Florida Fishermnn Lands 844-pound Mako Shark

So far, you have said, lets not take action and seek to understand. When the house is burning, you take immediate action to save people then figure out why the fire started. I hear you suggesting what is equivalent to saying, "let everyone burn while we try to figure out what is the exact cause of the fire".

 

So again, I ask that instead of rhetoric, you offer an actionable solution to address shark exploitation...wait and figure it out doesn't cut it. Without offering an alternative, criticism of other proposed solutions is of little value...unless of course your desired outcome is that we do nothing and let commerical fishing industry do what they will with elasmobranchs, even to to the point of extinction.

shawnh,

Not once have I said "let's not take action" or "let's wait before we take action." (I don't even think I've used the word "wait" even once.) What I've pointed out is that knee-jerk or intuitive reactions can produce policies and practices that are unproductive or even counterproductive. It's got nothing to do with waiting around and letting everyone burn. It's about good science, and learning lessons from some of the well-intentioned conservation efforts of the past that ended up being counterproductive or a lot less helpful than they could've been. And I've also said that I think it's unfair, unreasonable, and pointless to call someone a redneck just because he kept a big mako, especially when he routinely releases other sharks. Not all fishermen are stupid, bloodthirsty rubes. And the more we polarize and demonize by using that kind of talk, the more pushback you're going to get from them when you ask them to catch less or stay on shore for 330 days a year. The more they hear about how stupid or cruel they are, the more they think of all conservation measures as they brain-children of know-nothing armchair ecowarriors who are hellbent on destroying fishermen rather than dedicated to preservation of populations.

As for criticism being without value unless an alternative policy is proposed, that's absurd. The way science works is someone comes up with a hypothesis, they test it , they publish their findings, and people offer their criticism. Giving criticism (peer review) does not obligate the critics to propose something different or offer an alternative hypothesis. It's all about someone making a truth claim, and then others saying "Okay, but what are you basing this on and how did you end up with this claim?" Some of you guys have made bold statements about sharks and fishermen (some in jest, some not), and I've chimed in to ask, "What are you basing this on?" and "Do you really think that's a good idea or a fair characterization? If so, why?" It's not on me to chart a course toward shark conservation just because I question your ideas.

But since you asked, I think boycotts and economic sanctions should be levied against countries with inadequate or unenforced management of natural resources, and that marine protected areas should be established in all waters, from the state level to the high seas. (Sanctions and other strong measures shouldn't be reserved only for weapons issues or human rights violations.) In MPAs, there should be no takes, period, followed by limited access after an adequate recovery period. Fisheries with low bycatch rates should be penalized or limited much less than dirtier fisheries. (For example, bottom longlining for haddock in New England should be given more of a share of the biomass than trawling.) No more government subsidies for boats or fisheries that are doing badly. Management should be on the ecosystem level, not focused on certain species or higher taxa. This can take time, yes, but emergency action is always on the table, and believe it or not, such emergency measures are taken quite frequently. Not every fishery manager is sitting around crunching data while the house burns down.

writepic,

The U.S doesn't really have swordfish stocks in the way that NSW has a distinct population of gray nurse sharks. Most swordfish are caught outside of the EEZ, often a week or more away from shore (my longest steam was 11 days), so those stocks are essentially fair game to anyone. Therefore there's no reward when the U.S. leads by example. That's why the closures or limitations on the U.S. fleets made so little sense to me. Sure, the well-intentioned groups that spearheaded the lawsuits and forced NMFS' hand did prevent U.S. boats from hooking some loggerheads and leatherbacks, thereby enforcing the Endangered Species Act. But in doing so, the market for swordfish shifted to places where turtle bycatch was worse. And I mean way way worse. This is an example of a nice idea that turned out bad and could've been foreseen as such if people had had the big picture in mind. In the North Atlantic, closures of swordfish longlining to U.S. boats may mean less turtle blood on the hands of U.S. fishermen, but that North Atlantic stock is still open to other nations (Spain, Portugal, etc.). International treaties (ICCAT) need to be hammered out and enforced. Forcing the U.S. wholesalers to import swordfish from foreign fisheries really did end up killing more turtles. And I think that's a shame. The turtle conservationists' current focus on methylmercury makes a lot more sense because the impact on the market will be spread across all sources, including overseas. I also think people should buy local, even if they have to pay a premium. Better to have fish from heavily-managed U.S. fisheries than mystery sources overseas.

Anyhow, guys, I'm getting married in 6 days and I should be writing my vows instead of hanging out here.

