DOCSLIB.ORG

Efficacy of 2 Common Bait Types in Reducing Bycatch of Coastal Sharks 191

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Efficacy of 2 Common Bait Types in Reducing Bycatch of Coastal Sharks 191 189 National Marine Fisheries Service Fishery Bulletin First U.S. Commissioner established in 1881 of Fisheries and founder NOAA of Fishery Bulletin Abstract—A recent study determined Efficacy of 2 common bait types in reducing that when simultaneously exposed to 2 different commonly used baits, certain bycatch of coastal sharks on bottom longline shark species demonstrate preferences for a specific bait on bottom longlines. gear in the absence of choice To further investigate the value of bait type to reduce shark bycatch, we con- William B. Driggers III (contact author)1 ducted single- bait- type bottom longline Kristin M. Hannan2 sets with standardized gear baited with either mackerel or squid. For 4 of Email address for contact author: [email protected] the 5 shark species captured, there was no significant difference in catch rates 1 with bait type. However, catch rates of Mississippi Laboratories Atlantic sharpnose sharks (Rhizopri- Southeast Fisheries Science Center onodon terraenovae) were significantly National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA higher on mackerel- baited hooks. Our 3209 Frederic Street results indicate that the use of squid Pascagoula, Mississippi 39567-4112 as bait can reduce the catch of at least 2 Riverside Technology Inc. one shark species in the northern Gulf Mississippi Laboratories of Mexico while not reducing the catch Southeast Fisheries Science Center of a targeted species, in this case, the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus). 3209 Frederic Street However, because some protected spe- Pascagoula, Mississippi 39567-4112 cies, most notably sea turtles, have been shown to have higher catch rates on squid- baited hooks, it is necessary to assess the effect of a specific bait across all taxa directly or indirectly affected by a particular gear type before adopt- Globally, shark populations are widely et al. (2012) reported a higher catch of ing any bycatch reduction measure. reported to be in decline (for a recent blue sharks on mackerel (Scomber spp.) review, see Dulvy et al., 2014). Although bait than on squid bait. All 3 studies a number of factors contribute to this used a single bait type on each longline trend, bycatch of sharks is a primary set. However, none addressed potential factor (Oliver et al., 2015). A number biasing factors of this experimental of potential shark bycatch mitigation design in assessing bait preference of measures have been considered, includ- blue sharks, most notably the propen- ing time or area closures, gear modifi- sity for this shark species to form large cations, adaptive fishing practices, and aggregations in discrete locations (e.g., use of repellents (Molina and Cooke, Kenney et al., 1985; Litvinov, 2006) 2012). Several studies have investigated where only a single bait type would the efficacy of bait type in reducing have been used. shark bycatch rates (e.g., Broadhurst Driggers et al. (2017) examined catch and Hazin, 2001; Watson et al., 2005; rates and bait preferences of fish spe- Yokota et al., 2009); however, results cies captured on bottom longline gear of studies examining the relationship in the northern Gulf of Mexico using an between catch rates and bait type on experimental design alternating 2 bait longline gear are often conflicting. For types on individual bottom longline sets. Manuscript submitted 25 March 2019. example, in studies with comparable The results of this study indicate that Manuscript accepted 24 July 2019. gear comparing squid and mackerel several shark species, including the lit- Fish. Bull. 117:189–195 (2019). Online publication date: 1 August 2019. baits, Watson et al. (2005) and Foster tle gulper shark (Centrophorus uyato), doi: 10.7755/FB.117.3.6 et al. (2012) found that catch of blue smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis), blac- sharks (Prionace glauca) was highest knose shark (Carcharhinus acronotus), The views and opinions expressed or on pelagic longlines when squid (Illex sandbar shark (C. plumbeus), and Atlan- implied in this article are those of the spp.) was used compared with when tic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon author (or authors) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the National bait of Atlantic mackerel (Scomber terraenovae), showed a preference for Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. scombrus) was used, whereas Coelho Atlantic mackerel over northern shortfin 190 Fishery Bulletin 117(3) squid (Illex illecebrosus). Conversely, tele- osts commonly targeted with bottom long- line gear in the northern Gulf of Mexico, such as red snapper (Lutjanus campecha- nus), yellowedge grouper (Hyporthodus flavolimbatus), and tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps), showed no preference. The authors acknowledged that the use of alternating bait types could have