Catching sharks from shore, or from shore-based structures,
is nothing new.
I first saw people do it in February 1970, when I was 15
years old and on a family vacation down in Ft. Pierce, Florida. We spent most of our days—and parts of our
nights—fishing off the South Jetty at Ft. Pierce inlet, catching everything
from sting rays to snook. One afternoon,
we walked out to our usual spot and noticed that something very different was
going on out near the jetty’s tip.
There were half a dozen fishermen clustered around the place
where the asphalt pavement that ran most of the length of the jetty ended, and
the jumbled, unpaved boulders began.
They were fishing much heavier tackle than anyone else was using, and a
few of them were wearing jackets with club colors embroidered across the back
reading “Palm Beach Shark Club,” maybe “West Palm Beach Shark Club,” or
something of that ilk.
That was over 55 years ago now, and I no longer recall for
sure.
We watched them for a while.
It didn’t take long until a fish picked up one of their baits, and an
intense, but fairly short, fight began.
Eventually, the fish, which one of the fishermen said was a bull shark
weighing about 200 pounds, was unceremoniously gaffed, dragged up over the
rocks and onto the asphalt, and stabbed in the head with a knife, which didn’t
survive the experience.
Some time later, with the shark appearing dead (although it
might well not have been), the fishermen roughly cut out its jaws and went
home, leaving the corpse for someone else to clean up, as it lay marinating in
a pool of congealing blood and provided some food for the flies.
I don’t recall if any photos were taken, but that was close
to half a century before Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and Instagram, so photos
weren’t the same sort of currency that they are today.
There was no Internet then, and land-based shark fishing
didn’t get a lot of public attention, athough a photo might crop up from time
to time in a newspaper or on TV, and every five or ten years, one of the “big
three” outdoor magazines of the time—Outdoor Life, Sports Afield,
and Field & Stream—might publish something about it.
Like any normal 15-year-old boy, attracted to violence and
physical challenge, I was immediately smitten with the activity, and spent most
of the rest of the trip sitting out at the end of the jetty, fishing a chunk of
grunt on the heaviest outfit that I brought along on the trip, but the sharks
showed no interest, which was probably just as well, as a shark of any
substance would probably have stripped all 300 yards of 12-pound line off my
reel in a matter of moments, and left me standing on the rocks with an open
mouth and an empty spool.
Such was my introduction to land-based shark fishing.
Things have changed a lot since then.
Perhaps the biggest change is the attitude towards the
sharks themselves. Shore-based shark
fishermen no longer view their quarry as entertaining vermin, to be killed and
their jaws cut out while their bodies are dumped. Catch-and-release is now the general rule,
although depending on species, the occasional fish might be kept as food. Some land-based shark fishermen tag the fish
they catch, in an effort to help shark researchers.
But for many, getting good “content” for Internet posts
seems to be the primary draw.
Yet, despite all the changes, the question remains: Is land-based shark fishing a legitimate,
sustainable recreational activity, or does it cause undo harm and unjustifiable
levels of fishing mortality to the fish that are caught, many species of
which—and this can differ from place to place—are faring so poorly overall that
they have been placed on a “prohibited species list” by state and federal
regulators, and in some places, including my native New York, may not even be
legally targeted in a catch-and-release fishery, much less intentionally
killed.
Right now, it seems that the tide may have started to flow
against land-based shark fishing, as states begin to enact regulations to rein
in, if not the entire fishery, then at least its worst abuses. Although it’s always difficult to craft
general rules, and exceptions always arise, it seems that, on the whole, states
between New England and Virginia seem most concerned with protecting their shark
populations, while those between North Carolina and Texas are less concerned
about the well-being of local sharks and more worried about preventing
interactions between sharks those using the states’ beaches.
It’s a division that makes a sort of sense, not only from a
tourism perspective, but also because of the different species of sharks found in
state waters. Southern states host a
plethora of species, many of which may be legally targeted and retained if of
legal size, but as one moves north, prohibited species begin to dominate the
mix, with sandbars, sand tigers, duskies, and even white sharks becoming a
significant part of the catch.