Later,

Dan

Daniel. Again all good observations. But, what do you propose to do to conserve sharks. I am sure you are aware that they are pelagic fish and spend most of their lives outside of any established or proposed MPA. There is no such thing as an MPA for Makos for example. The US is one such country that has unsustainable shark fishing practices. How do we sanction and boycott ourselves?

So again I ask, what do you propose as a way to protect sharks (I use the term generally).

dan,

have a good wedding. hope you can still pop in and keep us informed when the nerves cut in

shawn, i'm going to have a search round and see if there is a model of NW atlantic fisheries that

has shown some success in preserving porbeagle numbers in that area. if you know of it, please

let me know, you might have access to something stateside?

it would be useful to cite this model in proposals for other populations.

mark

shawnh,

Not all sharks are pelagic. "Pelagic" refers to the upper reaches of the water column in the open ocean, with epipelagic meaning the very top. Some sharks are indeed pelagic--blues, both mako species, oceanic whitetips, all three threshers, baskings, etc.––but certainly not all of them. Plenty are deepwater or even benthic animals that only ever see the surface if they're hauled up by fishing gear. For examples, the goblin shark, the chain dogfish, and the various gulper species are not going to swim alongside you if you're snorkeling at the surface. Other sharks are reef-associated or spend much of their time in specific habitats like mangroves, eelgrass beds, brackish estuaries, etc. In any event, while many species are indeed highly migratory and/or pelagic, MPAs can work for such species because they spend at least some of their lifetime inside them, and they are therefore "safe" at those times. Yes, a blue that cruises through the MPA in the Phoenix Islands may run the risk of getting longlined by a Taiwanese boat if it wanders elsewhere in the equatorial Pacific, but still, it was safe while in the MPA and therefore that MPA was of value to it. (There are few closed systems in nature. Even in the most contained and controlled environments there are conditions and variables we cannot control.) And for many species that are NOT highly migratory, MPAs and no-take zones can be extremely helpful to their populations. If the Hudson Canyon area and waters off San Diego were off limits to shark fishing (rec and commercial) during mako shark pupping season, then that could be an important measure toward fostering the next generation of makos, just as nesting beaches protected from poachers and raccoons are better for sea turtles. Likewise for other shark nursery areas, many of which are congested by human activity ranging from housing development to fishing to sewage outflow. Just because there isn't an MPA called the Unites States Shortfin Mako Shark Marine Protected Area doesn't mean that MPAs or other area closures wouldn't be helpful to that species. It's the same on land. You might not be able to protect a bald eagle on its long journey from Florida to Nova Scotia, but if you protect one of those points or establish a protected corridor along part of that migratory route, then it's got a much better shot. MPAs, corridors, protected habitats, no-takes zones, seasonal closures... these are all good things, even if they are not established in the name of a specific species or other taxon. It's all about habitat protection, whether that habitat is temperate pelagic waters around the world or a tiny cluster of mangrove-lined islands in Indonesia.

As for the U.S., we are way way down on the list of offending nations when it comes to shark fishing or unsustainable shark fishing. Our longlining fleets are tiny compared to East Asian nations, and we actually have shark management plans whereas other countries couldn't care less about even drafting such a thing, let alone enforcing them. Nevertheless, it's not difficult to boycott U.S. fisheries that catch sharks, whether the fishery is directed or only takes sharks incidentally. You just need to have the info and some reliable data. For example, if you really likes threshers and you are worried that their low reproductive rates cannot withstand the pressures of industrial fishing, and you therefore want to avoid eating anything that came from a fishery that kills threshers, then you can boycott all the species caught in the CA/OR driftnet fishery (swordfish, opah, louvar, mako, small bluefin tuna) and those caught by pelagic longliners, too. The more we know about specific fisheries, the more we can make reasonable judgments about how bad they are, what kind of bycatch they have, etc. And that empowers us to make up our own minds instead of relying on vague seafood lists whose criteria may not match our own. For example, I happen to know that bottom longlining (a.k.a. tub trawling) for haddock off Cape Cod occasionally snags porbeagles in the mainline. It doesn’t happen very often, but it does happen, and sometimes the sharks asphyxiate before their tails can be disentangled. (I have the jaws of such a shark right here in my apartment.) Otherwise, this fishery is quite "clean" and it doesn't churn up the seafloor like trawling. And the sector is revolutionizing the way fisheries are divvied up and managed in the northeast, and the haddock is superior to the beat-up stuff that’s caught by trawlers. BUT, if I'm dead-set against killing porbeagles, I'll avoid eating haddock, period. Or maybe my main concern is seabirds, in which case I'd favor trawl-caught fish and avoid longlining of any kind, since gannets, cormorants, fulmars, and other northeastern seabirds are sometimes hooked by the gear as its set out over the stern.