biased results because of potential interaction effects of baits, a possibility suggested by Watson et al. (2005) and Foster et al. (2012). To address this issue and fur- ther investigate the efficacy of bait type in reducing shark bycatch, the objective of this study was to assess if the prefer- Figure 1 ence of sharks for Atlantic mackerel over Map of sampling locations where bottom longline gear was set in the northern northern shortfin squid baits reported by Gulf of Mexico during March–April 2017. Crosses indicate longline sets baited Driggers et al. (2017) would be evident in with northern shortfin squid (Ilex illecebrosus), and circles represent long- a single- bait experimental design. line sets baited with Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus). Gear was set in waters off Louisiana (LA), Mississippi (MS), Alabama (AL), and Florida (FL). Gray lines indicate the 10-, 20-, 30-, 40-, 50-, and 100- m isobaths. Materials and methods Bottom longline gear was deployed from the NOAA Ship captured organisms and to maximize the number of long- Oregon II in the northern Gulf of Mexico from 26 March line sets conducted during the allotted sampling period. through 19 April 2017. All sets were made within an Further, the relatively short soak time reduced data loss area bounded by 87.50°W to 93.00°W longitude at depths associated with shark depredation and potential bias asso- between 15 and 85 m (Fig. 1). Stations were preselected ciated with capturing large sharks feeding upon smaller on the basis of a random starting point and subsequent captured fish, a behavior that would not reflect prefer- stations being spaced 18.5 km apart in a grid to maxi- ence for Atlantic mackerel or northern shortfin squid. mize sampling effort and minimize effects of sampling Upon capture, each fish was identified to species and its sites being in close proximity to one another. On several fork length was measured to the nearest millimeter on a occasions, preselected stations were moved to avoid haz- straight line along the axis of the body from the tip of the ards to navigation (e.g., vessels, petroleum platforms, rostrum to the caudal notch. and shipping lanes) or excessively fast currents (>1 m/s). Depth, temperature, salinity, soak-time , and fish- length Sampling gear consisted of 1.8 km of 4- mm diameter data associated with sampling locations where each bait monofilament mainline and 100 gangions. Each gangion was used were assessed for normality and homoscedas- was constructed of a size 148-8/0 snap, 3.2 m of 3- mm ticity by calculating kurtosis, skewness, and F- ratio. Data diameter monofilament, 0.5 m of 2.4-mm diameter fish- were considered normally distributed when kurtosis and ing wire, and a hook (#15/0 non- offset, circle, Mustad skewness were between −2 and 2. For data that adhered #39960D1, O. Mustad & Søn A.S., Gjøvik, Norway) and to the assumptions of parametric statistics, t- tests were was identical to that used in Driggers et al. (2017). Each used to compare mean values; for data that did not meet hook was baited with Atlantic mackerel or northern assumptions, median values were compared by using a shortfin squid cut to fit the circle hooks. Bait consisted Mann–Whitney W test. To determine if the number of indi- either entirely of Atlantic mackerel or northern shortfin viduals captured on each bait was significantly different squid for each longline set with bait randomly assigned from 1:1, a chi- square test with Yates correction for con- at the beginning of each set. tinuity was used on a species- specific basis. Sharks that Bottom temperature (in degrees Celsius) and salinity were captured on hooks occupied by a smaller captured were measured at each sampling location, while the long- fish were removed from all analyses (2 blacktip sharks, line gear was in the water, by using an SBE 911plus CTD Carcharhinus limbatus), and fish not measured because of water profiler (Sea-Bird Scientific, Bellevue, WA). Soak shark- inflicted damage were excluded from comparisons time, defined as the time elapsed from completing deploy- of body length. ment of the gear to beginning retrieval of the gear, was To account for the possibility that catch data were limited to 1 h in an effort to minimize mortality rates of biased because of schooling behavior or areas of high abundance (i.e., high catch in limited cases because of habitat specificity or aggregations), catch data for each 1 Mention of trade names or commercial companies is for identi- fication purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the species were examined to determine if an unusually high National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. number of individuals were caught on any specific set. Driggers and Hannan: Efficacy of 2 common bait types in reducing bycatch of coastal sharks 191 The mean number of a given species captured on all sets, All captured fish had corresponding body length mea- regardless of bait, was calculated. All sets where the surements with the exception of 23 specimens damaged total number of individuals captured was greater than by sharks (14 red snapper and 9 Atlantic sharpnose 3 standard deviations from the mean were considered sharks).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sharks in Crisis: a Call to Action for the Mediterranean
