DOCSLIB.ORG

Are U.S. Shark Stocks in Trouble? the Status of Most U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Are U.S. Shark Stocks in Trouble? the Status of Most U.S ARE U.S. SHARK STOCKS IN TROUBLE? THE STATUS OF MOST U.S. SHARK STOCKS IS UNKNOWN 62.5% 6.25% 40 STOCKS HAVE 4 STOCKS ARE OVERFISHED AND UNKNOWN STATUS* EXPERIENCING OVERFISHING 12.5% 18.75% 8 STOCKS HAVE MIXED STATUS INFORMATION 12 STOCKS ARE NOT OVERFISHED AND NOT EXPERIENCING OVERFISHING ITIONS FIN DE STOCK: A species, subspecies, geographical grouping OVERFISHING: The population is OVERFISHED: The or other category of fish capable of management as caught at a faster rate than it can population size is a unit (e.g. Atlantic blacktip sharks) reproduce1 too small2 BACKGROUND ACCORDING TO THE U.S. Dusky sharks in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico GOVERNMENT, THERE ARE 64 SHARK and porbeagle sharks in the northwestern Atlantic will take 100 years to rebuild to STOCKS LISTED IN U.S. WATERS sustainable levels. Under federal law, U.S. fisheries are required to The oceanic whitetip, a stock with “unknown” use science-based catch limits to prevent status in the Atlantic and Pacific, was recently overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. To do listed as threatened under the Endangered this, we need to know how many fish are in the Species Act. water and how many are caught, sharks included. Unfortunately, we lack this key information for One out of every four sharks and their relatives many shark stocks in the U.S. are threatened with extinction globally.5 *18 of the 40 stocks with unknown status are prohibited species, some of which are still actively caught as bycatch. ARE U.S. SHARK STOCKS IN TROUBLE? STOCK OVERFISHING? OVERFISHED? Blacknose shark - Gulf of Mexico Unknown Unknown Blacktip shark - Atlantic Unknown Unknown Bonnethead shark - Atlantic Unknown Unknown Bonnethead shark - Gulf of Mexico Unknown Unknown Spinner shark - Atlantic Large Coastal Shark Complex Unknown Unknown Silky shark - Atlantic Large Coastal Shark Complex Unknown Unknown Silky shark - Western and Central Pacific Unknown Unknown Tiger shark - Atlantic Large Coastal Shark Complex Unknown Unknown Lemon shark - Atlantic Large Coastal Shark Complex Unknown Unknown Nurse shark - Atlantic Large Coastal Shark Complex Unknown Unknown Great hammerhead shark - Atlantic Large Coastal Shark Complex Unknown Unknown Smooth hammerhead shark - Atlantic Large Coastal Shark Complex Unknown Unknown Oceanic whitetip shark - Pelagic Shark Complex Unknown Unknown Oceanic whitetip shark - Western and Central Pacific Unknown Unknown Bigeye thresher shark - Pacific Unknown Unknown Pelagic thresher shark - North Pacific Unknown Unknown Thresher shark - Pelagic Shark Complex Unknown Unknown Thresher shark - North Pacific Unknown Unknown Longfin mako shark - North Pacific Unknown Unknown Shortfin mako shark - North Pacific Unknown Unknown Salmon shark - North Pacific Unknown Unknown Bull shark - Atlantic Large Coastal Shark Complex Unknown Unknown Prohibited Species - Atlantic angel shark Unknown Unknown Prohibited Species - Basking shark Unknown Unknown Prohibited Species - Bigeye sand tiger shark Unknown Unknown Prohibited Species - Sand tiger shark Unknown Unknown Prohibited Species - Bigeye thresher shark Unknown Unknown Prohibited Species - Bignose shark Unknown Unknown Prohibited Species - Caribbean reef shark Unknown Unknown Prohibited Species - Caribbean sharpnose shark Unknown Unknown Prohibited Species - Galapagos shark Unknown Unknown Prohibited Species - Longfin mako shark Unknown Unknown Prohibited Species - Narrowtooth shark Unknown Unknown Prohibited Species - Night shark Unknown Unknown Prohibited Species - Bigeye sixgill shark Unknown Unknown Prohibited Species - Sixgill shark Unknown Unknown Prohibited Species - Sevengill shark Unknown Unknown Prohibited Species - Smalltail shark Unknown Unknown