It was that predominance of prohibited species, and in
particular, anglers trying to catch white sharks from shore, that led
Massachusetts to become the latest state to adopt regulations limiting
land-based shark fishing.
On
July 2, 2025, that state issued a press release that stated, in part,
“Shore-based shark fishing is growing in popularity along the
coast and Massachusetts has become a desirable location to conduct such
fishing. While DMF regulations already
prohibit attracting and targeting great white sharks, it has become evident in
recent years that these rules are difficult to enforce and in need of
clarification to ameliorate user-group conflicts. Last year, there were several instances where
anglers likely fishing for white sharks from shore caused public safety risks
for other beach-goers. In response, DMF
has taken action to prevent the further expansion of this fishing activity and
improve enforceability of existing regulations.”
That’s an important message, because it addresses a problem
that seems to exist in many places where land-based shark fishing takes place,
and one that we will address again later in this essay: Too many participants in the fishery seem to
have no respect for either the law or the fish that they pursue, and are
willing to engage in illegal activity, that is often also harmful to the shark,
just to indulge their desire to catch fish and create Internet content, thus forcing
states to place more restrictions on the land-based shark fishery. In Massachusetts’ case, targeting white
sharks from shore was already illegal, but fishermen did it anyway, forcing the
state to impose a greater regulatory burden on land-based shark fishermen.
“To better restrict the targeting of white sharks were they
are most commonly found, DMF created an area…where anglers are prohibited from
fishing from shore with a baited hook that has an inside gap exceeding 5/8 inch
(when measured straight across from barb to shank) coupled with a wire or metal
leader that measures more than 18 inches…Additionally, if you are fishing and
using [a] heavy hook and leader combination outside of the prohibited area, you
may not chum from sunrise to sunset.
“Lastly, DMF has prohibited anglers from using mechanized,
compressed-propulsion, and remote-controlled devices to deploy baits when
shore-fishing for sharks or any other species.
Common devices included in this prohibition are bait cannons, drones,
and so called ‘rc-boats’ (radio- or remote-controlled boats). Deploying baits with manual devices such as
kayaks and kites remains allowed. The
purpose of this action is two-fold.
First, it complements the above-described regulations to restrict the
shore-based targeting of white sharks.
By prohibiting the use of these devices while shore-based shark fishing,
anglers will be constrained in setting bait beyond the surf where white sharks
occur, thereby limiting the ability of anglers to target these animals and
ameliorating resulting user group and public safety conflicts. Additionally, by prohibiting the use of these
devices, DMF aims to reduce stresses on fish that can increase post-release
mortality. These devices allow
shore-based anglers to target fish at greater distances and specific size
classes of fish when conditions allow.
Inevitably, this will increase the frequency that fish are caught, and increase
the fight time and stress associated with the catch…”
“It is illegal to pursue, capture, kill, or otherwise
harass prohibited shark species in New York State waters. Do not fish for prohibited sharks. If captured, prohibited sharks must remain
in the water and must be released immediately, without undue harm. These rules apply to all vessel-based and
shore-based anglers. [emphasis in
original]”
In fact, it’s not only prohibited species that must be
released immediately, as the website goes on to explain that
“A shark that is not being harvested may not be removed from
the water. The entire length of the
shark must remain in the water with its gills submerged,”
and
“A shark that is not being harvested must be released without
undue harm. Anglers are prohibited from
engaging in any activities which may decrease the shark’s probability of
survival after release.”
Those rules complement others designed to minimize the
number of prohibited species that are hooked and put at risk, including
“It is unlawful for a person to chum from shore with anything
other than mollusks or crustaceans,”
“Non-stainless steel, non-offset circle hooks are required
when using baited hooks for sharks,”
“It is unlawful for a shore angler to use a baited hook
attached to a metal fishing leader that exceeds 18 inches in total length,”
“It is unlawful for a shore angler to deploy baited hooks by
any means other than casting with rod and reel [i.e., no drones, etc.],”
and
“Shark anglers must have wire or bolt cutters immediately
available to aid in the removal of tackle and release of sharks that are not
being harvested.”