    REPORT 2019 SHARKS IN CRISIS: A CALL TO ACTION FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN WWF Sharks in the Mediterranean 2019 | 1 fp SECTION 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Written and edited by WWF Mediterranean Marine Initiative / Evan Jeffries (www.swim2birds.co.uk), based on data contained in: Bartolí, A., Polti, S., Niedermüller, S.K. & García, R. 2018. Sharks in the Mediterranean: A review of the literature on the current state of scientific knowledge, conservation measures and management policies and instruments. Design by Catherine Perry (www.swim2birds.co.uk) Front cover photo: Blue shark (Prionace glauca) © Joost van Uffelen / WWF References and sources are available online at www.wwfmmi.org Published in July 2019 by WWF – World Wide Fund For Nature Any reproduction in full or in part must mention the title and credit the WWF Mediterranean Marine Initiative as the copyright owner. © Text 2019 WWF. All rights reserved. Our thanks go to the following people for their invaluable comments and contributions to this report: Fabrizio Serena, Monica Barone, Adi Barash (M.E.C.O.), Ioannis Giovos (iSea), Pamela Mason (SharkLab Malta), Ali Hood (Sharktrust), Matthieu Lapinksi (AILERONS association), Sandrine Polti, Alex Bartoli, Raul Garcia, Alessandro Buzzi, Giulia Prato, Jose Luis Garcia Varas, Ayse Oruc, Danijel Kanski, Antigoni Foutsi, Théa Jacob, Sofiane Mahjoub, Sarah Fagnani, Heike Zidowitz, Philipp Kanstinger, Andy Cornish and Marco Costantini. Special acknowledgements go to WWF-Spain for funding this report. KEY CONTACTS Giuseppe Di Carlo Director WWF Mediterranean Marine Initiative Email: [email protected] Simone Niedermueller Mediterranean Shark expert Email: [email protected] Stefania Campogianni Communications manager WWF Mediterranean Marine Initiative Email: [email protected] WWF is one of the world’s largest and most respected independent conservation organizations, with more than 5 million supporters and a global network active in over 100 countries.
    [Show full text]
  • © Iccat, 2007
    A5 By-catch Species APPENDIX 5: BY-CATCH SPECIES A.5 By-catch species By-catch is the unintentional/incidental capture of non-target species during fishing operations. Different types of fisheries have different types and levels of by-catch, depending on the gear used, the time, area and depth fished, etc. Article IV of the Convention states: "the Commission shall be responsible for the study of the population of tuna and tuna-like fishes (the Scombriformes with the exception of Trichiuridae and Gempylidae and the genus Scomber) and such other species of fishes exploited in tuna fishing in the Convention area as are not under investigation by another international fishery organization". The following is a list of by-catch species recorded as being ever caught by any major tuna fishery in the Atlantic/Mediterranean. Note that the lists are qualitative and are not indicative of quantity or mortality. Thus, the presence of a species in the lists does not imply that it is caught in significant quantities, or that individuals that are caught necessarily die. Skates and rays Scientific names Common name Code LL GILL PS BB HARP TRAP OTHER Dasyatis centroura Roughtail stingray RDC X Dasyatis violacea Pelagic stingray PLS X X X X Manta birostris Manta ray RMB X X X Mobula hypostoma RMH X Mobula lucasana X Mobula mobular Devil ray RMM X X X X X Myliobatis aquila Common eagle ray MYL X X Pteuromylaeus bovinus Bull ray MPO X X Raja fullonica Shagreen ray RJF X Raja straeleni Spotted skate RFL X Rhinoptera spp Cownose ray X Torpedo nobiliana Torpedo
    [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]
  • Shark Catch Trends and Effort Reduction in the Beach Protection Program, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa (Elasmobranch Fisheries - Oral)
    NOT TO BE CITED WITHOUT PRIOR REFERENCE TO THE AUTHOR(S) Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Serial No. N4746 NAFO SCR Doc. 02/124 SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL MEETING – SEPTEMBER 2002 Shark Catch Trends and Effort Reduction in the Beach Protection Program, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa (Elasmobranch Fisheries - Oral) S.F.J. Dudley Natal Sharks Board, P. Bag 2, Umhlanga Rocks, 4320, South Africa E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Shark nets have been set off the beaches of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, since 1952, to minimise risk of shark attack. Reliable catch data for each of the 14 shark species commonly caught are available from 1978 only. The nets fish in fixed localities very close to shore and there is an absence of fisheries independent data for most species. There is uncertainty about factors such as localised stock depletion and philopatry. Catch