Key Threatening Process Nomination Formfor amending the list of key threatening processes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

2012 Assessment Period

Note – Further detail to help you complete this form is provided at Attachment A.If using this form in Microsoft Word, you can jump to this information by Ctrl+clicking the hyperlinks (in blue text).

Nominated key threatening process

1. NAME OF KEY THREATENING PROCESS Recreational game fishing – competition game fishing especially for sharks, tuna and marlins

2. CRITERIA UNDER WHICH THE KEY THREATENING PROCESS IS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTINGPlease mark the boxes that apply by clicking them with your mouse.

Criterion A

Criterion B

Criterion C

Evidence that the threatening process could cause a native species or ecological community to become eligible for listing in any category, other than conservation dependent.

Evidence that the threatening process could cause a listed threatened species or ecological community to become eligible for listing in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment.

Evidence that the threatening process adversely affects two or more listed threatened species (other than conservation dependent species) or two or more listed threatened ecological communities.

3. 2012 CONSERVATION THEME: Corridors and connecting habitats (including freshwater habitats)

Is the current conservation theme relevant to this key threatening process? If so, explain how.No

4. THREAT STATUSIs the key threatening process listed under State/Territory Government legislation? Is the threat recognised under other legislation or intergovernmental arrangements? The proposed key threatening process is not listed under State / Territory Government legislation nor recognised under other legislation or intergovernmental arrangement to the nominee’s knowledge.

Description of the key threatening process

This nomination form is designed to assist in the preparation of nominations of threatening processes consistent with the Regulations and EPBC Act. The listing of a key threatening process under the EPBC Act is designed to prevent native species or ecological communities from becoming threatened or prevent threatened species and ecological communities from becoming more threatened.

Many processes that occur in the landscape are, or could be, threatening processes, however priority for listing will be directed to key threatening processes, those factors that most threaten biodiversity at national scale.

For a key threatening process to be eligible for listing it must meet at least one of the three listing criteria. If there is insufficient data and information available to allow completion of the questions for each of the listing criteria, state this in your nomination under the relevant question.

5. DESCRIPTION Describe the threatening process in a way that distinguishes it from any other threatening process, by reference to:

a. its biological and non-biological components;b. the processes by which those components interact (if known).

Recreational fishing is a ubiquitous activity throughout most of the world that principally involves angling by hook and line, but also may include spearfishing and the use of various nets and traps. Recreational fishing as a rule is open access and effort is generally considered to be increasing in most of these fisheries throughout the world. Growing pressure on fish stocks from recreational fishing strongly suggests that managing only the effects of commercial fishing may be insufficient to prevent fish stocks from being over-exploited. (McPhee et al., 2002). It is increasingly recognised that recreational fishing can have serious impacts on fish stocks and the wider aquatic ecosystem (Cooke and Cowx, 2004, 2006 in Li et al, 2010).

High fishing mortality, probably in combination with other external stressors, has been shown to repeatedly influence fish population dynamics and to contribute to the collapse of recreationally exploited fish populations (Barker et al., 2002; Lester et al., 2003; Sullivan, 2003; and Wilberg et al., 2005 in Lewin et al., 2006).

Recreational fishing covers a broad range of amateur fishing activities but can be roughly broken down into groups of gamefishers, sportfishers, spearfishers, estuarine fishers and freshwater fishers (Environment Australia, 2002, pp.9-10). The 2001 Australian Shark Assessment Report (Rose, 2001) describes recreational fishing as encompassing two main activities – competition game fishing and general recreational angling. For this reason we have chosen to focus this key threatening process nomination on recreational fishing that is competition game fishing, especially fishing for sharks, tuna and marlins. All other forms of recreational fishing are excluded. Hereafter in this nomination, this type of fishing will be simply referred to as ‘recreational fishing’.

Impacts of recreational fishing on sharksRecreational fishing for finfish and sharks can be broadly defined as the use of hook and line with either a rod or handline. Gillnets are also used for recreational fishing in two states only (Tasmania, Western Australia), while cast nets may be used to collect bait in Northern Territory and Queensland and traps can be used by recreational fishers in New South Wales (McIlgorm and Pepperell 1999). Shark that is not returned to the water by general anglers is generally either used as bait or consumed. (Rose, 2001). Pepperell (2005) reports that there are some directed recreational fisheries for sharks around Australia. School and gummy sharks are fished for in Victoria and Tasmania, while elephant fish (a species of Chondrichthyan classified with the sharks) are targeted by a small, specialised recreational fishery in Westernport Bay, Victoria. This is in addition to game fishing which targets the larger, offshore species of shark, which are the focus of this nomination.