Unfortunately, it appears that the members of the land-based
shark fishing community are largely ignoring those rules. A
video that showed up on Facebook a few weeks ago showed an angler reportedly
fishing off Rockaway Beach in New York City catching both a sand tiger, which
is a prohibited species, and a bull shark, which is not, and dragging them both
out of the water in violation of the law, before eventually releasing them.
The same sort of thing happens at Robert Moses State Park
and elsewhere on the South Shore of Long Island. In fact, if you take the time to look through
all of the land-based shark fishing videos taken anywhere on New York’s
beaches, about the one thing that you’re not going to see is someone obeying
the law; without exception, fish are dragged out of the water, release is
delayed while video is taken, bolt cutter and/or wire cutters are nowhere to be
seen, etc.
And prohibited species are being displayed just about all
the time.
And that blatant disregard for both the rules and the fish
definitely militates toward moving land-based shark fishing, at least in New
York, from the “avocation” into the “nuisance” category.
Of all the states, Florida has probably done the most to try
to get its arms around the problem, yet Florida is an interesting case. Unlike the
northeastern states, where prohibited species dominate, Florida has a plethora
of species that are not on the prohibited list, including blacktips, spinners,
tigers, nurses, and bulls, along with a number of smaller species. However, the state also prohibits the harvest
of tiger sharks and the various hammerhead species, even though they are not on
the federal prohibited list, and hosts populations of other prohibited species
as well.
Florida found itself in a position where it needed to
protected prohibited species and other, while not prohibited, still at-risk
species, but at the same time didn’t want to cut off opportunities to fish from
the beach for sharks that could be sustainably targeted.
So it ended up starting from scratch, and trying to put
together a program that might be able to meet both objectives.
Unique among
all the states, Florida requires anyone who wishes to engage in land-based
shark fishing to first take a four-module course that includes lessons on relevant
fishing regulations, appropriate fishing equipment, shore-based shark fishing
ethics, and shark identification, and then get a perfect score on a 10-question
quiz that follows. In scope and testing,
the Florida course is significantly more rigorous than the
video course the National Marine Fisheries Service requires of those who wish
to have a Shark Endorsement added to their Angling Category Highly Migratory
Species Permit.
It’s a requirement that more states ought to adopt.
One of the themes running through the Florida course, just as
it runs through New York regulations, is that prohibited species may not be
removed from the water; instead, the entire shark must remain in the water, deep
enough that the gills remain covered. In
addition, the course warns against delaying release for any reason, including
photography, taking measurements, or even tagging the fish.
“Keep sharks, especially the gills, in the
water,”
“Removing sharks from the water can increase
the likelihood of injuries to the shark,”
and
“Minimize handling and release time and do
not delay release just to take pictures.”
Photos of fishermen properly handling
shore-caught sharks are a lot harder to come by.
So, once again, we need to ask the
question, can shore-based shark fishing be a legitimate sport, or do the
personalities of those who pursue it, and refuse to adhere to basic standards
of fish handling, make it a threat to at least some depleted shark stocks?
The answer is not cut and dried.
There is evidence that even species
such as great
hammerheads, which are deemed “highly sensitive” to release mortality, can
be successfully released from the beach.
One
small-scale study conducted in 2021 implanted pop-off satellite archival tags
in 15 great hammerheads that were caught from the beach, using standard
land-based shark fishing tackle.
Although the tags were supposed to remain in the sharks for up to 30 days,
all deployed much sooner; retention time averaged only 7.6 days, within a 3- to
16-day range.
Of the 15 sharks, one clearly died
soon after release, three tags malfunctioned, and 11 indicated that the sharks
survived, at least for the period that the tag remained implanted. Yet once again, human behavior is at the core
of the issue, for as the study noted,
“The anglers decided how to handle the
sharks and their position on the shore therefore sampling conditions varied
from .5 m [about 19.5 inches] of water with no waves to 1-1.5 m [39-59 inches]
breaking waves.”