Prohibited Species - Whale shark Unknown Unknown Prohibited Species - White shark Unknown Unknown Atlantic sharpnose shark - Atlantic No No Atlantic sharpnose shark - Gulf of Mexico No No Blacktip shark - Gulf of Mexico No No Blue shark - North Atlantic No No Blue shark - North Pacific No No Spiny dogfish - Atlantic Coast No No Spiny dogfish - Pacific Coast No No Smooth dogfish - Gulf Smoothhound Complex No No Smooth dogfish - Atlantic No No Florida smoothhound - Gulf Smoothhound Complex No No Gulf smoothhound - Gulf Smoothhound Complex No No Finetooth shark - Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico No No Porbeagle shark - Northwestern Atlantic No Yes Sandbar shark - Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico No Yes Pacific Sleeper shark - Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Shark Complex No Unknown Pacific Sleeper shark - Gulf of Alaska Shark Complex No Unknown Salmon shark - Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Shark Complex No Unknown Salmon shark - Gulf of Alaska Shark Complex No Unknown Spiny dogfish - Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Shark Complex No Unknown Spiny dogfish - Gulf of Alaska Shark Complex No Unknown Blacknose shark - Atlantic Yes Yes Dusky shark - Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Yes Yes Scalloped hammerhead shark - Atlantic Yes Yes Shortfin mako shark - North Atlantic Yes Yes 1 Pew Fact Sheet available at http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2017/07/usoc_us_has_made_progress_in_restoring_ocean_fish.pdf 2 NOAA Status of U.S. Fisheries available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/population-assessments/status-us-fisheries#status-determinations 3 National Marine Fisheries Service Status of Stocks Update – 4th Quarter 2017 Update. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/population-assessments/fishery-stock-status-updates#quarterly-updates 4 Not including the data collection only species which includes an additional 31 species 5 Dulvy, N.K., Fowler, S.L., Musick, J.A., Cavanagh, R.D., Kyne, P.M., Harrison, L.R., Carlson, J.K., Davidson, L.N., Fordham, S.V., Francis, M.P. and Pollock, C.M., 2014. Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. Elife, 3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bignose Shark, Carcharhinus Altimus
    Published Date: 1 March 2019 Bignose Shark, Carcharhinus altimus Report Card Sustainable assessment IUCN Red List IUCN Red List Australian Least Concern Global Data Deficient Assessment Assessment Pillans, R.D., Amorim, A.F., Mancini, P.L., Gonzalez, M., Anderson, C.V. Assessors & Morgan, D.L. Report Card Remarks Not commercially harvested in Australia Summary The Bignose Shark is a large bodied shark with a likely circumglobal distribution. It inhabits continental shelf edges throughout tropical and temperate marine waters. It is not targeted by fisheries, however it is Source: CSIRO National Fish Collection. Licence: CC By Attribution taken as bycatch in longline, trawl and gillnet fisheries in much of its distribution. It is mistaken for the Sandbar Shark (C. plumbeus) and therefore, little information on population trends have been recorded. Declines in abundance have been reported in the Northwest Atlantic, Maldives and Southeast Asia, causing concern for the status of this species in these regions. In Australia, the Bignose Shark is not commercially targeted and rarely caught. Therefore, globally the Bignose Shark is Data Deficient (IUCN) and within Australia is assessed as Least Concern (IUCN) and Sustainable (SAFS). Distribution The Bignose Shark is circumglobally distributed throughout tropical and temperate waters however, records are discontinuous (Compagno 1984, Anderson and Stevens 1996, Last and Stevens, 2009). It has been recorded throughout the Central Atlantic Ocean (United States, Cuba, Brazil), Mediterranean Sea, the Indian Ocean (South Africa, India, Red Sea, Sri Lanka) and Northwest Pacific Ocean (China, Thailand, Mexico, California, Peru) (Compagno 1984, Anderson and Stevens 1996, Last and Stevens, 2009). Within Australia it is found in from Cape Leeuwin (Western Australia) north and east to northern New South Wales (Last and Stevens 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Diurnal Patterns in Gulf of Mexico Epipelagic Predator Interactions with Pelagic Longline Gear: Implications for Target Species Catch Rates and Bycatch Mitigation