Most chondrichthyans (hereafter referred to in this nomination using the broad term of ‘sharks’) are characterized by low growth rates, late sexual maturity, and low fecundity compared to bony fish, which makes them vulnerable to fishing mortality. As a result even small levels of mortality from recreational fishing may be enough to cause population decline in some of the harvested species (Steffe et al, 1996). A comparison of 26 shark and 151 bony fish populations found that sharks show twice the fishing extinction risk of bony fishes (Myers & Worm 2005). Also their ability to recover after depletion is low on average: rebound potential of 26 shark populations ranged between 14% (Mustelus californicus) and 1.7% (Squalus acanthias) per year with variability explained by a combined effect of size and preferred habitat. In fact, it was highest for small coastal sharks, intermediate for pelagic and minimal for large coastal species. Deep-water sharks may be among the most vulnerable to fishing, with population growth rates 40–60% lower compared with pelagic, and 55–63% lower compared with coastal species. (Francesco et al., 2010)

In 2001 it was reported that, in a 12-month period, approximately 43,000 sharks were retained in Queensland, 11,695 in the Northern Territory, 3,753 in Western Australia south-west area, 8,507 in New South Wales, making a total of 66,955 sharks that were retained in a 12 month period by recreational fishers. At a conservative estimate of 15 kg average weight of shark retained, this represents 1,004 tonne of whole shark, between 11% and 12% of the annual commercial shark catch, harvested from Queensland, New South Wales, Northern Territory and the south-west coast of Western Australia in one year. Estimates of total numbers of sharks caught (both retained and discarded) in the Northern Territory and south-west coast of Western Australia (the only regions with available data at the time) show that an estimated 74,556 sharks were caught in one year. (Rose, 2001)

A more recent estimate suggest that recreational anglers in Australia catch over 1.2 million sharks each year, releasing more than 1 million of them (McLoughlin & Eliason, 2008). Although individual fishers may have limited impact, recreational fishing can have a large effect on shark populations due to the large number of people who participate in the fishery (DeFaria et al., 2010).

Pepperell (2005) estimated that 81.8% of sharks caught by anglers were released back into the water—considerably

higher than for any other species or group of species. This means that 228,000 sharks and rays were caught and kept and a further 1.02 million were caught and released by recreational fishers over a 12-month study period (Pepperell, 2005).

Catch-and-release fishing had previously been thought to be beneficial for the conservation of fish stocks based on the premise that most of the fish that are released survive, however expanding interest in animal welfare has promoted debate regarding the ethics of catch-and-release fishing. Knowledge of the survival of released sharks is essential for (1) assessing the validity of tag-and-release for conservation, (2) estimating fishing mortality rates and (3) using the results of tagging programs in stock assessments and studies of migration patterns. McLouglin & Eliason (2008) reviewed available literature on the physical and physiological effects of catching and releasing sharks and approaches to tagging them.

Studies by Francesco et al (2010) show that, “…in natural, unexploited systems, sharks often exhibit high abundance and diversity. Yet even light fishing pressure is sufficient to cause strong population declines in vulnerable species, particularly large sharks. Such trends have been shown for artisanal and subsistence fishing on remote islands, shark netting programs, and in trawl and long-line fisheries in many regions, resulting in community shifts from large- to small-bodied species. Population declines of large species often exceeded one, sometimes two orders of magnitude with some local extinctions. Yet some more resilient species have not declined as drastically or have even increased, possibly via reduced competition or predation. Larger shark populations are still seen in some remote or protected areas, particularly in the Pacific, and may provide valuable opportunities to further understand the ecological role of sharks. Yet, reported catches of sharks and other elasmobranchs are still increasing in most regions, possibly indicating that more fisheries target sharks where they have not been historically exploited, a trend partially driven by the rising demand for highly prized shark fins on Asian markets.”

Ferretti et al (2010) supported this stating that, “…several recent studies support the idea that changes in large shark abundance can induce trophic cascades through changes in prey abundance or behavior…Yet even light fishing pressure is sufficient to cause strong population declines in vulnerable species, particularly large sharks. Such trends have been shown for artisanal and subsistence fishing…It seems likely that trophic cascades driven by the depletion of large sharks may play out in other parts of the world, but have so far remained undocumented because of a lack of data on non-commercial species (Myers et al. 2007) or missing connections between separate studies that involve many species and broad temporal and spatial scales.”

