a ~

Sharks - Roundtable Discussion

Agenda Item #5 May 12, 2021

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Version 2

This document provides background information on the status of sharks, an introduction to the issue of shark predation on fishers’ catch, and overview of results from FWC’s Predator Interaction Survey. This document will also provide an introduction for the Shark Roundtable Discussion.

Division: Marine Fisheries Management Authors: Kristin Foss, CJ Sweetman, Hannah Hart, Martha Guyas, and Jessica McCawley Contact Phone Number: 850-487-0554 Report date: May 6, 2021

Cover photo is a group of 11 sharks (likely spinner) swimming together approximately 12 nautical miles offshore of New Smyrna Beach, FL. Unless otherwise noted, images throughout the presentation are by FWC.

Background ■ Over 50 shark species along U.S. Atlantic

0 16 harvestable in Florida state waters

■ Long-lived, slow to mature, few offspring 0 Susceptible to overfishing

■ Rapid declines in 1970s through early 1990s

■ Partial recovery observed for some 0 Others overfished, undergoing overfishing,

or have unknown stock status

■ Vital role in marine ecosystems as apex predators

0 Increasing shark populations are a sign of healthy and resilient ecosystems

Over 50 shark species can be found along the U.S. Atlantic coast. Of those, 16 shark species can be harvested from Florida state waters; however, shortfin mako cannot be commercially harvested from Florida state waters because of allowable gear restrictions.

Relative to other marine fishes, sharks are relatively long-lived and slow growing, with late sexual maturity, one to two-year reproductive cycles, a small number of young per brood, and specific requirements for nursery areas. These biological factors leave many species of sharks vulnerable to overfishing. Once a shark population is depleted, it can take decades for a species to recover. As a result, some overfished species have a significantly long timeline to rebuild populations.

In the mid-1970s through the early 1990s, shark stocks rapidly declined throughout the Eastern U.S. (Atlantic and Gulf) due to high rates of harvest and an increased demand for shark products, including meat, fins, and other shark products. At the time, sharks were seen as an underutilized resource that could be exploited further as a fishery target. Large-bodied, coastal shark species became preferentially targeted over small coastal species due to their high meat content, large fin sizes, and proximity to land. In response to steep population declines, Florida began implementing shark fishing regulations in the early 1990s, becoming a leader in shark conservation and aiding rebuilding efforts in the U.S. Today, there is evidence that the abundance of some shark species (e.g. Blacktip and Atlantic sharpnose sharks) are regionally increasing due to successful state and federal conservation and management measures. However, other species continue to be overfished, undergoing overfishing, or have an unknown stock status.

As apex predators, sharks play a fundamental role in marine ecosystems, and increasing populations are indicators of ecosystem health and resiliency. Sharks directly influence prey populations and other species down the food web through predation and indirectly by modifying prey behavior (i.e., shaping distribution and feeding patterns of prey). Sharks also keep prey populations healthy by removing sick or weak individuals, ensuring that the most fit will pass on genes to future generations. Apex predators maintain structure in ecosystems and their removal can have cascading effects. For example, coral reef ecosystems depend on herbivorous fishes (e.g., parrotfishes) to eat algae which allows space for coral to settle and grow. However, studies indicate that the removal of sharks from coral reefs may allow for an increased abundance of fish that consume herbivorous fishes. As herbivores decline, corals can no longer compete for space and the ecosystem can become dominated by algae, which impacts overall reef survival.

Shark Interactions • Successful conservation has led to increase in some shark populations

■ Increasing reports of shark predation on catch

• Impacts 0 Loss of catch and mortality of released fish 0 Lost revenues and gear damage

0 Reduced fishing efficiency 0 Negative attitudes toward sharks

■ Commonly reported species include 0 Bull, great hammerhead*, sandbar*, and dusky*

Stakeholders have requested HMS, Councils, and FWC address issue

Successful shark conservation and management at both federal and state levels has led to an increase in shark numbers as some populations begin to recover. Over the years, there have been increasing reports of shark predation on fishers’ catch, where sharks will partially or completely consume an animal caught by fishing gear before it can be brought on board or after it is released back into the water. These interactions are not a new phenomenon, and shark predation on catch occurs in both commercial and recreational fisheries throughout the Atlantic, Gulf, and even globally.