    Bull Mar Sci. 93(2):573–589. 2017 research paper https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2016.1008 Diurnal patterns in Gulf of Mexico epipelagic predator interactions with pelagic longline gear: implications for target species catch rates and bycatch mitigation 1 National Marine Fisheries Eric S Orbesen 1 * Service, Southeast Fisheries 1 Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Derke Snodgrass 2 Drive, Miami, Florida 33149. Geoffrey S Shideler 1 2 University of Miami, Rosenstiel Craig A Brown School of Marine & Atmospheric John F Walter 1 Science, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida 33149. * Corresponding author email: <[email protected]>. ABSTRACT.—Bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries is of substantial international concern, and the mitigation of bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico has been considered as an option to help restore lost biomass following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The most effective bycatch mitigation measures operate upon a differential response between target and bycatch species, ideally maintaining target catch while minimizing bycatch. We investigated whether bycatch vs target catch rates varied between day and night sets for the United States pelagic longline fishery in the Gulf of Mexico by comparing the influence of diel time period and moon illumination on catch rates of 18 commonly caught species/species groups. A generalized linear model approach was used to account for operational and environmental covariates, including: year, season, water temperature, hook type, bait, and maximum hook depth. Time of day or moon
    [Show full text]
  • First Record of Swimming Speed of the Pacific Sleeper Shark Somniosus
    Journal of the Marine First record of swimming speed of the Pacific Biological Association of the United Kingdom sleeper shark Somniosus pacificus using a baited camera array cambridge.org/mbi Yoshihiro Fujiwara , Yasuyuki Matsumoto, Takumi Sato, Masaru Kawato and Shinji Tsuchida Original Article Research Institute for Global Change (RIGC), Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), 2-15 Yokosuka, Kanagawa 237-0061, Japan Cite this article: Fujiwara Y, Matsumoto Y, Sato T, Kawato M, Tsuchida S (2021). First record of swimming speed of the Pacific Abstract sleeper shark Somniosus pacificus using a baited camera array. Journal of the Marine The Pacific sleeper shark Somniosus pacificus is one of the largest predators in deep Suruga Biological Association of the United Kingdom Bay, Japan. A single individual of the sleeper shark (female, ∼300 cm in total length) was 101, 457–464. https://doi.org/10.1017/ observed with two baited camera systems deployed simultaneously on the deep seafloor in S0025315421000321 the bay. The first arrival was recorded 43 min after the deployment of camera #1 on 21 July 2016 at a depth of 609 m. The shark had several remarkable features, including the Received: 26 July 2020 Revised: 14 April 2021 snout tangled in a broken fishing line, two torn anteriormost left-gill septums, and a parasitic Accepted: 14 April 2021 copepod attached to each eye. The same individual appeared at camera #2, which was First published online: 18 May 2021 deployed at a depth of 603 m, ∼37 min after it disappeared from camera #1 view. Finally, the same shark returned to camera #1 ∼31 min after leaving camera #2.
