(Professor Schmidt's note: "In light of the shark attacks on humans and the enorous publicity and concern this generated in the summer and fall of 2001 this research paper is especially relevant and interesting").

Introduction

Sharks have existed in the oceans for over 400 million years. Although they are top predators in the ocean food chain, these "denizens of the deep" are extremely vulnerable to over-exploitation by humans. As the demand for shark products increases worldwide, fisheries managers must implement plans and regulations to insure sustainability among shark populations. Sharks are vulnerable to over fishing because of their reproductive biology. They cannot support prolonged intensive fisheries because their reproductive strategies are similar to marine mammals (Castro 1996). They mature at a late age, have slow growth rates, low fecundity, and low reproductive rates (NMFS 2001). For example, sandbar sharks, an important shark in Atlantic commercial fisheries, mature at 16 years of age. Sandbar sharks only produce 8-13 pups every two years (Castro 1998). Sharks are of undisputable importance to our marine ecosystem and must be protected in order to maintain a healthy ocean and all of its resources.

One hundred and twenty-five countries in the world fish or trade shark products (Camhi 1998). Out of these, only four countries currently have implemented shark conservation and management plans: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. Shark management in U.S. Pacific waters needs some work. It has been described as "minimal, patchy, and inconsistent" (Camhi 1999). Only 2 Pacific states currently have shark-specific regulations for their state waters, California and Alaska.

The United States, in accordance with the wishes of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) Committee on Fisheries Ministerial Meeting in 1999, has developed a National Plan of Action (NPOA) for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (Morehead 2001). This plan of action was written by the National Marine Fisheries Service under their jurisdiction noted by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (NMFS 1996).

This report intends to review this management plan by means of researching the history of the plan, the objectives of the plan, and the politics involved in creating and instituting such a plan.

History of the National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks

In 1994, at the Ninth Annual Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), a resolution was adopted on the Biological and Trade Status of Sharks requesting that the FAO and other international organizations start programs to collect biological and trade data on shark species around the world (NMFS 2001). They also asked that all counties involved in utilizing and trading sharks cooperate with FAO.

In March 1997, during the 22nd Session of FAO Committee on Fisheries a proposal was made to develop "Guidelines for a Plan of Action for improved conservation and management of sharks". In February 1998, it was decided to prepare an International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA). This would be done at the meeting of the Technical Working Group of the Conservation and Management of Sharks in Tokyo from April 23-27, 1998, a meeting in Rome from July 22-24, 1998 and the Consultation on Management of Fishing Capacity, Shark Fisheries, and Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries, held in Rome from October 26-30, 1998 (NMFS 2001).

In February 1999, the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) endorsed the IPOA and the plan was commended by the FAO Fisheries Ministerial in March 1999. The IPOA was officially adopted by the FAO at the FAO Conference in November 1999. The IPOA follows the strict regulations of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Due to expanding catches and the negative impacts on shark populations around the world, the IPOA was written and calls on its member organizations to devise and institute national plans to conserve and manage sharks. The IPOA suggests national plans consider the following:

• Catches must be sustainable
• Threats to shark populations must be assessed
• Critical habitats must be protected
• Give special attention to vulnerable shark stocks
• Minimize unutilized incidental catches
• Encourage full use of shark carcasses
• Maintain species-specific catch and landings data
• Monitor shark catches
• Consult with all stakeholders when forming national plans
• Include educational initiatives

The United States Plan of Action for Conservation and Management of Sharks, was developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in order to fulfill the United States' obligation to abide by the objectives of the IPOA.

Objectives of the NPOA

NMFS was given authority to construct the NPOA through the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which calls for the conservation and management of living marine resources, including sharks. The Magnuson-Stevens Act places the Secretary of Commerce in charge of conservation and management, who in turn, asks NMFS to handle the daily task of conserving our resources. NMFS does not have authority to "require" the Regional Fisheries Councils to take specific actions for species that are not under direct NMFS management. In this case, NMFS can only suggest policy guidelines to the responsible management entities (NMFS 2001).