rates of seven species show a significant decline, but this figure drops to four with the exclusion of the confounding effects of the annual sardine run. Of the four, two are caught in very low numbers (Java Carcharhinus amboinensis and great hammerhead Sphyrna mokarran) and it is probable that any decline in population size reflects either local depletion or additional exploitation elsewhere. The other two species (blacktip C. limbatus and scalloped hammerhead S. lewini) are caught in greater numbers. C. limbatus appears to have been subject to local depletion. Newborn S. lewini are captured by prawn trawlers and discarded, mostly dead, adding to pressure on this species. As a precautionary measure, and in the absence of clarity on the question of stock depletion, in September 1999 a process of reducing the number of nets per installation was begun, with a view to reducing catches.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Productivity and Susceptibility Indices to Determine the Vulnerability of a Stock: with Example Applications to Six U.S
    Use of productivity and susceptibility indices to determine the vulnerability of a stock: with example applications to six U.S. fisheries. Wesley S. Patrick1, Paul Spencer2, Olav Ormseth2, Jason Cope3, John Field4, Donald Kobayashi5, Todd Gedamke6, Enric Cortés7, Keith Bigelow5, William Overholtz8, Jason Link8, and Peter Lawson9. 1NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East- West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; 2 NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, Seattle, WA 98115; 3NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, WA 98112; 4NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060; 5NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, 2570 Dole Street, Honolulu, HI 96822; 6NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149; 7NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama City, FL 32408; 8NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543; 9NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2030 South Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Wesley S. Patrick, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West
    [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]
  • Identification Guide to the Deep-Sea Cartilaginous Fishes Of
    Identification guide to the deep–sea cartilaginous fishes of the Southeastern Atlantic Ocean FAO. 2015. Identification guide to the deep–sea cartilaginous fishes of the Southeastern Atlantic Ocean. FishFinder Programme, by Ebert, D.A. and Mostarda, E., Rome, Italy. Supervision: Merete Tandstad, Jessica Sanders (FAO, Rome) Technical editor: Edoardo Mostarda (FAO, Rome) Colour illustrations, cover and graphic design: Emanuela D’Antoni (FAO, Rome) This guide was prepared under the “FAO Deep–sea Fisheries Programme” thanks to a generous funding from the Government of Norway (Support to the implementation of the International Guidelines on the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries in the High Seas project) for the purpose of assisting states, institutions, the fishing industry and RFMO/As in the implementation of FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas. It was developed in close collaboration with the FishFinder Programme of the Marine and Inland Fisheries Branch, Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The present guide covers the deep–sea Southeastern Atlantic Ocean and that portion of Southwestern Indian Ocean from 18°42’E to 30°00’E (FAO Fishing Area 47). It includes a selection of cartilaginous fish species of major, moderate and minor importance to fisheries as well as those of doubtful or potential use to fisheries. It also covers those little known species that may be of research, educational, and ecological importance. In this region, the deep–sea chondrichthyan fauna is currently represented by 50 shark, 20 batoid and 8 chimaera species. This guide includes full species accounts for 37 shark, 9 batoid and 4 chimaera species selected as being the more difficult to identify and/or commonly caught.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Louisiana Recreational Fishing Regulations
    2021 LOUISIANA RECREATIONAL FISHING REGULATIONS www.wlf.louisiana.gov 1 Get a GEICO quote for your boat and, in just 15 minutes, you’ll know how much you could be saving. If you like what you hear, you can buy your policy right on the spot. Then let us do the rest while you enjoy your free time with peace of mind. geico.com/boat | 1-800-865-4846 Some discounts, coverages, payment plans, and features are not available in all states, in all GEICO companies, or in all situations. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. In the state of CA, program provided through Boat Association Insurance Services, license #0H87086. