UNITED STATES MUST RECLAIM LEADERSHIP ROLE IN SHARK CONSERVATION

Tomorrow, May 21, the Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to ICCAT’s Species Working Groups will meet to discuss issues likely to arise the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

Despite the Commission’s name, its purview extends well beyond tuna, to “tuna-like fishes,” which has  been construed to mean what we normally think of as the “highly migratory species”:  tuna, billfish, swordfish, and sharks.  And one of the most important issues on this year’s agenda is a shark issue; more particularly, it is the question of how to halt the decline, and begin the rebuilding, of the North Atlantic stock of shortfin makos.

Over the past few years, the United States hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory when it comes to mako shark conservation. 

In 2017, a new stock assessment released by ICCAT caught many fishery managers by surprise when it found that shortfin makos in the North Atlantic were both overfished and experiencing overfishing.  The stock assessment team employed three different population models and all came to the same conclusion; although they disagreed somewhat in the magnitude of the overfishing that occurred in 2015, they agreed that it was substantial, with harvest ranging between 193% and 438% of the sustainable level.

Such assessment advised that

“For the North Atlantic stock…catches would need to be reduced to 1,000 [metric tons] or lower to prevent further population declines.  However, taking into consideration the timetable for stock rebuilding based on this approach, it should be noted that for a [total allowable catch] of 1,000 [metric tons] the probability of [ending overfishing and fully rebuilding the stock] is estimated to be only 25% by the year 2040.

“The Group indicated that releasing animals brought to the vessel alive could be a potentially effective measure to reduce fishing mortality as studies indicate post-release survival is likely to be about 70%...However, at this time the Group does not have enough information to assess if the adoption of live releases alone will be enough to reduce landings to 1,000 [metric tons] or less and stop further stock decline.  [emphasis added]”

In other words, in order to stop the stock’s decline, all makos that at come to the boat alive should be released—and even then, there’s no guarantee that would get the job done.

Unfortunately, that stock assessment came out during the Trump Administration, which viewed natural resources as things to be monetized, not conserved, and during the reign of a Secretary of Commerce who believed that all fisheries should be prosecuted for maximum sustainable yield. As a result, the United States opposed the prospect of releasing every live mako, even though such proposal was supported by the best scientific information available.  Instead, the United States ended up supporting a compromise agreement that

“focuses on measures to reduce fishing mortality and efforts to further strengthen data collection, while protecting opportunities for U.S. recreational and commercial fishermen to retain small amounts of shortfin mako sharks.”

In accordance with such agreement, the United States issued emergency regulations which allowed pelagic longliners (but no other commercial vessels) to retain any makos that were dead when brought to the boat, and established an 83-inch (fork length) minimum size limit for anglers. 

Even those too-weak measures didn’t stand up for long. 

On March 3, 2019, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a final regulation that allowed all commercial shark fishermen, and not merely pelagic longliners with video monitoring equipment on board, to retain any mako that was dead when brought to the boat; since video monitoring was not required in the other fisheries, regulators would have to rely on the fishermen’s word that they didn’t retain any makos that came to the boat while still alive.

On the recreational side, the new regulations dropped the minimum size for male makos from 83 to 71 inches; the 83-inch minimum for females was retained.  While the minimum size provides some value with respect to males, as 50 percent of them are mature at 71 inches, the 83-inch minimum for females is far too small; females don’t even begin to mature until about 106 inches long, with 50 percent mature at a fork length of 110 inches and a weight of about 600 pounds.

Allowing anglers to kill 83-inch female makos means that almost all of the fish harvested won’t have a chance to reproduce even once.

In 2019, the ICCAT stock assessment was updated, and the news was worse than it was two years before.  The update advised that

“All three models projected that spawning stock fecundity (SSF), defined as the number of pups produced in 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 of the models], a [total allowable catch] of between 800 – 900 [metric tons], including dead discards, resulted in >50% probability of [ending overfishing and fully rebuilding the stock] by 2070.  [The third model], which assumed a low-productivity stock-recruitment relationship, found that only [a total allowable catch] of between 0 and 100 [metric tons] (including dead discards) resulted in [ending overfishing and rebuilding the stock] by 2070.  The group emphasized that fishing mortality rates had to be well below [the fishing mortality rate that would produce maximum sustainably yield] to see any rebuilding.  [emphasis added]”

Faced with the knowledge that the combined landings and dead discards would have to be cut to no more than 900 metric tons, and perhaps to something approaching zero, in order to have half a chance of rebuilding the stock within 50 years, the United States ICCAT delegation, undoubtedly advised by higher-ups in Washington, yawned and went into the meeting seeking

“A one-year extension of current management measures [which, among other things, allowed anglers to retain shortfin makos] for North Atlantic shortfin mako shark while the Commission works toward adoption of a comprehensive rebuilding program.”

With that priority in mind, the U.S. joined with the European Union and Curacao to oppose a measure to ban all retention of shortfin makos, a measure supported even by nations such as Japan, China, and Taiwan, which have often proved hostile to needed conservation actions.  The attorney for one environmental group, who was present at the meeting, noted that

“Of the three ICCAT proposals to limit the catch of mako sharks, the U.S. proposal was the only one that would allow killing of makos that made it to the boat alive.”

Last year, the United States and European Union joined forces to defeat such proposal again.

But things have changed a little since then. 

Last November’s election ushered in a new presidential administration, so the White House is no longer focused on squeezing the last dollar from everything that walks, swims, flies, grows, or lies under the Earth. 

On April 15, the NMFS issued a so-called “90-day finding” in response to a petition seeking to list shortfin makos pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.  It 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.”

While such finding doesn’t mean that shortfin makos will ultimately be declared to be either threatened or endangered, it does indicate that the shark population is not in good shape, and that additional protections may well be needed.

The question remains:  When the time comes to again address shortfin mako issues at ICCAT, will representatives of the Biden Administration reclaim the United States’ recently abandoned role as a leader in highly migratory species conservation? 

Or will it follow in the Trump Administration’s footsteps, seek to squeeze the last drops of blood from an already-crumbling stone, and continue to oppose a ban on all mako retention?

From rumors that I’m hearing, there isn't too much reason for optimism, although enough vocal support from concerned citizens might still bring this administration around.