the shark species is that it "would allow monitoring and collection of further information." IUCN fails to note, however, the emphasis on such data collection central to the FAO IPOA for Sharks.

For all of its traditional thoroughness in examining species-related issues, the IUCN documents are hedged throughout with a great deal of conjecture about threats, population size and distribution, and even some apparent contradictions. For example, in the white shark paper, IUCN notes that the suggestion of a Mediterranean breeding area for the species is "questioned" and makes virtually no mention of that body of water as a common white shark range, yet in the next section states that "tuna overfishing in the Mediterranean will affect the Great White Shark."

IUCN finds no justification for inclusion of white sharks, or other species of sharks, under Appendix I and strains to justify inclusion of the three species being considered under Appendix II. Despite referencing vast global habitation of all three species of sharks, IUCN bases its case for inclusion under Appendix II on "vulnerability" due to the potential of negative impact by exploitation because of the species’ "conservative life history." IUCN lists whale sharks as "data deficient" (DD).

IUCN correctly calls for more research but opts for mandatory research imposed on member nations by including the species under Appendix II rather than acknowledge that worldwide interest in shark management as evidenced by FAO’s actions in this area are causing a natural scientific and intellectual evolution in this direction.

IUCN fails to note that the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, the Sub-regional Fisheries Commission of West African States, the Latin American Organization for Fishery Development, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) and the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the Pacific Community have all urged member nations to collect data on sharks and some have developed regional databases for stock assessment.

Nor does IUCN or any other proponent of CITES listings for commercially fished marine species give credit to FAO for its comprehensive IPOA on sharks.

Under the FAO IPOA, states sovereignty is preserved through the device of urging nations to "assess threats to shark populations, determine and protect critical habitats and implement harvesting strategies consistent with the principles of biological sustainability and rational long-term economic use." Issues such as minimizing incidental catches, monitoring of shark harvests, and reporting trade data are also addressed.

While IUCN is scrupulous in describing its doubts and areas of conjecture regarding the shark species in question and offers "possible" rationale for Appendix II listings, the analysis provided by the Species Survival Network (SSN), a loosely affiliated coalition of environmental and animal rights NGOs brought together by The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), is cavalier in its assertions supporting the proposed listings.

SSN’s support of all three proposals states without equivocation that the white shark "meets the criteria for Appendix I" with similar assertions that the basking and whale sharks meet the criteria for Appendix II listing.

On the other hand, IWMC – World Conservation Trust’s analysis points out the FAO initiative in addressing shark research and management and calls for CITES to wholeheartedly embrace and encourage FAO’s efforts including the potential of CITES collaborating with, rather than compete with FAO in this area. IWMC cautions that CITES was not meant to address commercially fished marine species and for that reason despairs that any implementation or enforcement of CITES provisions to control overexploitation by trade would not be "proper applied" and that the likelihood of their being ignored or that "reservations" by fishing nations would be invoked rendering the entire effort futile.