So, at all times during the study,
the tagged sharks remained in water deep enough to swim, to fully cover their
gills, and to support their weight.
Never were they dragged into the wash or onto the sand, the way hammerhead
typically are in Internet photos and videos.
“We acknowledge that there are likely biases
in our study that may have led to this unexpectedly low mortality rate. Firstly, like with many co-produced research
projects, we collaborated with anglers who were willing to work with, and be
observed by scientists which could lead to anglers being on their ‘best
behavior.’ These anglers are also likely
to care about the conservation of the species and of the fishery and strive for
responsible fishing techniques.”
In other words, the people who have
made themselves the public face of the land-based shark fishing community were
not the same folks who were helping out with the study—or, if they were, they
substantially altered their behavior for the duration.
And the public face of the
land-based shark fishing community isn’t doing itself any favors.
While Massachusetts, New York, and
Florida are the only states to adopt comprehensive regulatory packages
governing shore-based shark fishing, it appears that another state, Delaware,
stands on the threshold of doing so. Delaware
regulations already provide that
“It is unlawful for any hook and line
fisherman to remove from the water sandbar shark, or any other species of shark
when prohibited from harvest under [applicable law],”
and that
“It is unlawful to release any shark in the
management unit or any sandbar shark in a manner that will not ensure said
shark’s maximum probability of survival.
All species of shark when prohibited from harvest…must be immediately
released.”
Of course, those rules get ignored,
too.
A quick google search will
turn up a group of Delaware anglers mishandling a trifecta of prohibited
species—sandbar, sand tiger, and dusky—as well as other examples of “content
creators” fishing Delaware shores mishandling prohibited species for likes. Although
at least one angler was caught by a news camera trying to do it right.
Some anglers are unhappy with the
proposal, but it’s hard to deny that widespread bad behavior is leading to what
some fishermen view as bad outcomes.
But it seems like some fishermen
are starting to get the message and, surprisingly, that message seems to be
sinking in deepest in New Jersey, a state that has not heavily regulated its
shore-based shark fishery—yet.
“I know that I keep talking about this surf
shark fishing, but it’s getting big. It’s
getting out of hand. And it’s getting
highly scrutinized at this point, it’s become a hot-button issue…even in
Florida, where individuals probably enjoy the most freedom among any of the Atlantic
coastal states, the latest headlines there also show trouble is brewing on the
beaches of Florida. One thing to really
keep in mind…you need to take extra precaution with releasing big game on the
beach, but especially sand tigers. Sand
tigers are really prone to catch and release mortality. They swallow baits more than brown sharks or
other sharks they just swallow the baits whole.
They’re more susceptible to getting gut hooked, and they’re a little bit
more fragile. And folks, this is really
what our community should try to refrain from [showing photo of angler with a
sand tiger on the beach, sitting on top of it, pulling its nose high—well above
anything the fish’s spine would experience naturally—to display the shark’s
teeth]. The time it takes to set up your
photo, climbing on top of the sand tiger to hold open its mouth, to show off
its teeth, is precious time which should be spent getting that shark back in
the water so they don’t wash up in the morning.
So that giant hammerhead in Florida is causing a scene because it’s a
dead fish that washed up on the beach, that folks were saying, ‘It was caught
by a surfcaster.’ That’s the same thing
that’s happening with these sand tigers [photo of dead, desiccated, washed-up
sand tiger lying on a beach]. Folks get
up in the morning, they see a sand tiger dead on the beach, next thing you
know, all the microscope is on us. So be
responsible with the release, be even more so with what you choose to post on
social media. Because if you don’t think
that enforcement is watching…”
“As the state sees an increase in
recreational beachfront shark fishing—with photo ops of catches proliferating
on social media—the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection’s Fish and
Wildlife Division reminds anglers there are state and federal regulations in
place to help vulnerable species, and these regulations are enforced.
“The division is also ‘currently in the
policy development stage to assess our regulations while working with
municipalities most heavily impacted by shore-based shark fishing to identify
their needs and concerns,’ NJDEP Press Officer Vincent Grassi said on Monday,
Aug. 3.