    [Show full text]
  • Feeding Habits of the Common Thresher Shark (Alopias Vulpinus) Sampled from the California-Based Drift Gill Net Fishery, 1998-1 999
    PRETI ET AL.: FEEDING HABITS OF COMMON THRESHER SHARK CalCOFl Rep., Vol. 42, 2001 FEEDING HABITS OF THE COMMON THRESHER SHARK (ALOPIAS VULPINUS) SAMPLED FROM THE CALIFORNIA-BASED DRIFT GILL NET FISHERY, 1998-1 999 ANTONELLA PRETI SUSAN E. SMITH AND DARLENE A. RAMON California Department of Fish and Game National Marine Fisheries Service, NOM 8604 La Jolla Shores Dnve Southwest Fisheries Science Center La Jolla, California 92037 P.O. Box 271 sharksharkshark@hotniail coni La Jolla, California 92038 ABSTRACT (Compagno 1984). It is epipelagic, gregarious, and cos- The diet of common thresher shark (Alopius vulpinus) mopolitan, and in the northeastern Pacific seems to be from US. Pacific Coast waters was investigated by means most abundant within 40 miles of shore (Strasburg 1958). of frequency of occurrence, gravimetric and numerical Its known range extends from Clarion Island, Mexico, methods, and calculating the geometric index of im- north to British Columbia; it is common seasonally from portance (GII) of prey taxa taken from stoniachs col- mid-Baja California, Mexico, to Washington state.' It lected by fishery observers from the California-based is the leading commercial shark taken in California, drift gill net fishery. Sampling was done from 16 August where it is highly valued in the fresh fish trade (Holts et 1998 to 24 January 1999, a time when the California al. 1998). It is also sought by recreational anglers for its Current was undergoing rapid change from El Niiio to fighting ability as well as food value, especially in south- La Niiia conhtions. Of the 165 stomachs examined, 107 ern California.
    [Show full text]
  • Seafood Watch Seafood Report
    Seafood Watch Seafood Report Sharks and Dogfish With a focus on: Blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) Common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) Dusky smoothhound/smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) Sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) Shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) © Monterey Bay Aquarium Final Report December 21, 2005 Stock Status Update June 9, 2011 Santi Roberts Fisheries Research Analyst Monterey Bay Aquarium SeafoodWatch® Sharks & DogfishReport June 9, 2010 About Seafood Watch® and the Seafood Reports Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from the Internet (seafoodwatch.org) or obtained from the Seafood Watch® program by emailing [email protected]. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives,” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Thresher Shark, Alopias Vulpinus
    4 Thresher Shark, Alopias vulpinus Thresher shark, Alopias vulpinus. Photo credit: Dale Sweetnam. History of the Fishery The common thresher shark, Alopias vulpinus, is the most common commercially landed shark in California. They are primarily caught using large mesh drift gill nets and hook and line gear, but are also caught incidentally with small mesh gill nets and harpoon. Prior to 1977, all sharks were reported in one market category and not separated by species, and it is assumed threshers were caught as bycatch in gears at levels similar or greater than today. The first significant fishery for thresher sharks began the late 1970s to early 1980s when drift gill net fishers began to target them close to the southern California coastline. The fishery expanded rapidly and, because of overfishing concerns, the California Department of Fish and Game (Department) as mandated by the State Legislature began an observer program, monitored landings and implemented a logbook program. A limited entry permit program for drift gill net gear was initiated in 1982, with permits issued to fishers rather than boats to prevent false inflation in value. The drift gill net fishery for thresher sharks peaked in 1981 when 113 Status of the Fisheries Report 2008 4-1 drift gill net boats landed nearly 600 tons (544 metric tons). However, total landings using all gears were highest the following year with a total of more than 1700 tons (1542 metric tons) taken by all gears (Figure 4-1). 2000 1500 1000 Landings (short tons) (short Landings 500 0 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 Year Figure 4-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Order LAMNIFORMES ODONTASPIDIDAE Sand Tiger Sharks Iagnostic Characters: Large Sharks