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, DC 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. © 2020 GEICO CONTENTS 6. LICENSING 9. DEFINITIONS DON’T 11. GENERAL FISHING INFORMATION General Regulations.............................................11 Saltwater/Freshwater Line...................................12 LITTER 13. FRESHWATER FISHING SPORTSMEN ARE REMINDED TO: General Information.............................................13 • Clean out truck beds and refrain from throwing Freshwater State Creel & Size Limits....................16 cigarette butts or other trash out of the car or watercraft. 18. SALTWATER FISHING • Carry a trash bag in your car or boat. General Information.............................................18 • Securely cover trash containers to prevent Saltwater State Creel & Size Limits.......................21 animals from spreading litter. 26. OTHER RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES Call the state’s “Litterbug Hotline” to report any Recreational Shrimping........................................26 potential littering violations including dumpsites Recreational Oystering.........................................27 and littering in public. Those convicted of littering Recreational Crabbing..........................................28 Recreational Crawfishing......................................29 face hefty fines and litter abatement work.
    [Show full text]
  • Spinner Shark, Carcharhinus Brevipinna
    Published Date: 1 March 2019 Spinner Shark, Carcharhinus brevipinna Report Card Sustainable assessment IUCN Red List IUCN Red List Australian Least Concern Global Near Threatened Assessment Assessment Assessors Burgess, G.H. & Smart, J.J. Report Card Remarks In Australia, fishing pressure is currently well managed Summary The Spinner Shark is a common, coastal pelagic shark found in warm- temperate and tropical waters across the globe. It frequents nearshore waters and is often captured in commercial and recreational fisheries. It is sensitive to fishing pressure and habitat degradation of coastal nursery Source: CSIRO national Fish Collection. License: CC By Attribution. habitats. Little information is known on the status of Spinner Sharks throughout its distribution. Within Australia, fishing pressure is currently well managed. The Spinner Shark is assessed globally as Near Threatened (IUCN) and in Australia as Least Concern (IUCN), while Australian stocks are classified as Sustainable (SAFS). Distribution Within Australia, the Spinner Shark is found across northern Australia, from Walpole (Western Australia), throughout the Northern Territory, Queensland and to southern New South Wales (Last and Stevens 2009). It is distributed throughout the world, including the east coast of the United States, Brazil, Mediterranean Sea, west coast of Central Africa, South Africa, Madagascar and throughout the Indo-Pacific. A recent genetic study detected evidence suggesting there may be multiple, genetically- distinct stocks throughout its Australian range (Geraghty et al. 2013). Stock structure and status There is currently very little information on population size and stock status for the Spinner Shark in Australian waters. A suite of management measures introduced from 2009 have led to a substantial reduction in fishing effort targeting adults in New South Wales waters.
    [Show full text]
  • 01 Carlson MFR70(1)
    The Status of the United States Population of Night Shark, Carcharhinus signatus JOHN K. CARLSON, ENRIC CORTES, JULIE A. NEER, CAMILLA T. MCCANDLESS, and LAWRENCE R. BEERKIRCHER Introduction coastal, small coastal, and pelagic) based Generally, species are considered for on known life history, habitat, market, listing under the ESA if they meet the The first fishery management plan and fishery characteristics (NMFS, definition of an endangered or threat- for shark populations in waters of the 1993). The Fishery Management Plan ened species and that status is the result United States (U.S.) Atlantic Ocean and of the Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and of one or any combination of the fol- Gulf of Mexico was developed in 1993 sharks (NMFS, 1999) added a fourth lowing factors: 1) present or threatened (NMFS, 1993). Because species-spe- category and prohibited the retention destruction, modification, or curtailment cific catch and life history information of 19 species of sharks (Prohibited Spe- of its habitat or range; 2) overutilization was limited, sharks were grouped and cies management category) based on a for commercial, recreational, scientific, managed under three categories (large precautionary approach for species with or educational purposes; 3) disease or little or no biological information that predation; 4) inadequacy of existing reg- were thought to be highly susceptible ulatory mechanisms; or 5) other natural to overexploitation. or manmade factors affecting its contin- The U.S. Endangered Species Act ued existence. In establishing its species John K. Carlson and Enric Cortés are with the (ESA) is designed to provide for the con- of concern list, NMFS determined that National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 3500 Del- servation of endangered and threatened factors related to the demography and wood Beach Road, Panama City, FL 32408.