The high level of recreational game fishing is therefore likely to have significant impacts on populations of large sharks in Australian waters.

Physical and Physiological Impacts to recreational catchThere is growing evidence to support the fact that captured fish are exposed to varying degrees of stress, including physical trauma and physiological stress. This includes catch and release programs, popular in game fishing tournaments.

There is also growing recognition that fish can consciously experience nociception (broadly defined as a ‘sense of pain’) and that they therefore have some capacity to experience pain and fear. Empirical anatomical, physiological, and behavioural evidence supports the notion that fish could experience these two forms of suffering (i.e. pain and fear). (Cooke & Sneddon, 2006; FSBI, 2002; Chandroo et al., 2004a,b). Many have suggested that there is anatomical, physiological and behavioural evidence that makes it conceivable that nociception in fish is consciously experienced and that they have some capacity to experience pain and fear. Empirical evidence from studies designed to examine pain and fear in fish has also produced significant evidence for the ability of fish to experience these two forms of suffering (Chandroo et al., 2004a,b; Sneddon et al., 2003a,b; Sneddon, 2003a,b, 2004; Portavella et al., 2002; and Yue et al., 2004 in Cooke & Sneddon, 2006)

Physical trauma to fish can be caused through recreational fishing. Manifested as external and internal tissue and organ damage, is caused by fishing gear and handling. The extent of injury depends on how the fish is handled during the capture event. Gross examination and histopathological sampling have been used to assess physical trauma and to infer post-release survivorship. Exhaustive anaerobic muscular activity and time out of water cause physiological stress, which has been quantified through the analyses of blood chemistry. (Skomal, 2007)

A review into mortality and survival of sharks and rays, by the Australian Bureau of Rural Sciences, stated that there can be infections that follow physical perforation of the skin or abrasion from the tag and physical damage to organs. Tagging may result in behavioural changes, affect predator avoidance or have sub-lethal effects on growth and reproductive success (McLoughlin & Eliason, 2008).

Assessing post-release mortality is difficult and should include multiple approaches that quantify the extent of physical damage and the level of physiological disruption. Research into the ecological sustainability of recreational fishing in Australia has found that the mortality of discarded fish is highly dependent on the particular species being caught and a range of other factors such as water depth, and the type and size of tackle used, with rates of mortality varying from 0 to 95% of released fish. Survival rates vary with species, body-size, depth of capture, ambient conditions (e.g. water temperature) and handling. (McLoughlin & Eliason, 2008) McGlennon and Lyle (1999) concluded that the magnitude of angling discards in Australia could generate significant absolute mortality from even quite small mortality rates. Discards and associated mortality rates are not generally considered in the management of recreational fisheries and this contrasts with the management of commercial fisheries, where such factors are increasingly considered critical in assessing the ecological impacts of a particular commercial fishery. (McPhee et al., 2002)

Research by Skomal (2007) explains that, “Of the limited number of studies of physical injury associated with fishing in large pelagic fishes, most have focused on recreational fisheries and have largely examined hook damage relative to hook type and fishing technique. Skomal, Chase & Prince (2002 in Skomal, 2007) found a significant association between hook type and hooking location in recreational fisheries using natural bait for juvenile bluefin tuna. Prince, Ortiz & Venizelos (2002) conducted similar research on sailfish and blue marlin, Makaira nigricans Lacepe`de, and quantified hooking location, hook performance and the extent of bleeding relative to hook type. Comprehensive histopathology has also yielded valuable information about the chronic effects of hook damage. Postmortem pathology indicated that hook retention in blue shark stomachs caused chronic systemic disease (Borucinska, Martin & Skomal 2001; Borucinska, Kohler, Natanson & Skomal 2002). Physical trauma caused by capture can have acute and chronic effects that are difficult to evaluate with regard to post-release survival. In the absence of tagging (see below), studies that simply characterise the extent of physical trauma yield little data about post-release mortality. Nonetheless, physical and histopathological examination of fishes after capture allows researchers to make inferences about potential post-release mortality. For example, extensive internal damage and bleeding are assumed to cause acute post-release mortality. Skomal et al. (2002) estimated that release mortality would have occurred in 4% of the bluefin tuna caught on circle hooks and 28% caught on J hooks based on the frequency and extent of observed hook damage.”