As NMFS began to devise the NPOA, they consulted stakeholders throughout the process to implement a plan that would be cohesive and comprehensive. The United States has shown dedication to the conservation of sharks on numerous occasions. The U.S. participated in the FAO consultation process and supported the adoption of the IPOA to show its' support for shark conservation and management.

Fisheries managers must also keep in mind other legislation when making a national plan of action. The plan must be consistent with the following legislation: The Marine Mammal Protection Act, The Endangered Species Act, The National Environmental Policy Act, The Regulatory Flexibility Act, The Paperwork Reduction Act, The Coastal Zone Management Act, The Administrative Procedures Act, and other Federal and State laws. When working on the NPOA, NMFS had to make sure that the provisions of the plan of action did not interfere or contradict any of this legislation (NMFS 2001).

The main objectives of the NPOA include the following:

• Assessing levels of directed and incidental catch and by catch of elasmobranches
• Data collection
• Outreach and education of fisherman
• Exchange of information on shark fisheries and studies
• Assessing the effectiveness of management measures

Politics involved in shark conservation and management

Shark management is particularly difficult due to the movement of shark species across political boundaries. Sharks can migrate long distances to their nursery grounds. If a species is protecting in one end of its range and not the other it defeats the purpose of the management tool. Management is also difficult because of lack of biological and baseline data about sharks. It is extremely hard to get laws passed on estimates and best guesses for shark populations. Due to their mobile lifestyle this will continue to be a problem in the future. Fisheries managers do not fully understand fisheries practices in other countries and have incomplete data on catch, effort, landings, and trade. Sharks are hard to identify, leading to the problem of "unknown" shark landings.

International politics play an important role in our nations' shark conservation and management ideas. A number of international organizations like the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAEO) have encouraged members to collect information about shark catches and develop databases for stock assessment (NMFS 2001).

In this nation, management of sharks fall under two jurisdictions; state waters and federal waters. Waters under the jurisdiction of individual states extend from the shoreline our to 3 miles (9 nautical miles off Texas, the West Coast of Florida, and Puerto Rico). This is considered the Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ). Federal water continues from the state waters out to 200 miles offshore except for when this area overlaps with another countries EEZ.

Management on the state level usually falls under the Marine Division of the state's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Each state sets its own fishing regulations and enforces them. State management plays a vital role in protecting essential fish habitat in the form of shark nurseries found close to shore. As the management plans moves forward the importance of protecting coastal shark species will become evident. Individual states must require more strict regulations for their particular habitat that will ensure the survival of the fisheries in that area.

Shark fishing in federal waters requires a shark permit. Federally permitted commercial fisherman is required to follow federal regulations no matter where they are fishing. There is little or no incentive for commercial or recreational fisherman to learn to identify different species of sharks. They usually receive amount the same price for all the species of sharks (Castro 1993).

Fisherman and local tour operators make their living off this marine resource. They feel that it is unfair to sacrifice their living to allow for the recovery of certain shark species (Roy 1998). Fisherman can get very upset when their fishing quotas are decreased to protect shark species. In one case the Southern Offshore Fishing Association sued the Secretary of Commerce for announcing a 50% cut in the commercial quota for large coastal sharks after scientific evidence showed the population to be threatened. Lobbyists from environmental organizations like The Center for Marine Conservation, The National Audubon Society, The National Resources Defense Council, and the Biodiversity Legal Fund filed a brief supporting governmental action in this case. A U.S District Judge Steven D. Merry day ruled that cutting the quota by 50% was warranted to protect sharks. Victories as this one will continue to shape and form shark policy in the coming years.