“’New Jersey shark fishing regulations are guided
by policy set at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission,’ Grassi explained. ‘These regulations call for the use of
corrodible, non-stainless circle hooks, forbid the targeting of prohibited
species, and set a closed spring season.
“’NJDEP is aware of other states’
regulations, such as the immediate release of non-retained species without
removal from the water, closed shark fishing areas, shark fishing permit
requirements, and defined shark fishing gear.
“Federal regulations, meanwhile, bar the
targeting of any prohibited species, ‘and anglers mujst release any prohibited
shark immediately, without removing it from the water and in a manner that
maximizes its chances for survival,’ Grassi noted. ‘For example, sand tiger sharks are a
prohibited species, therefore, posing for pictures on the beach with this
species or any other species on the prohibited list is a violation of federal
regulations.’
“’For shark species that are not on the
prohibited list, (Fish and Wildlife) highly discourages posing for photos in
order to increase the shark’s chances of survival,’ he said.”
That sort of language, coming from an
official spokesman for the agency that manages New Jersey’s salt water
fisheries, strongly suggests that New Jersey might, at some point in the
not-too-distant future, join Massachusetts, New York, Florida and, perhaps,
Delaware, as a state with a comprehensive set of regulations designed to rein
in the abuses of the shore-based shark fishery, and protect the various
prohibited species of shark,
But there were a couple of other
voices quoted in that SandPaper article that also deserve to be heard. Both are land-based shark fishermen.
One, Kevin-Scott van Vlijmen laid
it right on the line:
“The state believes that half of all shark
anglers are educated on the right techniques and gear, and the other half are
not. That’s a big number; do better
guys!
“The state believes that many people are
using light line, exposing the fish to barbed hooks and not using preventative methods
to stop sand tigers from swallowing hooks.
Guys, I don’t care if you don’t have the money for it. If you’re not willing to make the effort to
be a good representation of this sport, I don’t want to see you on our
beaches. Don’t be the reason for ruining
our hobby.”
The other angler, Elijah Allen, resignedly
said,
“There’s been a lot of hate these past
couple years on shark fishing. It’s
imperative that we do better. We can’t really
get mad at the state for enforcing stricter fishing when guys not only treat
the sharks poorly, but post it online for views as well. We can do better, for sure.”
Those anglers seem to represent the
voice of reason in the land-based shark fishing debate. Yet, while there’s little doubt that land-based
shark anglers can do better, the question is whether they’re
willing to do so, if it means giving up the shark-sitting-on-the-sand,
angler-sitting-on-the-shark videos, replete with their pried-open jaws and
sharks dragged by the tail, that seem to be an inherent part of the land-based
shark fishing culture.
Right now, I have my doubts, but
there is always a chance that common sense will prevail.
If it does, then land-based shark
fishing, at least in the South, might well be able to become a legitimate, ethical
sport, practiced with due respect for the law and the sharks themselves. It won’t be an easy transition, given the current
abundance of Internet stuntmen who seem more than willing to trade a shark’s
life for more likes, but it could happen.
North of the Chesapeake Bay, maybe
even north of Cape Hatteras, I doubt that l jand-based shark fishery will, or
even can, evolve into an ethical sport.
Prohibited species are just too big a part of the catch (and please don’t
give me that “we were not targeting sandbars or sand tigers, but can’t control
what takes the bait” excuse; you know what the species mix is in your region,
and you know that prohibited species and, too often, sand tigers, make up the
majority of your catch).
At least from Maryland north, targeting
sharks from the shore will probably always be synonymous with targeting prohibited
species. That may change a bit later
next year, if the
pending sandbar shark stock assessment leads to NMFS taking sandbars off
the prohibited species list, but there will still be a lot of vulnerable sand
tigers to deal with.
So long as that is the case, the
northern and upper mid-Atlantic states are likely to continue to adopt
regulations intended to better protect prohibited sharks, and rein in the
land-based shark fishery that threatens to remove too many sharks from
protected populations.
Which is probably the right thing
to do.
“
No comments:
Post a Comment