194 Sharks: The Animal Answer Guide
The United States lacked shark fishing regulations before 1993, when
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) passed a Shark Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) that limited the catch of 39 species in the At-
lantic and the Gulf of Mexico. These regulations apply only to federal wa-
ters, which extend from 3 to 200 miles (5 to 320 km) offshore. However,
most commercially caught sharks spend part or most of their lives closer to
the shore than three miles, where control over fisheries is the responsibil-
ity of individual states, and states were slower in regulating shark fishing.
The FMP did not regulate Pacific states, including Hawaii, which has the
highest shark bycatch rate and where 61,000 sharks were finned in 1998
alone.
The 1993 FMP set a fishing limit of 2,436 MT (5.4 million lb), but
that limit proved biologically unrealistic: shark populations continued to
decline. In 1997, the quota was cut in half, to 1,285 MT (2.8 million lb);
more species were added to the list; recreational fishing was reduced from
four to two sharks per day per boat; and complete bans were instituted for
Whale, Basking, White, Sand Tiger, and Bigeye Sand Tiger sharks. Be-
cause of a lack of data on the extent of the fishery and the biology of many
species, the fishery was divided into three management groups instead of
placing limits on individual species. The three groups were large coastal
species (e.g., Tiger, Lemon, hammerheads, Blacktip, Bull), small coastal
sharks (Sharpnose, Finetooth, Bonnethead, Angel), and pelagic sharks (ma-
kos, Blue, Porbeagle, threshers, Oceanic Whitetip). This “aggregation” of
species into groups ignores biological differences. It’s sort of like setting
hunting restrictions on deer by counting deer, pigs, turkeys, ducks, and
bear as a single group. Not surprisingly, achieving management goals was
difficult. But if sharks were being managed partially out of ignorance, at
least they were being managed.
The NMFS recognized these shortcomings and proposed numer-
ous improvements in data collection and management goals, particularly
among open-ocean and large coastal species, and placed restrictions on the
capture of several other skate, sawfish, and shark species. Overall, the mod-
ified FMP has been recognized as a good example because of its relative
thoroughness; and U.S. fishery scientists have been active advocates for
improved monitoring, management, and cooperation in regulating shark
fisheries around the globe.
Despite evidence that many shark species are in decline, and despite the
efforts of dedicated biologists and others, management of shark fisheries
at the international level remains ineffective or nonexistent. More so than
most other fisheries, shark fisheries have to be managed simultaneously
at local, national, and international levels, greatly complicating efforts.
Sharks cross management boundaries and often enter waters where no one
http://www.ebook3000.com