    [Show full text]
  • States' Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Laws Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife
    University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture An Agricultural Law Research Project States’ Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Laws Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Florida www.NationalAgLawCenter.org States’ Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Laws Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife STATE OF FLORIDA 68B-44.002 FAC Current through March 28, 2020 68B-44.002 FAC Definitions As used in this rule chapter: (1) “Finned” means one or more fins, including the caudal fin (tail), are no longer naturally attached to the body of the shark. A shark with fins naturally attached, either wholly or partially, is not considered finned. (2) “Shark” means any species of the orders Carcharhiniformes, Lamniformes, Hexanchiformes, Orectolobiformes, Pristiophoriformes, Squaliformes, Squatiniformes, including but not limited to any of the following species or any part thereof: (a) Large coastal species: 1. Blacktip shark -- (Carcharhinus limbatus). 2. Bull shark -- (Carcharhinus leucas). 3. Nurse shark -- (Ginglymostoma cirratum). 4. Spinner shark -- (Carcharhinus brevipinna). (b) Small coastal species: 1. Atlantic sharpnose shark -- (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae). 2. Blacknose shark -- (Carcharhinus acronotus). 3. Bonnethead -- (Sphyrna tiburo). 4. Finetooth shark -- (Carcharhinus isodon). (c) Pelagic species: 1. Blue shark -- (Prionace glauca). 2. Oceanic whitetip shark -- (Carcharhinus longimanus). 3. Porbeagle shark -- (Lamna nasus). 4. Shortfin mako -- (Isurus oxyrinchus). 5. Thresher shark -- (Alopias vulpinus). (d) Smoothhound sharks: 1. Smooth dogfish -- (Mustelus canis). 2. Florida smoothhound (Mustelus norrisi). 3. Gulf smoothhound (Mustelus sinusmexicanus). (e) Atlantic angel shark (Squatina dumeril). (f) Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus). (g) Bigeye sand tiger (Odontaspis noronhai). (h) Bigeye sixgill shark (Hexanchus nakamurai). (i) Bigeye thresher (Alopias superciliosus). (j) Bignose shark (Carcharhinus altimus). (k) Bluntnose sixgill shark (Hexanchus griseus). (l) Caribbean reef shark (Carcharhinus perezii).
    [Show full text]
  • Species Composition of the Largest Shark Fin Retail-Market in Mainland
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Species composition of the largest shark fn retail‑market in mainland China Diego Cardeñosa1,2*, Andrew T. Fields1, Elizabeth A. Babcock3, Stanley K. H. Shea4, Kevin A. Feldheim5 & Demian D. Chapman6 Species‑specifc monitoring through large shark fn market surveys has been a valuable data source to estimate global catches and international shark fn trade dynamics. Hong Kong and Guangzhou, mainland China, are the largest shark fn markets and consumption centers in the world. We used molecular identifcation protocols on randomly collected processed fn trimmings (n = 2000) and non‑ parametric species estimators to investigate the species composition of the Guangzhou retail market and compare the species diversity between the Guangzhou and Hong Kong shark fn retail markets. Species diversity was similar between both trade hubs with a small subset of species dominating the composition. The blue shark (Prionace glauca) was the most common species overall followed by the CITES‑listed silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis), scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini), smooth hammerhead shark (S. zygaena) and shortfn mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus). Our results support previous indications of high connectivity between the shark fn markets of Hong Kong and mainland China and suggest that systematic studies of other fn trade hubs within Mainland China and stronger law‑enforcement protocols and capacity building are needed. Many shark populations have declined in the last four decades, mainly due to overexploitation to supply the demand for their fns in Asia and meat in many other countries 1–4. Mainland China was historically the world’s second largest importer of shark fns and foremost consumer of shark fn soup, yet very little is known about the species composition of shark fns in this trade hub2.
    [Show full text]