Anyhow, back to the wedding vows...

I only now had time to catch up with this topic. Great discussion everyone.

I don't agree with some of the things that Dan says, but since everyone seems to be going against him, I will point out the ones I do agree with him. First, I think he is absolutely correct in saying that fishermen will care less and less about environmental issues every time they are called rednecks. I think that's the main reason why the US is so polarized right now, liberals think (and act) like an intellectual elite completely dismissing any conservative issues as dumb, and conservatives don't want to hear liberals because they think all liberals care about is fantasy wonderland. Anyways, enough politics, back to topic, I totally agree that singling them out and calling them names only increases the problem.

Second, I agree that the US is one of the countries that least offends the ocean. It is far from perfect, but there are several regulations in place and fishermen in the US are payed a decent salary (meaning they only have to fish 5 tons instead of 500 to make a living if they were in say Brazil). I've been to the streets of Hong Kong and saw shop after shop with tons of dried shark fins and sea horses, fortunately that doesn't happen in the US.

But I do think that immediate action should be taken to protect sharks, especially those in the IUCN red list (and there are many there). I think those should be banned from fishing all together, and I also think that the fisheries of all other species should be closely monitored, if for nothing, just because they reproduce and get to maturity very slowly.

Anyways, those are my $.02 for now...

Luiz

Luiz,

Bravo! I can't agree more.

For the record, I hope no one is thinking I used the term 'redneck'. My post was quite respectful and not elitist.

Also, I agree about establishing MPAs for the species it will benefit. Regarding many shark species however, this is only a brief period of there annual migrations. I disagree that my personal boycott will make even a dent in the fishing are sharks. I already don't eat any seafood at all. Leaving it to market forces will keep us on the track we are on...total species removal for many/most sharks.

We need a combination of demand reducing messages, trade limiting policy, and species protecting MPA's. In my work, I am contributing substantially to all these levels of activity.

So, that being said, I truly hope all those who have an opinion on this thread also have the drive to take some of the action they have proposed.

-Shawn

Um...I think you did Shawny..opening post

But if the oil covered tatty baseball cap fits...;@)

Dive safe

DeanB

For the record, I hope no one is thinking I used the term 'redneck'. My post was quite respectful and not elitist.

Seems like Florida sport fishermen are hellbent on no catch-and-release. Each week we read about another large shark taken from their waters. What can be done to tide the "red neck" factor and actually take a sustainable approach to Florida sport fishing?

shawnh,

Does putting the term redneck in quotes suggest that you aren't really using that term?

On the one hand you are saying that your own personal buying habits don't make a dent in shark fishing, but on the other you are an advocate and a practitioner of a type of conservation that depends a great deal on people changing their personal buying habits. In a free market economy, isn't encouraging personal boycotts the major goal of "demand reducing messages"? If you want people to stop supporting an unsustainable industry or practice, don't you ask them to boycott it or abstain from supporting it financially? At the end of a pro-conservation film, I assume you do not tell your viewer that their personal choices are unimportant.

And I still don't understand why you want MPAs to be dedicated to specific species or groups. Any MPA is going to be a "species protecting MPA," even if we aren't establishing it for one species or group of well-known animals. And like I said, an MPA is of value to numerous migratory animals as well as to those that do not migrate. Many birds, for example, rely on protected foraging areas along their migratory routes. They're just passing through, but if those areas were bulldozed to make condos or hunters were allowed to shoot the birds, then the birds are thoroughly screwed. Why would sharks not benefit from similar protection, even if the MPA is not created specifically for them? The whole point of them is to protect not just one thing but many things, and to do so in spite of and because of the dangers posed in unprotected areas.

Federal definition of an MPA is: “any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by federal, state, tribal, territorial, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.†-- Executive Order 13158 (May 2000)

The media-friendly talking points or press releases about a new MPA may be about specific, well-known species––sharks, turtles, whales, dolphins––but the real point of an MPA is to protect the whole habitat or system. If you don't want or need to protect the whole habitat or system, or more than a few cogs of the wheel, then it's much more efficient to simply place catch limits on the species you are worried about. A large MPA in the equatorial Pacific could benefit everything that passes through it, but if you're worried about, say, C. longimanus then you could simply limit or ban the take of that species.