Furthermore, the same research states that physiological stress is stimulated from most fishing techniques (Skomal, 2007), “Fish react to the acute stress of capture, exhaustive exercise and handling with more exaggerated disruptions to their physiology and biochemistry than higher vertebrates (reviewed by Pickering 1981; Adams 1990; Wood 1991; Milligan 1996; Kieffer 2000). The myotomal muscle mass of nearly all species of fish is dominated by anaerobic white muscle (80–95%), which allows high work output in short bursts (Driedzic & Hochachka 1978). Most fishing techniques cause high anaerobic activity, muscular fatigue and time out of water, resulting in physiological disruptions of the internal milieu of fish (Wells, Tetens & Devries 1984).” The nominee argues that as competition game fishing generally involves a long chase before capture of the shark or fish, that this would recreate the physiological stress outlined above, thus threatening the longevity of the fish involved.

Skomal (2007) states that:‘The vast majority of studies of capture stress physiology and recovery in fishes have been conducted on salmonids (e.g. Kieffer, Currie & Tufts 1994); few have described these processes in tunas, sharks and marlins. This is largely due to the difficulty of maintaining these species in captivity and applying standard clinical procedures to large, active fish, as well as to the inability to obtain unstressed animals. The few studies specifically designed to examine the physiological effects of capture stress in sharks, tunas and marlins have quantified changes in blood chemistry.’

‘As the body mass of fish comprises more than 30% white muscle and only 3-6% blood, changes in muscle biochemistry are strongly reflected in the blood (Wells, McIntyre, Morgan & Davie 1986). Therefore, changes in blood chemistry measured relative to degree of physical exhaustion can provide quantitative information about the magnitude of the stress (Wedemeyer & Yasutake 1977; Wells et al. 1984). Early work by Barrett & Connor (1962, 1964) found interspecific differences in blood lactate and glycogen levels in yellowfin and skipjack tunas held in captivity for varying lengths of time. Wells et al. (1986) sampled the post-mortem blood chemistry of a limited number of tunas, marlins and sharks after tournament capture and concluded that elevated levels of plasma electrolytes, osmolality, blood metabolites (glucose, lactate), plasma enzymes and haematocrit were useful indicators of capture stress. Similarly, Hoffmayer & Parsons (2001) found significant changes in blood glucose, lactate, haematocrit and plasma osmolality in the Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae (Richardson), after rod-and-reel capture. Manire, Heuter, Hull & Spieler (2001) quantified serological changes associated with gillnet capture in bonnethead sharks, Sphyrna tiburo (Linnaeus), blacktip sharks, Carcharhinus limbatus (Valenciennes), and bull sharks, Carcharhinus leucas (Valenciennes). They concluded that species-specific differences in gillnet mortality were likely associated with the animal’s respiratory physiology and the degree of struggling. Skomal & Chase (2002) and Skomal (2006) quantified changes in blood acid–base status, metabolites, electrolytes and proteins in several species of sharks, tunas and marlin after rod-and-reel capture and found

significant interspecific differences relative to the magnitude and nature of these disturbances; disruption was greatest in the tunas (Fig. 1 – not attached). Blood gas data indicated that blood acidoses associated with exhaustive exercise were of metabolic and respiratory origin in the bluefin and yellowfin tunas, but only of metabolic origin in the blue shark (Skomal & Chase 2002). By quantifying changes in various blood constituents relative to angling time, Dobson, Wood, Daxboeck & Perry (1986) and Skomal (2006) developed regression models that directly relate physiological changes to the capture event.’

Although most studies of post-release mortality in fish have focused on survival of individuals, catch and release may have sublethal population level consequences (Cooke et al. 2002), which are more difficult to assess, particularly for highly migratory species with poorly understood life histories. As tagging technology improves and becomes more cost effective, it is anticipated that population level studies will become more feasible. With larger sample sizes and longer tag deployments, researchers may begin to investigate the extent to which catch and release reduces individual fitness and, thereby, has population impacts in sharks, tunas and marlins. (Skomal, 2007)

Game fishingHistorical records of game fish catches date back to the 1930s with the formation of the first Australian game fishing clubs and establishment of the GFAA in 1935. Prior to that, the first recorded large sharks and marlins to be taken on rod and reel were caught off eastern Australia in the early 1900s. Although there are records by some clubs back to the 1930s, most clubs have maintained good records since the early 1960s. (Rose, 2001)