There are a range of biological, economic, and social impacts from these shark interactions. Sharks are opportunistic feeders and can selectively prey on weak or injured animals, especially fish caught by fishermen, which can lead to loss of catch and mortality of released fish. Additionally, these interactions can lead to costly losses of commercially valuable fish and gear damage. Furthermore, these interactions can lead to a reduction in fishing efficiency due to lost catch and having to relocate to different fishing grounds to avoid sharks, impacting the overall fishing experience. Finally, these increased and repeated predation interactions can foster an overall negative attitude towards sharks in general.

Some of the commonly reported shark species involved in these predation events in Florida waters include bull, great hammerhead, sandbar, and dusky sharks. Of these species, great hammerhead, sandbar, and dusky sharks are prohibited from harvest in state waters, dusky is prohibited from harvest in federal waters, commercial sandbar harvest is only allowed under limited circumstances in federal waters, and both sandbar and dusky are under rebuilding plans. Other reported species include silky (prohibited in state waters), blacktip, spinner, blue, and Caribbean reef sharks (prohibited in state and federal waters). However, it is important to keep in mind that in some cases, it is unknown which shark species are responsible for these predation events.

Stakeholders have raised concerns and requested both the Gulf and South Atlantic councils, NOAA Fisheries Highly Migratory Species (HMS), and FWC address this issue. Several groups have sent letters, including the Billfish Foundation, Bonefish and Tarpon Trust, West Palm Beach Fishing Club, and Sportsmen Fighting for Marine Balance.

Shark Interactions: Challenges ■ Sharks play a crucial role in ecosystem resilience

and health

■ Measuring effects across fisheries and user-groups

■ Limited research and reporting of shark interactions

■ Some shark and prey species are both under rebuilding plans

■ Evidence of learned behavior patterns in sharks

■ More interactions are an outcome of

0 Successful management of sharks and prey

0 Increasing fishing participation

There are many challenges to addressing shark predation on fishermen’s catch. First, it’s important to remember that sharks play a crucial role in ecosystem resilience and health. Sharks help structure food webs through predation, which in return increase species diversity and regulates species abundance and distribution in an area. Increasing shark abundances are signs of healthy ecosystems, as there is enough prey and nursery habitat to support population increases.

It is challenging to measure the effects of these shark interactions because these events affect a variety of fisheries and user-groups. The impact of these events is poorly understood as there is limited research and limited reporting on these interaction events, especially in recreational fisheries.

There are also biological effects, as several key shark species commonly reported in these interactions and prey species are both under rebuilding plans. For example, dusky and sandbar sharks are both overfished and under rebuilding plans, and many of the involved prey species are under rebuilding plans, such as red snapper, certain grouper, and blue and white marlin.

Sharks use auditory, chemical, visual, and electrical cues to locate prey. There is some research and widespread anecdotal reporting that suggest associated learned behaviors with these shark interactions. For example, some reports show that sharks associate the sound of an engine or the sound of a spear gun being shot under water with the availability of easy prey. It is possible that sharks can form an association between fishing boats/gear and the presence of easy prey in the form of hooked or speared fish.

Lastly, more shark interactions with fishermen are likely an outcome of the successful management of sharks and prey, as well as increasing fishing participation. Successful management in the U.S. for both sharks and many fish populations has allowed for some populations to rebuild. The shark’s prey base and target fish for fishermen are often the same. Therefore, as both shark and prey populations increase in abundance, shark interactions with fishermen are expected to continue. However, due to the critical role that sharks play in ecosystems and their high vulnerability to overfishing, care should be taken when considering potential management actions.