Daniel,

First off, putting that word in quotes and adding the word "factor" makes a huge difference. I did not call anyone a red neck. I was describing a distasteful practice (not person) and was seeking to avoid far more derogatory terms. Describing the action of recklessly killing threatened species for a picture and trophy can quite reasonably described as "redneck factor". Telling someone they are "drunk" is not calling the person a "drunk". The describes a state and the other what the person actually is. I hope you are able to appreciate the difference. Furthermore, the second half of my sentence "take a sustainable approach to Florida sport fishing" certainly demonstrates my desire to address and resolve the problem in a constructive manner. This far different than say, "stop those idiots from fishing all together".

Other locations in the world have taken a very strict catch and release only policy for their sport fishing industies. Likewise, certain operators adhere religiously to catch and release fishing, refusing to allow even their highest paying customers to keep a trophy. This is not an unreasable approach.

Regarding MPAs, I used "species" in the plural sense as in "any species it happens to benefit". I didn't suggest that one should establish MPA's for just a single species...I think your misinterpretation of my plural use as singular drove you on an extended tangent.

Regarding boycotts, I understood you recommendation to be suggesting thay my personal boycott (you used the term 'you' a number of times) could make a difference. I merely stated that as I am already not seafood eater, any "boycott" on my part would not make much difference...I am already not their target customer. That being said, I fully support mass boycotts of products from offending companies. Hope that clears things up.

Perhaps what I still don't understand is your lack of willingness to consider real regulation of open seas fisheries with regard to sharks. We live in a world where all types of activities are highly regulated including commerce, land use, drug production, etc. Why should not destructive opens seas shark fishing practices be regulated? Perhaps your prior employment as an observer for the Department of Fisheries influences your views or prevents you from publicly criticizing certain US fishery policy. In that case, let's just pass on this topic an move on to one we can approach with full independence.

Finally, as much as we try to keep this thread focused on finding ways to protect species, IMO it seems to continue to degrade into lengthly demonstrations of who knows more about fisheries, science and marine policy. This seems to have polarized and personalized the conversation, so much so that we seem to be taking steps backwards with each post. We all have better uses of our time.

As such, I for one am bowing out of this thread until such time as it takes on a more constructive and supportive nature. I appreciate everyone's input and hopefully we have each learned a little more from this dialogue.

Perhaps what I still don't understand is your lack of willingness to consider real regulation of open seas fisheries with regard to sharks. We live in a world where all types of activities are highly regulated including commerce, land use, drug production, etc. Why should not destructive opens seas shark fishing practices be regulated?

Shawn, I have not written anything here or elsewhere that implied that I am opposed to "real" U.S. shark fishery regulations or regulations in general. (In fact, MPAs involve real regulations, as do the other measures that I discussed at length after your repeated requests. Does anything short of an absolute, no-take moratorium on all shark fisheries not count as "real"?) If you or anyone else want to talk about U.S. fisheries policy in specific and substantive ways, I am all for it and I will try to add something to that discussion if I have something to add. So far, though, it hasn't really come up in this thread except in your vague complaint about unsustainable U.S. shark fishing practices (which I complained about, as did someone else). But I haven't written that "I'm opposed to high-seas shark regulations" or anything even close to that. Voicing skepticism of or opposition to vague 'let's ban all shark fishing!' policy suggestions is not the same thing as being opposed to regulation in general.

Perhaps your prior employment as an observer for the Department of Fisheries influences your views or prevents you from publicly criticizing certain US fishery policy. In that case, let's just pass on this topic an move on to one we can approach with full independence.

Shawn, how would you like it if I assumed that because you live in Boulder, or because you think there's such a thing as the "Department of Fisheries" observer program, or because you are an avid conservationist, that perhaps you are just a marijuana-addled, know-nothing hippie who knows jack shit about fisheries and sharks? Not too much, I'm guessing.

Please extend me the same courtesy. I did indeed work for two NMFS observer programs and I indeed got to know fishermen and their practices firsthand. But that hardly means that I am sentimentally or legally bound to not speak ill of NMFS or commercial fishermen. What makes that paragraph especially ironic and insulting is that I was almost threatened with a lawsuit when I wrote an expository newspaper article (for a whopping $335!) about my experience as an observer on a swordfish longliner. As with many young marine biologists, my interest in observing stemmed from a shark-obsessed background and my interest in seeing marine fisheries with my own eyes and being an objective collector of data and samples that would, ideally, help shape fishery management that is both effective and sensible. I never expected to have that held against me, and I don't think it should be. The funny thing is, some of the more paranoid fishermen I spent time with assumed that I was a spy sent from Greenpeace or Oceana or some other entity that they thought was hellbent on destroying them. And now one of Wetpixel's resident conservationists is implying that my opinions may not be trustworthy because I may have gotten too cozy with NMFS and redneck fishermen.

Priceless.