NMFS STAGES A SMALL RETREAT ON MAKO CONSERVATION

Last summer, I wrote a piece on the shortfin mako, and the problems that it’s currently facing here in the North Atlantic.

A stock assessment produced by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (the duties of which include managing not just tuna, but “tuna-like species,” a term that encompasses highly migratory fish such as billfish, swordfish and sharks) found the stock both overfished and subject to continued overfishing, and in serious decline.  The decline was serious enough that a number of conservation groups were asking for a total prohibition on harvest, a request that ICCAT denied.

Even so, recognizing that there was strong evidence that a 75% reduction in landings was needed just to stabilize the population, ICCAT did take some meaningful steps in an effort to stem the decline.  It required commercial fishermen to release any makos that were still alive when caught (although they could still keep the dead ones), and it set a recreational size limit of 71 inches (fork length) for males and 83 inches (fork length) for females.

Shortly thereafter, in March 2018, the National Marine Fisheries Service adopted emergency regulations that prohibited commercial fishermen from retaining any live makos, prohibited all commercial fishermen except for pelagic longliners with electronic monitoring equipment on board from retaining any makos, and set an across-the-board 83-inch (fork length) minimum size in the recreational fishery.

At the same time, NMFS began accepting comments on proposed permanent regulations intended to protect the shortfin mako.  The proposed regulations would have allowed other commercial fishermen, and not just pelagic longliners, to retain their dead makos, provided that they had electronic monitoring systems installed on their boats.  They also would have retained the 83-inch size limit for recreational fishermen, and also have required all recreational shark fishermen to use circle hooks when fishing with bait.

Some fishermen believed that the proposed regulations were too restrictive.  Commercial gillnetters, and those who employed bottom longlines, complained that electronic monitoring systems were too expensive, and for that they would be unfairly prohibited from retaining dead makos if such retention was conditioned on having such systems on board.  Some representatives of the recreational fishery complained that the across-the-board 83-inch size limit was more restrictive than what ICCAT required, and that it placed too much of a burden on United States anglers.  They asked that anglers be allowed to kill male makos if they met the ICCAT-recommended 71-inch minimum size.

NMFS published the final regulations on February 21, and they became effective on March 3.

To the agency’s credit, it took relatively prompt action to implement ICCAT’s recommendations. When NMFS received comments suggesting that NMFS should delay, and only implement new regulations after the full two-year adoption period granted by ICCAT had expired, it explained that it was taking faster action because

“we have an obligation to implement the measures under [the Atlantic Tunas Conservation Act] and the ICCAT treaty, and that the Magunson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to take measures to end overfishing and to rebuild the stocks…NMFS…is implementing long-term management measures to address overfishing and establish a foundation for rebuilding shortfin mako sharks with Amendment 11, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.”

On the other hand, NMFS did take two modest steps backward when it released the final regulation.

In the commercial fishery, NMFS had originally designated, as its preferred alternative, a measure that would have

“Allow[ed] retention of shortfin mako sharks by persons with a Directed or Incidental shark [limited access permit] only if the shark is dead at haulback and there is a functional electronic monitoring system on board the vessel.”

According to the Final Environmental Impact Statement that accompanied the final rule, such management measure would have reduced shortfin mako landings in the pelagic longline fleet by about 74%, based on observer-supplied data; because about 30% of longline-caught makos die after release, it would reduce actual fishing mortality by approximately 54%.  The Final Environmental Impact Statement states that such measure

“would likely result in short- and long-term direct minor beneficial ecological impacts because shortfin mako sharks caught by U.S. fishermen on pelagic longline that are alive at haulback would be released.”

In the final rule, it changed its preferred alternative to one that will

“Allow retention of shortfin mako sharks by persons with a Directed or Incidental shark [limited access permit] when caught with longline or gillnet gear and only if the shark is dead at haulback.  Retention of dead shortfin mako sharks with pelagic longline gear is allowed only if there is a functional electronic monitoring system on board the vessel.”