FWC Predator Interaction Survey

■ Goal: to better understand the types and frequency of predator interactions with fishers' catch

■ Survey asked about predators such as sharks, dolphins, goliath grouper, and birds

■ Emailed to commercial, for-hire, and private recreational fishers

As part of FWC’s effort to understand the types and frequency of predator interactions with fishers’ catch, staff sent out an exploratory email survey in March 2021 to a random selection of private recreational anglers and to all commercial and for-hire fishers with emails in FWC’s licensing database. This survey was not specific to sharks and included other predatory species such as dolphins, goliath grouper, and birds, but many fishers reported details that highlighted their interactions with sharks while fishing over the past year. Since this survey only sampled a pool of private recreational, for-hire, and commercial fishermen with emails, the responses cannot be assumed to represent everyone who is fishing in Florida; instead, this survey allowed FWC to explore the general characteristics of these interactions and their potential impact on people’s fishing experiences.

The survey consisted of 17 questions which focused on a range of topics, including basic fishing information (e.g., how often and where you fish, what proportion of fishing trips was a predator interaction experienced, etc.) to more targeted fishing topics (e.g., what fish species were you targeting, what gear was being used, were any changes made to fishing following predator interaction, etc.).

The survey was open for 12 days starting on March 15, 2021. The last day to respond was March 26, 2021. A total of 5,033 responses were received of a possible 49,870 surveys sent out.

FWC Predator Interaction Survey - Results

• Responses

0 Private recreational: 3,509

° For-hire: 358

° Commercial: 1,166

• Frequency of interactions varied by user-group, but very common on commercial and for-hire trips

• Predator interactions appear common statewide and across habitats but most frequent on reef fish trips

• Interactions with sharks noted most frequently

Response rates to the FWC predator interaction survey varied by user-group; 3,509 out of a possible 40,802 responses were received from the private recreational sector, 358 out of a possible 2,094 responses were received from the for-hire captains, and 1,166 out of a possible 6,974 responses were received from the commercial sector.

The frequency of interactions varied by user-group. Approximately 60% of private recreational angler respondents had a predator interaction with their catch over the past year; however, 40% reported no interactions over the past year. Interactions with predators was much more common on for-hire and commercial trips. Around 91% of for-hire respondents and 87% of commercial respondents had a predator interact with their catch last year. Of those that noted interactions with predators over the past year, these interactions were more frequent for the commercial and for-hire respondents than for private recreational respondents. For example, the top response for private recreational anglers was that interactions occurred on very few fishing trips, compared to every fishing trip for commercial respondents and 3/4 of all fishing trips for for-hire respondents. These differences are likely attributed to relative time spent on the water between the user-groups, as well as a variety of other factors.

Another theme generated from the survey was that predator interactions appear to be relatively common statewide and across a variety of habitats, including inshore, offshore over structure, and offshore in open water. Generally, reef fishes were the most common target when the predator interaction occurred across all user-groups. However, other groups of fishes were also commonly reported in the survey. In the private recreational and for-hire user groups, inshore fishes and pelagic fishes were also common responses. In the commercial user-group, pelagic fishes and baitfish ranked 2nd and 3rd in terms of the group of fishes that were being targeted when the predator interaction occurred.

While sharks were the predator noted most frequently in the survey, respondents noted that dolphins, birds, and goliath grouper were also common species involved in predator interaction events.

FWC Predator Interaction Survey - Results

• Impacts on fishing experience varied across user groups:

° Few people viewed interactions positively

0 Private recreational: neutral to negative

° For-hire: negative

° Commercial: very negative to negative

• Most reported moving/changing fishing location when interactions occurred

Across user-groups that were surveyed, predator interactions with a fisher's catch had varying impacts on fishing experiences. Overall, few respondents across user-groups viewed these interactions positively.