    click for previous page Lamniformes: Odontaspididae 419 Order LAMNIFORMES ODONTASPIDIDAE Sand tiger sharks iagnostic characters: Large sharks. Head with 5 medium-sized gill slits, all in front of pectoral-fin bases, Dtheir upper ends not extending onto dorsal surface of head; eyes small or moderately large, with- out nictitating eyelids; no nasal barbels or nasoral grooves; snout conical or moderately depressed, not blade-like;mouth very long and angular, extending well behind eyes when jaws are not protruded;lower labial furrows present at mouth corners; anterior teeth enlarged, with long, narrow, sharp-edged but unserrated cusps and small basal cusplets (absent in young of at least 1 species), the upper anteriors separated from the laterals by a gap and tiny intermediate teeth; gill arches without rakers; spiracles present but very small. Two moderately large high dorsal fins, the first dorsal fin originating well in advance of the pelvic fins, the second dorsal fin as large as or somewhat smaller than the first dorsal fin;anal fin as large as second dorsal fin or slightly smaller; caudal fin short, asymmetrical, with a strong subterminal notch and a short but well marked ventral lobe. Caudal peduncle not depressed, without keels; a deep upper precaudal pit present but no lower pit. Intestinal valve of ring type, with turns closely packed like a stack of washers. Colour: grey or grey-brown to blackish above, blackish to light grey or white, with round or oval dark spots and blotches vari- ably present on 2 species. high dorsal fins upper precaudal eyes without pit present nictitating eyelids intestinal valve of ring type Habitat, biology, and fisheries: Wide-ranging, tropical to cool-temperate sharks, found inshore and down to moderate depths on the edge of the continental shelves and around some oceanic islands, and in the open ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Fishing Year
    ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR COASTAL SHARKS 2014 FISHING YEAR Prepared by the Plan Review Team Approved by the Spiny Dogfish & Coastal Sharks Management Board August 2016 Table of Contents I. Status of the Fishery Management Plan .......................................................................... 2 II. Status of the Stock and Assessment Advice ..................................................................... 4 III. Status of the Fishery ....................................................................................................... 6 VI. Implementation of FMP Compliance Requirements for 2014 ..................................... 27 VII. PRT Recommendations ................................................................................................. 29 1 I. Status of the Fishery Management Plan Date of FMP Approval: August 2008 Amendments None Addenda Addendum I (September 2009) Addendum II (May 2013) Addendum III (October 2013) Management Unit: Entire coastwide distribution of the resource from the estuaries eastward to the inshore boundary of the EEZ States With Declared Interest: Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida Active Boards/Committees: Coastal Shark Management Board, Advisory Panel, Technical Committee, and Plan Review Team a) Goals and Objectives The Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Sharks (FMP) established the following
    [Show full text]
  • Gill Morphometrics of the Thresher Sharks (Genus Alopias): Correlation of Gill Dimensions with Aerobic Demand and Environmental Oxygen
    JOURNAL OF MORPHOLOGY :1–12 (2015) Gill Morphometrics of the Thresher Sharks (Genus Alopias): Correlation of Gill Dimensions with Aerobic Demand and Environmental Oxygen Thomas P. Wootton,1 Chugey A. Sepulveda,2 and Nicholas C. Wegner1,3* 1Center for Marine Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Marine Biology Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093 2Pfleger Institute of Environmental Research, Oceanside, CA 92054 3Fisheries Resource Division, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries, La Jolla, CA 92037 ABSTRACT Gill morphometrics of the three thresher related species that inhabit similar environments shark species (genus Alopias) were determined to or have comparable metabolic requirements. As examine how metabolism and habitat correlate with such, in reviews of gill morphology (e.g., Gray, respiratory specialization for increased gas exchange. 1954; Hughes, 1984a; Wegner, 2011), fishes are Thresher sharks have large gill surface areas, short often categorized into morphological ecotypes water–blood barrier distances, and thin lamellae. Their large gill areas are derived from long total filament based on the respiratory dimensions of the gills, lengths and large lamellae, a morphometric configura- namely gill surface area and the thickness of the tion documented for other active elasmobranchs (i.e., gill epithelium (the water–blood barrier distance), lamnid sharks, Lamnidae) that augments respiratory which both reflect a species’ capacity for oxygen surface area while
    [Show full text]
  • The Denticle Surface of Thresher Shark Tails: Three-Dimensional Structure and Comparison to Other Pelagic Species
