SHORTFIN MAKOS IN CRISIS

If you spend much time fishing offshore, you know that shortfin mako sharks—that’s the species of mako that typically swims through our slicks—isn’t doing very well. 

Today, we’re catching smaller, and quite a bit fewer, makos than we did twenty-five years ago.

The fishing club that I belong to has about 100 members, most of them very competent anglers.  None of them weighed in a mako this year.  I haven't killed one--by choice--since 1997.

And if you’ve spent much time reading this blog, you’ll know that, two years ago,  the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas came to the conclusion that makos are in serious trouble.  You’ll also know that ICCAT ultimately adopted conservation measures that are unlikely to rebuild the population at any time soon—probably not within my lifetime—and that when final mako regulations were adopted by the United States, they represented the bare minimum level of regulations needed to keep the United States in compliance with its ICCAT obligations.

I’ve done a fair amount of shark fishing since ICCAT first warned that makos were in trouble, and I’ve seen nothing to make me feel good.  A 20-fathom spot where I once had a 6-mako day, and frequently caught three or four on a trip, reluctantly yielded a handful of fish on a handful of late-season trips.  The summer mako fishery, which used to be good there, has completely dried up.

Another spot, further away and in deeper water, was about as close to a sure thing as you can find during the last week in June.  The last time I went there, the ocean held enough bait that bluefin tuna smashed the surface all through the day, but the only shark that we saw in a full day of fishing was one good-sized sandbar; the makos, and even the blue sharks, were gone.

Earlier this year, ICCAT released a stock assessment update for the shortfin mako.  The update (which won’t be finalized until the ICCAT plenary session is held later this year) notes that

“All three models projected that spawning stock fecundity, defined as the number of pups produced each year, will continue to decline until approximately 2035 even with no fishing, because the cohorts that have been depleted in the past will age into the mature population over the next few decades (the median age at maturity is 21 years).”  

The assessment scientists ran the model three different times, including somewhat different assumptions about stock behavior in each run.  Again, no matter how they looked at things, it was all bad news.

“For runs 1 and 2, a [total allowable catch] of between 800-900 [metric tons], including dead discards, resulted in >50% probability of…the joint probability of [a fishing mortality rate that is below the rate that results in maximum sustainable yield] and [spawning stock fecundity that is above the spawning stock fecundity necessary for the biomass to produce maximum sustainable yield] by 2070.  Run 3, which assumed a low productivity stock-recruitment relationship, showed that only [a total allowable catch] of between 0 and 100 [metric tons] (including dead discards) resulted in a >50% probability of [achieving that desired result] by 2070.  The Group emphasized that fishing mortality rates had to be well below [the fishing mortality rate that would achieve maximum sustainable yield] to see any rebuilding.  [emphasis added]”

Since the pelagic longline fleet catches a lot of shortfin makos, and about a quarter of those will die before or shortly after release (assuming that the longliner opts to release them at all which, despite any laws mandating retention, is not a foregone conclusion, particularly in non-United States fleets, where most of the damage is done), restricting landings to just 800 or 900 metric tons is going to be difficult, and restricting landings to 100 metric tons or less is probably going to be a practical impossibility.

But even if such reductions could be achieved, it will take about 50 years to return the shortfin mako stock to something resembling a healthy level of abundance.

Which, in turn, means that I, and probably most of the people reading this blog, will never see a healthy mako population in our lifetimes.

I’m not sure just how that makes me feel.  Am I angry?  Or am I just sad?  Or do I feel a little of both?

At least I was around for the good times, three decades ago and more, when makos were far more abundant, fishing for them was still an exciting and exhilarating sport, and the cobalt and silver beauty of a mako cruising through your chum slick was nearly an every-trip thing, so routine that we took it for granted and never really thought about how wonderful it all was.

But someone born at the turn of the century will themselves be older than I am today when—and, mostly, IF—the mako stock is restored, will have never experienced the joys of a healthy stock and, thanks to years of mismanagement, never will.

That sort of thought does, in fact, make me sad.

But when I think of the very good chance that fishing mortality won’t be brought low enough to rebuild the population, and that there’s a chance that the shortfin mako will, in time, just face away, that makes me angry.

Very much so.

Because that sort of beauty should never be scrubbed from the sea, just because not doing so might hurt someone’s business.

This fall, there is a chance that things might go the mako’s way.

ICCAT will be again be debating the shortfin mako’s fate when it meets next week in Mallorca, Spain. 

On October 21, the nation of Senegal submitted a draft recommendation to ICCAT that, among other things, would prohibit all shortfin mako shark landings, and require any that are caught to be, if possible, released alive.  It’s difficult to predict whether such recommendation might be adopted.

The biggest question is what the European Union will do. 

Right now, despite the shortfin mako’s depleted state, neither the European Union nor ICCAT has established any catch limits for the species.  Instead, the catch is regulated only by size limits and restriction on the gear used to catch the sharks.  The European Union is the single largest harvester of makos, and that, in turn, is largely due to landings by Spanish vessels.  A spokesman for the Shark Trust, an advocacy group headquartered in the United Kingdom, noted that

“Spanish fleets have consistently, year in and year out, taken more makos than any other country.  All the while, the EU has ignored countless warnings about overfishing and has failed to even limit the amount of makos that can be landed…It is time to finally put an end to reckless mako fishing policies and begin leading ICCAT toward adopting the clear and urgent scientific advice.”

While we can only hope that the European Union will act to protect makos, there’s no guarantee that the United States will protect the shark, either, even though it has a relatively small commercial mako fishery.  

The U.S. has an active recreational fishery, and its current recreational delegate to ICCAT is a very strong advocate for the recreational fishing industry.  In addition to that, the United States has a decidedly checkered history when it comes to shortfin mako conservation; when the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species decided to include the shortfin mako on its appendix of protected species last August, the United States was one of the few nations that opposed the move.

Thus, the shortfin mako’s future remains very much in doubt.  

We can only hope that fisheries managers, both here and at ICCAT, extend appropriate protections before the fastest, and arguably the most beautiful, shark in the sea disappears.