UNIT 6 

 ATLANTIC SHARK FISHERIES 



boat per day). During the 1998 Shark Evaluation 

 Workshop (SEFSC, 1998), preUminary data for 



1997 were presented and reviewed, and the indi- 

 cations are that commercial catches, in ninnhcrs 

 oFanimals, were reduced Irom 1995 by more than 

 50%, but recreational catches were reduced by only 

 12%. 



Two important points were recognized at the 



1998 workshop (SEFSC, 1998). First, to continue 

 to improve shark stock assessments, it is critical to 

 1 ) continue to improve species- and size-specific 

 catch (landed and discarded animals) and effort 

 data and 2) improve fishery-independent measures 

 of shark abundance and productivity. Second, it 

 was recognized that every effort should be made 

 to manage shark species separately. New analyses 

 indicate that individual species are responding dif- 

 ferently to exploitation. Thus, management of 

 large coastal aggregates can result in excessive regu- 

 lation on some species and excessive risk of over- 

 fishing on others. The draft highly migratory spe- 

 cies FMP (NMFS, 1998) includes a number of 

 proposed measures for sharks, including the fol- 

 lowing: the addition of fifteen Atlantic sharks to 

 the prohibited species list, the separation of the 

 large coastal shark management group into 

 ridgeback' and non-ridgeback species, a minimum 

 size for ridgeback sharks, a quota reduction for 

 non-ricHgeback sharks, a quota reduction tor small 

 coastal sharks, and catch-and-release only for small 

 coastal sharks and large coastal sharks. The final 

 FMP is slated to be published in 1999. 



ISSUES 



Scientific Information and 

 Adequacy of Assessments 



rhe lack of extensive time series and species-spe- 

 cific landings and effort data continues to be a 

 problem for stock assessments. Without reliable 



'A numher of species in the large coastal shark ni.in.i^enicn[ 

 unit are characterized by a mid-dorsal ridge that is easily iden- 

 tified even after the fish has been gutted and finned. This 

 mid-dorsal ridge is useful as diagnostic characteristic lor man- 

 agement and enforcement purposes. Ridgeback sharks in- 

 clude sandbar, dusky, silky, night, and bignose sharks. Non- 

 ndgeback sharks include biackrip, spinner, bull, tiger, nurse, 

 lemon, narrowtooth, and hammerhead sharks. 



Number of sharks 

 |x 1.000) 



1,100 - 



1,000 - 



900 - 



800 - 



700 - 



600 - 



500 - 



400 - 



300 - 



200 - 



100 - 



- 



Landings 



_L_ 



92 93 



Year 



species-defined data and stock assessments, man- 

 agement measures will necessarily continue to be 

 based on species aggregates (e.g. 22 species of large 

 coastal sharks), and they may be more broad- 

 brushed and restrictive than otherwise might be 

 possible. 



Management Concerns 



Recreational and commercial fishermen have 

 both voiced concern about declining shark popu- 

 lations. As shark stocks declined before the 1993 

 FMP was implemented, derby-sryle fishing con- 

 ditions developed in the commercial fisheries ("the 

 race for fish"), and recreational fisheries experi- 

 enced reduced fishing opportunities. Such condi- 

 tions often result in fishermen fishing further in- 

 shore than they might otherwise in order to mini- 

 mize transit time from fishing grounds to off-load- 

 ing sites. Fishing in inshore areas where immature 

 sharks predominate can have several negative eco- 

 logical ramifications, including higher fishing ef- 

 fort and higher catches of immature fish with as- 

 sociated higher effective fishing mottality rates, 

 because more small fish than large fish must be 

 caught to reach the same weight-based quota. Ad- 

 ditionally, concerns about high fishing mortality 

 of juvenile sharks in recreational t^isheries were 

 raised at the 1998 Shark Evaluation Workshop. 



Figure 6-1 



Landings of large coastal 

 sharks. 1988-97, 



1 23 