Thus, gillnetters and bottom longliners would be allowed to retain makos that were dead when brought alongside the boat.  The only problem is that, without electronic monitoring gear on board, there is really no way to know whether the shark was truly “dead at haulback,” or whether death occurred at some point after it was brought aboard the fishermen’s vessel. 

If sharks were still alive when brought to boatside by such unmonitored vessels, but retained anyway, the preferred alternative would have diminished the effectiveness of the final rule.  That possibility didn’t concern NMFS because, it claims, very few makos are caught in gillnets or on bottom longlines; over the  six years between 2012 and 2017, only 40 shortfin makos were reported caught on such gear.  The agency believes that it is unlikely that vessels deploying such gear are likely to begin targeting makos, and thus concluded that the small number of shortfin mako that might be landed by gillnetters and bottom longliners don’t justify a landings ban.

While the final commercial rule does, from a conservation viewpoint, represent a step backward compared to the original, proposed rule, that step is so small that it can safely be deemed inconsequential.

The final recreational regulations, on the other hand, probably have a greater detrimental impact on the stock.

On the Atlantic Coast of the United States, the recreational shortfin mako harvest is actually greater than the commercial landings.  According to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, for the eight years between 2010 and 2017, annual commercial landings averaged just 138 metric tons, compared with an average 192 metric tons landed in the recreational fishery.  A substantial majority of the makos landed in those years measured between 5 ½ and 7 feet in (fork) length.

Thus, the original 83 inch minimum, which was set in 2018’s emergency regulations and was originally proposed for the final rule, would cut the number of recreationally-harvested makos by an estimated 83%.  The estimated harvest reduction, when measured by weight, was somewhat lower, and at 69%, was slightly less than the 72% to 79% reduction recommended by ICCAT.  However, because effort in the recreational mako shark fishery dropped by about one-third after the emergency regulations were adopted, in reality, the overall reduction in recreational landings exceeded the ICCAT recommendation.

To avoid cutting such landings much more than required, the final rule included a preferred recreational alternative that

“Increase[d] the minimum size limit for the retention of shortfin mako sharks from 54 inches [fork length] to 71 inches [fork length] (180 cm [fork length]) for male and 83 inches [fork length] (210 cm [fork length]) for female shortfin mako sharks.”

Such measure would, in theory, only reduce the number of shortfin makos landed in the recreational fishery by 65%, and would reduce the weight of such landings by just 50%, far less than the 72% to 79% reduction that ICCAT called for.  NMFS justified adopting the seemingly inadequate measure by arguing that the reduction in fishing effort would remain low enough to make up the difference.  NMFS said that it

“anticipates directed effort will not fully recover to previous levels.  Thus, this alternative would have short- and long-term minor beneficial ecological impacts.”

Still, the final rule represents a minor step backward for shortfin mako conservation.

In the end, the final rule, as flawed as it is, is far better than the embarrassingly inadequate 54-inch minimum that governed recreational shortfin mako landings prior to 2018.  But it gives almost no protection to the breeding-age females that are critical to the future of the stock. 

That’s because there’s a strange dichotomy in the ICCAT recommendation.  At 71 inches, the minimum size that ICCAT established for males, 50% of males are sexually mature, so that number makes some biological sense.

But the equivalent length for females, the point when 50% are mature and able to reduce, is 108 inches, not 83.  83 inches is only the minimum size when the very first female shortfin makos reach maturity; at that length, the great majority of females are still immatures, and unable to breed.

Thus, although the final rule represents some sort of progress, there is still a long way to go.  Makos are having serious problems, and if there is any hope of recovery on the horizon, fishery managers—meaning ICCAT—are going to have to take more effective steps to boost the number of mature females that remain in the sea.

Yes, doing what needs to be done will cut recreational landings even more.

But doing nothing will do the same thing, and take away any hope that things might, one day, improve.