The top response from the private recreational user group was that they viewed the impact of these interactions to their fishing experience as neutral (neither positive nor negative). However, it should be noted that the second top response in this user-group was that the predator interactions were viewed as negative to their fishing experience. In the for-hire sector, the top response was that most generally viewed the predator interactions as a negative impact to their fishing experience. The next top responses for this user-group were that these interactions were viewed as very negative and neutral. Some captains noted, however, that their clients did not always view these interactions as negative. In the commercial sector, most respondents indicated that predators interacting with their catch was viewed as very negative to their fishing experience, followed by negative as the second top response.

In response to a predator interacting with a fisher's catch, a variety of actions or changes in fishing were taken across the respective user-groups but the most common approach was to move/change fishing location.

Overall, the results of this exploratory survey indicate that predator interactions are not limited to sharks, but also include other marine predators. Additionally, these predator interactions occur in both commercial and recreational fisheries, across marine habitats, and off both Florida’s coasts. Predator interactions, especially with sharks, is not a new phenomenon, and this issue is likely not to disappear. However, we can continue to learn more about these predator interactions, develop a regulatory white paper overview, and focus on citizen science and outreach and education opportunities.

Next Steps

• Today: Shark interactions roundtable discussion • Develop a shark regulatory overview white paper

■ Incorporate citizen science for reporting interactions

• Promote and market sustainable shark fisheries from "harvest to table"

• Outreach and education efforts

■ Stay engaged with federal partners on all shark-related topics

Today, focus on better understanding the interactions between fishers and sharks

FWC is working on several next steps regarding negative shark interactions with fishers, and today is a mid-point in the discussions with the shark roundtable panel.

FWC staff is working on a white paper that will provide a detailed overview of shark species and regulations in Florida state waters. Within this document, FWC staff will summarize Florida’s shark commercial and recreational regulations, the rationale behind the regulations, the current status (if known) of all the prohibited and harvestable sharks in Florida’s waters, and examine FWC’s list of prohibited species. At a future Commission meeting, staff plans to provide an overview of this white paper for Commission discussion.

In the future, staff could consider incorporating more citizen science opportunities for reporting these shark interactions.

Staff could also consider promoting and marketing sustainable commercial shark fisheries from “harvest to table,” as well as focus on various outreach and education efforts.

Finally, staff will continue to stay engaged with federal partners on all shark-related topics. Today, in the roundtable discussion, FWC Commissioners and staff are interested in hearing directly from our fishing, scientific, and conservation communities to better understand the interactions between fishermen and sharks in Florida waters.

Roundtable Discussion

Objective ■ Share perspectives on interactions between sharks and fishers in Florida waters

General Topics for Discussion ■ Personal experiences with shark interactions while fishing.

■ How do we better evaluate the extent of these interactions?

■ How can fishermen help managers understand these interactions?

■ What are the biggest challenges to addressing the issue of shark interactions?

■ Can we help fishermen live with rebounding shark populations?

FWC has put together a group of experts in their respective fields, including scientists, fisheries managers, conservationists, and those involved in the fishing industry, to discuss shark interactions with fishers’ catch. The objective of this roundtable discussion is for the panelists to share their perspectives on shark interactions while fishing in Florida waters.

To facilitate discussion, FWC have provided some topics for the panelist’s consideration, but welcome any additional topics that are relevant to the topic of shark interactions with a fisher’s catch. These topics include:

• Personal experiences with shark interactions while fishing.

• How do we better evaluate the extent of these interactions?

• How can fishermen help managers understand these interactions?

• What are the biggest challenges to addressing the issue of shark interactions?

• Can we help fishermen live with rebounding shark populations in the marine environment?

The following slides are considered backup material and are not anticipated to be part of

the actual presentation

Florida's Harvestable Shark Species

... .

