WILL WE SEE AN ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT LISTING FOR MAKOS?

Today, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a so-called “90-day finding” in response to a petition brought to list the shortfin mako shark under the Endangered Species Act.  NMFS stated that

“We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.  Therefore, we are initiating a status review of the species to determine whether listing under the ESA is warranted.”

It’s important to note that the 90-day finding says that “action may be warranted,” not that the shortfin mako will definitely be listed as either “endangered” or “threatened.”  The 90-day finding is merely the first step in a process that will ultimately determine whether a listing is justified; petitions that are clearly without merit would be dismissed at this point.

But the shortfin mako petition has survived that initial step in the process.  NMFS must now conduct a final review to determine whether the shortfin mako should be designated a threatened or endangered species.  Such determination is supposed to be issued within 12 months after NMFS received the listing petition, although as a practical matter it may be delayed if there are inadequate agency resources available to complete the review within that time.

The petition was presented to NMFS on January 25, 2021; it was prepared by Defenders of Wildlife, an organization that describes itself as

“the premier U.S.-based national conservation organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of imperiled species and their habitats in North America.”

While Defenders of Wildlife may be engaging in a bit of puffery in designating itself the “premier” national conservation organization—a title that lies largely in the eyes and mind of the person bestowing such title—there is little doubt that it is a large, capable, and well-funded organization, which is not afraid to engage the federal government on wildlife management issues, even if that means resorting to the courts if the government stakes out a position different from the organization’s own.

Thus, the Defenders of Wildlife’s listing petition needs to be taken seriously, and from all indications, NMFS is doing just that.  As the 90-day finding states,

“Information in the petition and readily available in our files indicates that the primary threat facing the species is overutilization in fisheries worldwide, and we find that listing the shortfin mako as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA may be warranted on this threat alone…

“According to information cited in the petition and readily available in our files, the greatest threat to the shortfin mako shark is historical and ongoing overfishing…Landings in the Atlantic [in 2019] totaled 45,959 [metric tons] (50 percent of global reported catch)…Reported catch, however, is a substantial underestimate of actual catch.  [One recently published paper] estimates that in the Atlantic, only 25 percent of the total catch is reported to [the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas]…In fact, levels of fishing mortality in Northwest Atlantic estimated through fisheries-independent satellite telemetry data were found to be 10 times greater than previous estimates from fisheries dependent data, and 5-18 times greater than those associated with maximum sustainable yield…”

That’s strong language, but it doesn’t mean that NMFS has already decided that the shortfin mako is facing an extinction-level threat.  Yet the fact that NMFS is now recognizing the mako’s very real problems is a refreshing change.

As I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, under the previous administration, the United States, along with the European Union, was one of the few ICCAT members that wanted to maintain a mako fishery in the face of scientific advice strongly suggesting that all shortfin mako landings should be prohibited.  Hopefully, today’s 90-day finding reflects the new administration’s realization that the shortfin mako is in serious trouble, and that might, hopefully, lead to a change of heart during this year’s ICCAT deliberations.

Certainly, such change is needed.  A stock assessment for the shortfin mako, released by ICCAT biologists in 2019, said 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)…

“For [two runs of a population model that made slightly different assumptions], a [total allowable catch] of between 800-900 [metric tons], including dead discards, resulted in a >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 fecundity level necessary for the shortfin mako stock to produce maximum sustainable yield] by 2070.  [Another model run], which assumed a low productivity stock-recruitment relationship, showed that only [a total allowable catch] between 0 and 100 [metric tons] (including dead discards) resulted in a >50% probability of [achieving the desired result] by 2070.”

That’s not an encouraging forecast, and it was irresponsible for the United States to insist on maintaining some level of shortfin mako landings after receiving such a report.

I’ve been involved in the recreational shark fishery along the northeast coast since the late 1970s, and have watched mako abundance decline sharply over the years.  There are places where I used to regularly catch between three and six makos on a single trip; today, in the same places, I’m doing well if I catch two or three makos in the course of an entire season.

That, in itself, doesn’t mean that shortfin makos merit an ESA listing, but it certainly suggests that they’re not doing well.

Thus, I look on the 90-day finding with hope. 

On one hand, it would be bad news if NMFS decides that the  shortfin mako's future is so much in doubt that the species is found to be “threatened,” or even “endangered.”  Such a finding would be an indictment of both the ICCAT management process and of the ICCAT member nations, particularly including the United States, that allowed the population to decline that far.

On the other hand, such a listing would represent a long-awaited acknowledgement that the shortfin mako is facing real peril, and that management action is needed to begin rebuilding the stock.  While a listing won’t prevent makos from being killed on the high seas, it would prevent the United States from condoning such killing, and require it to take action that might make things right.

That would, at least, be a start.

For as the old cliché goes, the first step in solving a problem is admitting that it exists.