There is no historical information on catches or effort directed towards shark by general recreational anglers, though the current total recreational fishing effort has been estimated at around 50 million days spent angling each year by approximately 4 million persons. (Rose, 2001)

Equipment used specifically for game fishing is strictly defined by the GFAA. It allows the use of rod, reel, line and hook from a boat, with many qualifications on this gear. These regulations on fishing methods have been formulated to establish uniform regulations for the compilation of Australian Game Fish Records and to provide basic angling guidelines for use in fishing tournaments and any other group angling activities. (Rose, 2001)

The development in the late 19th century of rods and reels capable of landing large fish led to inevitable legendary battles and captures of huge sharks in seemingly dangerous and heroic circumstances. Since records have been kept, the largest fish caught on rod and reel have always been sharks, with the existing world record for any species of fish being a white shark of 1,208 kg (2 664 lb) caught off South Australia in 1959. (Pepperell, 2005)

In competition game fishing, the Game Fishing Association of Australia (GFAA, 2009) recognises nine species/families of shark eligible for catch:

• hammerhead (Sphyrna spp.)• mako (Isurus spp.)• porbeagle (Lamna nasus)• school (tope) (Galeorhinus galeus) – listed under EPBC Act as Conservation Dependent• thresher (Alopias spp.)• tiger (Galeocerdo cuvier)• whaler (Carcharinus spp.)• blue (Prionace glauca)• gummy (Mustelus antarcticus)

State and Territory recreational shark catchState and Territory information of recreational fishing provided by Rose (2001) include the following information on recreational fishing, note that for these purposes it is not always possible to separate out game fishing from other recreational fishing directed to sharks, but in the majority of cases catch is from game fishing.

• Northern TerritorySurveys conducted during 1994-96 showed that sharks were 4% of total recreational catch. A total of 80,050 sharks were caught during the survey and 14,619 (18%) retained. (Coleman 1998, in Rose, 2001)

The number of reported sharks caught by fishing tour operators in the Northern Territory has fluctuated between 2,306 and 3,297 annually over 1995 – 1999 (Rose, 2001).

• Western AustraliaA 12 month survey of the south-west coast of Western Australia from Kalbarri to Augusta in 1996/97 revealed a total of

7,219 sharks were estimated to be caught during the 12 months, with 48% of these released. 5 groups of sharks were estimated to be taken in quantities greater than 300 individuals – Port Jackson, Wobbegongs, Bronze whaler, Hammerhead and ‘shark general’. (Rose, 2001)

• New South WalesAustralian gamefish tagging programs were first instigated by NSW Fisheries in 1973. The NSW DPI Game Fish Tagging Program is a designed for recreational fishers to practice tag and release fishing methods to obtain information on the biology (distribution, movement, growth and exploitation) of billfish, tunas, sharks and sportfish and encourages game fishers to participate in the management of the fishery (NSW DPI, 2011).

The program is one of the largest of its kind in the world (NSW DPI, 2010). As of June 2010, a total of 373,517 fish have been ‘tagged and released’ since the beginning of the program (see Figure 1). Of this total, only approximately 1.8% (6,790) have been recaptured.

Figure 1 – Total number of fish tagged and recaptured 1974-2010 from NSW Game Fish Tagging Program (NSW DPI, 2010)

The following recapture rates from NSW Game Fish Tagging reports (1974-2010) show the following results for shark, marlin and tuna species that remain targeted in recreational/game fishing:

Species No. Tagged No. recaptured Percentage recapture

Hammerhead shark 5,067 55 1.09Whaler shark 5,747 100 1.74Blue shark 4,136 74 1.79Mako shark 6,404 152 2.37Black Marlin 50,289 393 0.78Striped Marlin 19,591 180 0.92Blue Marlin 5,790 17 0.29Southern Bluefin tuna 10,681 112 1.05Yellowfin tuna 36,313 683 1.88Mackerel tuna 19,413 61 0.31Skipjack tuna 19,308 67 0.35Longtail tuna 4,575 57 1.25

Table 1: Recapture rates from NSW Game Fish Tagging reports 1974-2010 (NSW DPI, 2010)

Within the past few years this low recapture rate has continued to be a trend, with the NSW DPI (2010) reporting the following recaptures of tagged shark species by the NSW Game Fishing Tagging program in 2009/2010.