Small coastal species

Atlantic sharpnose

Blacknose

Bonnethead

Finetooth

Pelagic species

Blue

Common thresher

Oceanic whitetip

Porbeagle

Shortfin mako*

Other

Smooth dogfish

Florida smoothhound

Gulf smoothhound I] · · Blue italics = harvest only allowed in federal waters

Large coastal species

Blacktip

Bull

Nurse

Spinner

Great hammerhead

Scalloped hammerhead

Smooth hammerhead

Lemon

Sandbar

Silky

Tiger

This slide outlines the harvestable species in Florida state and federal waters. The species in blue italics are species that are prohibited from harvest in Florida state waters but are allowed for harvest in federal waters. In Florida state waters, 15 shark species can be harvested commercially and 16 can be harvested recreationally. Commercial harvest of shortfin mako is not allowed in state waters, as noted with an asterisk.

In federal waters, 23 species can be harvested commercially and 21 recreationally. Sandbar sharks can only be harvested in limited circumstances under a commercial research permit and silky sharks may only be harvested commercially. Recreational harvest of sandbar and silky sharks in federal waters is not allowed.

Prohibited Sharks in Florida

Small Coastal Species Atlantic angel shark

Smalltail shark

Caribbean sharpnose shark

Pelagic Species

Bigeye sixgill shark

Bigeye thresher shark

Longtin mako shark

Sevengill shark

Sixgill shark

Others

Basking shark

Whale shark

Spiny dogfish*

Large Coastal Species

Galapagos shark

White shark

Sand tiger shark

Narrowtooth shark

Bigeye sand tiger

Bignose shark

Caribbean reef shark

Dusky shark

Night shark

Sandbar shark*

Silky shark*

Lemon shark*

Great hammerhead*

Scalloped hammerhead*

Smooth hammerhead*

This slide includes a list of shark and shark-related species that are prohibited from harvest when fishing in Florida waters. Species in blue (also indicated by an asterisk) are those for which harvest is prohibited from Florida waters but not prohibited in adjacent federal waters. In federal waters, 19 species are prohibited from harvest. In state waters, 27 species are prohibited recreationally, and 28 species are prohibited commercially. Commercial harvest of shortfin mako is prohibited in state waters

en +-' C: Q.l u C: 0 c.. en Q.l a:: -0 Q.l '0.0 (IJ +-' C: Q.l ~ Q.l a..

Impact of Interactions on Fishing Experience

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Very negative Negative Neither positive or

negative Positive

■ Commercial

□ Charter

□ Recreational

Very positive

This figure illustrates the impacts of predator interactions on fishing experiences from the FWC Predator Survey.

The top response from the private recreational user group was that they viewed the impact of these interactions to their fishing experience as neutral (neither positive nor negative). However, it should be noted that the second and third top responses in this user-group was that the predator interactions were viewed as negative and very negative to their fishing experience, respectively.

Relative to the for-hire sector, the top response was that most respondents generally viewed the predator interactions as a negative impact to their fishing experience.

In the commercial sector, most respondents indicated that predators interacting with their catch was viewed as very negative to their fishing experience.

Shortfin Mako - ESA Review

■ NOAA Fisheries will be conducting a status review to determine whether shortfin mako should be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

■ Defenders of Wildlife filed a petition in January 2021 requesting this listing

■ NOAA Fisheries must make a determination by January 2022

On April 15, 2021, NOAA Fisheries announced they will be initiating a status review of shortfin mako to determine whether to list the species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to designate critical habitat concurrent with the listing. This review is based on a petition that was filed by the Defenders of Wildlife on January 25, 2021 to list shortfin mako as either threatened or endangered under the ESA. NOAA Fisheries will be conducting a substantial review of best scientific and commercial information available and will decide whether to list shortfin mako under ESA within 12-months of the petition being filed (~January 2022).

A recent stock assessment conducted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) found that the North Atlantic shortfin mako stock is most likely overfished and is experiencing overfishing. Shortfin makos are commonly caught as bycatch in longline fisheries, but are also caught in gillnets, purse seines, and trawls. When caught as bycatch, the species often experiences high post-release mortality. Therefore, this species is subject to overexploitation because of its low productivity and high susceptibility to bycatch and post-release mortality.