The public was invited to comment on the management plan before it was released to involve all stakeholders. Some of the complaints about the plan were:

1. The NPOA is not a plan of action at all
2. NMFS commented that although it has jurisdiction through the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it can only provide policy guidance. NMFS cannot require local Fisheries councils to pass specific laws it can only provide guidance on policy for management of sharks.
3. NMFS should identify outreach priorities and develop identification guides to Atlantic and Pacific regions
4. NMFS agreed with this public comment and include education initiatives in the NPOA. NMFS is also in the process of producing am identification guide for the Atlantic.

Conclusion

I believe that education is the key to the success of the NPOA. I admit I am partial to education because I work in the field of conservation education but I truly believe it is the only way for sharks to be managed correctly. One of my favorite quotes seems to be relevant in this case:

In the end, we conserve only what we love;
We love only what we understand;
We understand only what we have been taught.

Recreational and commercial fisherman are depleting our shark populations around the world. If they do not understand or care about the importance of sharks in the marine ecosystem, no management plan in the world will work. It is fact, that there are simply not enough enforcement tools to enforce even the strongest of laws in the open ocean.

Species identification is something that shark fisheries managers have been struggling with since the beginning of shark regulations. It continues to be a problem and education in this area must be a priority. You can set all the regulations you want for threatened species but if the people that are out there catching the sharks cannot distinguish between the common species, the laws are meaningless. Public education on the threats to shark populations and identification of shark species needs to start now. Creative ways need to be found to provide fisherman with identification tools that are usable in the field. An incentive program should be constructed to provide fisherman with some kind of reason to get with the program. One possibility is a permit fee waiver for attending identification classes held at local fishing museums or outdoor stores. For the recreational fisherman you could offer a free one-year saltwater fishing license for attending a shark species identification seminar. This effort would need to be backed by funding so the state fish and wildlife departments would not lose significant revenue from the venture. Although, the other objectives of the plan are also important, it is first necessary to educate your user group before you can expect success with any conservation and management tool.

References Cited

Camhi, M. 1998. Sharks on the Line: A State-by-State Analysis of Sharks and Their

Fisheries. Living Oceans Program, National Audubon Society, Islip, NY.

157 pp.

Camhi, M. 1999. Sharks on the Line II: An Analysis of Pacific State Shark

Fisheries. Living Oceans Program, National Audubon Society, Islip, NY.

116 pp.

Camhi, M. and J. Musick 1998. Sharks on the Line. Current. 14(4):16-21.

Castro, Jose I 1993. A field guide to the sharks commonly caught in commercial

fisheries of the southeastern United States. NOAA Technical Memorandum.

NMFS-SEFSC-338, 47pp.

Castro, Jose I 1996. The Sharks of North American Waters. College Station. Texas

A&M University Press. pp. 27-29.

Morehead, Bruce 2001. National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management

of Sharks. Press Release. Federal Register February 15, 2001. 66(32):10484-

10485.

NMFS 1996. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NOAA

Technical Memorandum. NMFS-F/SPO-23, 121 pp.

NMFS 2000a. Draft United States National Plan of Action for the Conservation and

Management of Sharks. NOAA/NMFS, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. July 2000.

NMFS 2000b. 2000 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation For Atlantic Highly

Migratory Species. NOAA/NMFS, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. January 2000.

NMFS 2001. United States National Plan of Action for the Conservation and

Management of Sharks. NOAA/NMFS, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. February

2001.

Roy, K. and M. Camhi 1998. Shark Lawsuit Victory. Press Release.

February 25, 1998, Washington D.C.

(http://www.audubon.org/news/release98/slv.html)

Shark Research Institute 2000. U.S. Congress Acts to End Shark Finning. Shark

Research Institute Newsletter. 9(4):3.

Shark Specialist Group 2001. IUCN Shark Specialist Group Red List Assessments,

2001. (http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Organizations/SSG/redlist.html).

Tricas, T., K. Deacon, P. Last, J. McCosker, T. Walker, and L. Taylor 1997. Sharks &

Rays. San Francisco. Time-Life Books, pp. 44-45.