    Received: 3 April 2020 Revised: 14 May 2020 Accepted: 21 May 2020 DOI: 10.1002/jmor.21222 RESEARCH ARTICLE The denticle surface of thresher shark tails: Three-dimensional structure and comparison to other pelagic species Meagan Popp1 | Connor F. White1 | Diego Bernal2 | Dylan K. Wainwright1 | George V. Lauder1 1Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Abstract Massachusetts Shark skin denticles (scales) are diverse in morphology both among species and 2 Department of Biology, University of across the body of single individuals, although the function of this diversity is poorly Massachusetts Dartmouth, Dartmouth, Massachusetts understood. The extremely elongate and highly flexible tail of thresher sharks pro- vides an opportunity to characterize gradients in denticle surface characteristics Correspondence George V. Lauder, Museum of Comparative along the length of the tail and assess correlations between denticle morphology and Zoology, 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA tail kinematics. We measured denticle morphology on the caudal fin of three mature 02138. Email: [email protected] and two embryo common thresher sharks (Alopias vulpinus), and we compared thresher tail denticles to those of eleven other shark species. Using surface Funding information National Oceanic and Atmospheric profilometry, we quantified 3D-denticle patterning and texture along the tail of Administration, Grant/Award Number: threshers (27 regions in adults, and 16 regions in embryos). We report that tails of NA16NMF4270231; National Science Foundation, Grant/Award Numbers: IOS- thresher embryos have a membrane that covers the denticles and reduces surface 1354593, GRF DGE-1144152; Office of Naval roughness. In mature thresher tails, surfaces have an average roughness of 5.6 μm Research, Grant/Award Numbers: N00014-09-1-0352, N000141410533 which is smoother than some other pelagic shark species, but similar in roughness to blacktip, porbeagle, and bonnethead shark tails.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Guide to Requiem Sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic
    Field guide to requiem sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic Item Type monograph Authors Grace, Mark Publisher NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service Download date 24/09/2021 04:22:14 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/20307 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 153 U.S. Department A Scientific Paper of the FISHERY BULLETIN of Commerce August 2001 (revised November 2001) Field Guide to Requiem Sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic Mark Grace NOAA Technical Report NMFS 153 A Scientific Paper of the Fishery Bulletin Field Guide to Requiem Sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic Mark Grace August 2001 (revised November 2001) U.S. Department of Commerce Seattle, Washington Suggested reference Grace, Mark A. 2001. Field guide to requiem sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 153, 32 p. Online dissemination This report is posted online in PDF format at http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov (click on Technical Reports link). Note on revision This report was revised and reprinted in November 2001 to correct several errors. Previous copies of the report, dated August 2001, should be destroyed as this revision replaces the earlier version. Purchasing additional copies Additional copies of this report are available for purchase in paper copy or microfiche from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; 1-800-553-NTIS; http://www.ntis.gov. Copyright law Although the contents of the Technical Reports have not been copyrighted and may be reprinted entirely, reference to source is appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • Thresher Sharks (Alopias Spp.) in Subareas 10 and 12, Divisions 7.C–K and 8.D–E, and in Subdivisions 5.B.1, 9.B.1, and 14.B.1 (Northeast Atlantic)
    ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Oceanic Northeast Atlantic ecoregion Published 4 October 2019 Thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) in subareas 10 and 12, divisions 7.c–k and 8.d–e, and in subdivisions 5.b.1, 9.b.1, and 14.b.1 (Northeast Atlantic) ICES advice on fishing opportunities ICES advises that when the precautionary approach is applied, there should be zero catch in each of the years 2020–2023. Stock development over time No information is available to inform on the current stock status of either common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) or bigeye thresher shark (A. superciliosus). Landings data for the entire stock area are uncertain for both species. Stock and exploitation status ICES cannot assess the stock and exploitation status relative to maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and precautionary approach (PA) reference points, because the reference points are undefined. Thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) in the Northeast Atlantic. State of the stocks and fishery relative to reference points. Table 1 Catch scenarios The ICES framework for category 6 stocks (ICES, 2012) was applied. For stocks without information on abundance or exploitation, ICES considers that a precautionary reduction of catches should be implemented unless there is ancillary information clearly indicating that the current level of exploitation is appropriate for the stock. Discarding is known to take place, but ICES cannot quantify the corresponding catch. Discard survival, which may occur, has also not been fully estimated. Table 2 Thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) in the Northeast Atlantic. Basis for the catch scenario. Recent advised catch 0 Discard rate Unknown Precautionary buffer Not applied - Catch advice 0 % Advice change * 0% * Advice value for 2020–2023 relative to the advice for 2016–2019 issued in 2015.
    [Show full text]