Species No. Tagged No. Recaptured % RecapturedSouthern Bluefin Tuna 3329 3 0.09Whaler Sharks 356 1 0.28Mako Shark 240 9 3.8Blue Shark 89 2 2.2Hammerhead sharks 68 1 1.5School shark 17 1 5.9Thresher shark 1 0 0Tiger shark 52 3 5.8Gummy shark 44 2 4.5Blacktip shark 31 1 3.2Whitetip shark 4 0 0Black marlin 1,933 24 1.24Albacore tuna 492 0 0Striped marlin 1,187 6 0.51Mackerel tuna 376 1 0.27

Table 2: Extract of numbers of fish tagged and recaptured by the NSW DPI Game Fish Tagging Program in 2009/2010: (for full data see Table 2, NSW DPI, 2010)

This demonstrates the incredibly low recapture percentage rate. The nominee suggests that this low percentage is likely due to a large number of tagged individuals dying as a result of the stress of the capture event, which questions the outcomes and effectiveness of the program.

Further, the following data from the previous year’s (2008/2009) report: (NSW DPI, 2009)

Species No. Tagged No. recaptured % RecapturedWhaler shark 222 2 0.9Mako shark 164 2 1.22Blue shark 97 1 1.03Hammerhead sharks 56 0 0Tiger shark 30 1 3.33Gummy shark 23 0 0Blacktip shark 7 0 0School shark 3 0 0Whitetip shark 1 0 0Thresher shark 1 0 0Southern Bluefin tuna 1,925 8 0.42Black marlin 1,796 15 0.84Albacore tuna 1,711 2 0.12Striped marlin 941 6 0.64Mackerel tuna 570 0 0

Table 3: Extract of recaptures of tagged shark, tuna and marlin species as reported by the NSW Game Fishing Tagging

program in 2008/2009 (for full data see Table 2, NSW DPI, 2009)

All results therefore show low recapture rates in NSW, which questions the outcomes and effectiveness of the gamefish tagging program.

• TasmaniaIn Tasmania recreational gillnet fishing is legal, and 1990 studies estimated that in one year 135,941 conservation dependent school sharks and 35,778 gummy sharks could have potentially been taken by recreational gillnetters from two large shark nursery areas (Williams and Schaap 1992 in Rose, 2001).

Pepperell (2005) states that “while offshore game fishing...is probably the most visible and widely publicized form of shark fishing, recreational fishers also catch sharks and rays in many other coastal situations. In some cases, sharks (and occasionally, rays) may be the targets of recreational fishing, but in many other cases, the hooking and capture of sharks and rays is incidental to normal fishing activity.”

QueenslandData from Queensland is demonstrated through a case study on recreational fishing on the Great Barrier Reef as follows.

Commercial fishing has traditionally been seen as a larger threat than recreational fishing to elasmobranch populations in the Great Barrier Reef; however, with approximately 180,000 active recreational fishers residing adjacent to the Park and an additional 570 000 fishers state-wide there is also potential for recreational fishing to have a significant impact (Lynch et al., 2010). Preliminary studies on recreational fishing of sharks in the Great Barrier Reef and have shown to suggest that post release mortality has great potential to affect shark populations of the GBRMP considering the amount of sharks released (DeFaria et al., 2010).

Data collected by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries indicates that approximately 420 000 sharks and rays were caught by recreational fishers state-wide in 2004, with a release rate of approximately 90%. Similarly high release rates of elasmobranchs have been observed in other recreational fisheries throughout Australia suggesting that post-release mortality is potentially a significant component of the total recreational fishing mortality for elasmobranchs in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and elsewhere. (Lynch et al., 2010)

Research into the implications of recreational fishing for shark conservation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park states that, compared with other species, the recreational harvest of sharks is low but needs to be assessed against the productivity of harvested populations and within the context of total fishing mortality on populations. It further explains that with high release rates for recreational shark fishing, the potential for significant post-release impacts (mortality, reduced fitness and reproductive output) is high. (Lynch et al., 2010)

Great Barrier Marine Park authorities have stated that sharks are more vulnerable to fishing pressure than any other species in the GBR (Lynch et al., 2010). Consequently, mortality associated with recreational fishing may have a larger impact on elasmobranch populations than suggested by simplistic examination of recreational catch and harvest (Lynch et al., 2010).

Criterion A: non-EPBC act listed species/ecological communities

6. SPECIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING AND JUSTIFICATION Provide details and justification of non-EPBC Act listed species that, due to the impact of the key threatening process, could become eligible for listing in any category, other than conservation dependent. For each species please include:

a. the scientific name, common name (if appropriate), category it could become eligible for listing in; b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing;c. specific information on how the threatening process threatens this species; andd. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the species in relation to the criteria

for listing.

