NMFS PROPOSES NEW RECREATIONAL SHARK REGULATIONS

 

For many years, if you were an Atlantic- or Gulf-Coast angler, a shark was a shark, at least for regulatory purposes.  There was no distinction made between species at all.

Then, in 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service implemented regulations that designated five shark species as “prohibited species” that may not be retained.  But for all other sharks, with the exception of dogfish and the Atlantic sharpnose shark, the rules were the same, with a 2-fish per boat limit and no minimum size.

Over the years, more species were added to the prohibited list, and recreational regulations became more restrictive, with a one-shark-per-boat limit and a 54-inch (fork length) minimum size.  Owners of boats participating in the recreational shark fishery are now required to obtain an Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Permit before going fishing, and to watch a brief on-line video, and pass a brief on-line quiz, to obtain or renew such permit each year.  Along most of the coast, shark fishermen fishing with bait—which includes most of the fishery—are also required to use non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hooks to minimize the number of sharks that are fatally hooked in the gut or gills.

A sharp decline in the number of hammerheads resulted in the minimum size for them being increased to 78 inches, and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, reacting to a sharp decline in the abundance of shortfin mako sharks in the North Atlantic, prohibited fishermen in member states from landing any shortfin makos at all.  But outside of those changes, and with the exception of a couple of inshore species, the 54-inch size limit and 1-fish-per-boat bag applied to all other non-prohibited sharks, regardless of their size at maturity or their abundance.

But in the case of shark regulations, one size (or bag limit) really doesn’t fit all.

Now, NMFS has taken its first big step toward developing management measures that are more tailored to the species being managed.

On January 5, the agency published a set of proposed regulations that could make a big difference in how the recreational shark fishery is managed (the same proposed regulations would also revise some aspects of the commercial fishery for blacknose sharks, but that need not be addressed today).  If adopted, the proposed rule would separate shark species into groups, based on appearance, habitat, size other factors, and tailor management measures to the species within each group. 

The proposed groups would include

“Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and smoothhound sharks:  Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks could be caught in similar areas using similar fishing techniques.  Currently, Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and smoothhound sharks are similarly managed in the recreational shark fishery (i.e., no minimum size limit)…Thus, these species are grouped together.

 “Blacknose and finetooth sharks:  Blacknose and finetooth sharks have similar sizes at maturity.  Additionally, they look similar and can be very difficult to distinguish.  To avoid misidentification during recreational fishing activities, these species are grouped together.

“Blacktip and spinner sharks:  Blacktip and spinner sharks look similar and can be very difficult to distinguish.  To avoid misidentification during recreational fishing activities, these species are grouped together.

“Great hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead, and smooth hammerhead sharks:  Hammerhead species have similar sizes at maturity.  Additionally, they look very similar and distinguishing hammerhead sharks from each other is quite difficult even for the most seasoned fishermen.  However, hammerhead species can be distinguished easily from other [large coastal sharks].  Thus, these species are grouped together.

 “Bull, lemon, nurse, and tiger sharks:  These [large coastal sharks] are grouped together because most of them have similar sizes at maturity, and they could be caught in similar areas using similar fishing techniques.”

“Blue, common thresher, and porbeagle sharks:  These pelagic shark species are grouped together because they have a similar size at maturity and they could be caught in similar areas using similar fishing techniques.”

With those species groups established, NMFS would have the ability to abandon its current one-size-limit-fits-all approach, and adopt limits more appropriate for each species group.  As the proposed rule states,

“[T]he default recreational minimum size limit would be based on a midpoint value of the female sizes at maturity for the shark species in that group, or else it would remain constant with the current HMS regulations…The recreational minimum size limit range would encompass the female sizes at maturity for all shark species in each group, and allow the minimum size limit to be set above the female sizes at maturity for each group.  This proposed approach is a change from the status quo…where all sharks, unless otherwise specified, must be at least 54 inches (137 cm) [fork length]; and there is no size limit for Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, or smoothhound sharks.”

Such an approach is long overdue, because all sharks just aren’t the same.

Consider blacktip and spinner sharks, one of the proposed species groups.  Female blacktips mature, on average, at about 123 centimeters fork length, just over 48 inches, and the species reaches a maximum size of about 180 cm (71 inches).  Spinner sharks get a little bit bigger, reaching a maximum fork length of around 200 cm (79 inches), with females maturing when about 140 cm (55 inches) in length.

For blacktips, the current 54-inch minimum size is arguably overly conservative, although it seems to fit the spinner shark pretty well.

On the other hand, the common thresher shark, which is probably the most sought-after shark, grows quite a bit larger.  Ever since ICCAT prohibited landings of shortfin makos, it is the most targeted shark in the northeast and upper mid-Atlantic, and also the species most often taken home for food (although porbeagles are frequently landed, if they’re encountered, up off New England).  Female common threshers don’t mature until they’re about 83 inches long, fish that would weigh somewhere between 250 and 300 pounds.

That makes the 54-inch size limit an extremely ineffective conservation measure; over the nearly 50 years that I’ve been chasing sharks off New York and Rhode Island, most of the common threshers that I’ve encountered probably weighed more than 250, but I’ve only seen a very few that would have measured less than 54 inches.

So the proposed rule, which would establish a default minimum size of 48 inches, with a possible minimum as large as 70 inches, for spinners and blacktips, while allowing a minimum size as large as 95 inches for common threshers, is a step in the right direction—although the 54-inch default size for threshers that has long been in effect should be replaced by a higher limit that provides immature females with some real protection.

The proposed rule would also allow NMFS to make mid-season adjustments to the bag limit for the different species of sharks.

“At the start of each fishing year…the default recreational limits will apply.  During the fishing year, NMFS may adjust retention limits within the range specified…based on the inseason trip limit criteria listed [elsewhere in the existing regulations]…The adjusted retention limit(s) will remain in effect through the end of the fishing year or until otherwise adjusted.”

The default bag limit for most shark species which may currently be landed is one per vessel per trip, consistent with the existing management measures, although for each species the range may vary between zero and one (shortfin mako), zero and three (most non-prohibited species), zero and four (Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead), and zero and five (blacktip).  For sandbar sharks, silky sharks, and any of the prohibited species, there is no permissible range; the only option is zero retention.

The flexibility allowed by the proposed rule would let NMFS increase the bag limit for abundant species such as blacktips, which can probably sustain a higher recreational harvest, while also allowing it to easily prohibit landings of any species that appears to be overfished or otherwise imperiled. 

I sit on NMFS’ Highly Migratory Species Advisory Panel and, the last time these issues were discussed there, happily supported a number of the management changes embodied in the proposed rule, most particularly grouping species with similar characteristics into distinct species groups, and better matching the minimum size limit to the female size at maturing for the different species—particularly the common thresher, which is attracting more directed attention from recreational fishermen than it attracted a decade ago.

The proposed rule can be found at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/01/05/2025-24264/atlantic-highly-migratory-species-revisions-to-commercial-atlantic-blacknose-and-recreational, where interested parties can also find instructions on how to submit public comment.

The public comment deadline is March 6, 2026.

Although I expressed my views on some of these topics at the Advisory Panel meetings, I intend to submit favorable comments on the proposed rule, and urge those interested in the recreational shark fishery on the Atlantic coast, or in the conservation of Atlantic shark species, to do the same.