Mako sharksShortfin Mako shark, Isurus oxyrinchusProtection under legislation:

- EPBC Act: migratory, currently under assessment for listing as threatened species - Convention on Migratory Species: Appendix II (December 2008)

- UNCLOS: Annex I (Highly Migratory Species)- CITES Animals Committee: Species may require consideration for inclusion in the CITES Appendices if their

management and conservation status does not improve- IUCN Red List: vulnerable (2007)

Shortfin makos can be found along the entire coast of NSW (NSW DPI 2007), and inhabit all Australian waters, except for the Arafura Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria and Torres Strait (Compagno 2001). Although a pelagic species, shortfin mako sharks also occur in near-shore habitats, particularly where the continental shelf is narrow (Compagno 2001). As such, mako sharks are regularly caught in the NSW and Queensland shark control nets that deployed along coastal beaches and are therefore periodically in near-shore coastal environments. This species is a highly prized recreational gamefish (Dulvy et al. 2008). Mortality from fishing is the main threat facing mako sharks, with bycatch in longline fisheries being the major component of the mortality for this species (COSEWIC 2006).

Fisheries data have revealed declines in populations of shortfin mako around the world. It has been estimated that the North and South Atlantic populations have declined by 50 – 70% due to the impacts of commercial longline fleets (ICATT 2005; Reardon et al. 2006). In the northwest Atlantic, declines of 40% between 1986 and 2000 (Baum et al. 2003) and 38% between 1992 and 2005 have been evidenced (XXXX XXXX in prep). Meanwhile, a decline of 96% in mako sharks has been identified in the western and central Mediterranean (Ferreti et al. 2008).

The main threat for shortfin makos is mortality from both directed fishing for their high value meat and fins, and bycatch in longline fisheries directed at pelagic species such as tuna and swordfish (Casey & Kohler 1992).

Because the shortfin mako has low population increase rates (slow growth rate, late maturing, and low fecundity) it is particularly vulnerable to the significant fishing pressure that it is subject to (Dulvy et al. 2008), particularly intensive and largely unregulated fisheries acting within their global range. Furthermore, fisheries may target any age class of sharks present in their areas of operation.

Shortfin mako are utilised nationally and internationally for their fins as well as meat, with fins entering the international market in large quantities. It has been estimated that the fins of between 500,000 and 1,000,000 individual mako sharks (biomass 25,000 to 40,000 tonnes) enter the shark fin trade worldwide each year (Clarke et al. 2006a). This is much higher than reported catches. Genetic analysis of fins in trade has also revealed that the fins of shortfin mako sharks comprise around 2.7% of the total fin trade (Clarke et al. 2006b). Moreover, these estimates are likely to be underestimates resulting from poor identification and inconsistent classification in international markets.

Longfin Mako shark, Isurus paucusProtection under legislation:

- EPBC Act: migratory - Convention on Migratory Species: Appendix II (December 2008)- UNCLOS: Annex I (Highly Migratory Species)- IUCN Red List: vulnerable (2007)

Longfin makos can be found along the coast of northern Australian and south to Geraldton in Western Australia and Port Stephens in New South Wales (Last & Stevens 2009). Although a pelagic species, it is believed that female longfin makos approach shallower habitats near land to pup (Compagno 2001).

Longfin mako sharks are highly migratory, and it is thought they migrate across high seas areas and between national jurisdictions. Therefore, the migratory nature of this species makes them extremely vulnerable to global threats such as bycatch in commercial fisheries.

Studies in the Atlantic Ocean on longfin mako shark demonstrated that this shark has a very low productivity and is likely to interact with fisheries, making this shark one of the most vulnerable species to overfishing. Even though the impact of overexploitation on this species is poorly known, fishing fleets had reported a decline on their incidental catches. Studies in the North Atlantic on Japanese and US longline had experienced up to 50% declines in their catch rates (COSEWIC 2006).

As for many others elasmobranchs, longfin mako sharks have life-history characteristics that threaten their capacity to recover from high fishing mortality, such as low population increase rates (Campana et al. 2005; Dulvy et al. 2008), and a reproductive strategy of late age at maturity, slow growth and few and well formed offspring (Wood et al. 2007).

Mako sharks are characterised by being relatively long lived, having a late maturity (particularly in females) and with a

low fecundity; indicating a naturally stable population with a low natural mortality (Bishop, Francis et al. 2006 in Park, 2007). Mako sharks are highly vulnerable to overexploitation due to their low productivity (i.e. a low biological ability to sustain fishing or to recover from overfishing) and a high level of susceptibility (the level at which a species is likely to be affected by fishing) because of their overlapping distribution with pelagic fisheries targeting tuna and swordfish (Simpfendorfer et al. 2008).

In January 2010, the longfin and shortfin mako shark (and the porbeagle shark) were listed as migratory species under the EPBC Act as a result of the legal requirement following the inclusion of the species in Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species (an international agreement to which Australia is a signatory). (DEWHA, 2011) The shortfin mako is also currently under assessment by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee for listing as a threatened species under the EPBC Act, with a decision due by the Federal Environment Minister in early 2012.

In July 2010, an amendment was made to EPBC Act that allows recreational fishing of longfin mako, shortfin mako (and porbeagle) in Commonwealth areas, despite the offence provisions in Part 13, Division 2 of the EPBC Act, which prohibit killing, injuring, taking, trading, keeping or moving listed migratory species in Commonwealth areas, and trading, keeping or moving a listed migratory species that has been taken in a Commonwealth area (sections 211, 211A, 211B, 211C, 211D and 211E). (DEWHA, 2011)

As explained, (DEWHA, 2011):The Amendment to the EPBC Act provides an exception to the offence provisions of Part 13 of the EPBC Act for recreational fishing for mako and porbeagle sharks…a fishing activity within the ordinary meaning of ‘recreational fishing’ will be covered by the exception (for example, fishing of makos or porbeagle sharks by an individual person from their private boat for personal use). The EPBC Act also includes a definition of ‘recreational fishing’ for the purposes of the exception to clarify that ‘recreational fishing’ also includes (but is not limited to) the following types of fishing:

• fishing from a charter boat (within the meaning of the Fisheries Management Act 1991), including fishing by the person in charge of the boat, the crew of the boat or any other person on the boat; • fishing in a fishing competition (whether or not in a professional capacity); and • fishing that is undertaken primarily for inclusion on a website, or in a film, video, television program or radio program, or for description or representation in a magazine, newspaper, book or other such document.

Furthermore:Section 214 establishes a requirement for a person to notify the Secretary within seven days of an action, which involved killing, injuring, taking, trading, keeping or moving a listed migratory species, that does not constitute an offence under Part 13, Division 2 of the EPBC Act because an exception under section 212 of the EPBC Act applies to the action . (DEWHA, 2011)

However, this notification requirement will not apply in relation to recreational fishing for mako and porbeagle sharks (DEWHA, 2011).

DataIn NSW, the 2010/ 2011 game fishing season ending on June 30 2011, resulted in 247 mako sharks tagged during the season (NSW DPI, 2011). The NSW Game Fish Tagging Report, 2009/2010, reported 6,404 mako sharks tagged within NSW for the period 1974-2010 (see Figure 1), with 152 recaptured and a recapture rate of 2.37% (NSW DPI, 2010). See also Tables 1 – 3 for mako shark tag and recapture rates.

A 2007 NSW Gamefish Tournament Monitoring Report to the NSW Recreational Fishing Trust reported that mako sharks were the most numerous shark species (37.3%) caught during the monitoring period and the sixth-most numerous fish species (5.2%) (Park, 2007). Estimates for growth rates and longevity were assessed against tournament-reported data and Park showed that about 50% of males and 99.8% of females would have been juveniles; the population of breeding females is very small and their reproductive cycle has been estimated as three years and gestation 15 to 18 months long; and therefore, these factors have serious implication for the ability of the stock to recover if it were to become overfished (Park, 2007). The low recapture rates, and likely high mortality rate following tag and release programs exacerbates the impacts on mako sharks.

Porbeagle shark, Lamna nasus - EPBC Act: migratory- Convention on Migratory Species: Appendix II- IUCN redlist: globally vulnerable (2006)

Lamna nasus has not been listed under the Australian EPBC Act as a threatened species, nor any specific State/Territory

Government legislation.

Its current extent of occurrence within Australian waters is potentially identical to its range of distribution, which has been described as occurring off southern Australia from southern Queensland to southern Western Australia, mainly on the continental shelf but also oceanic, occurring from the surface down to 370 m (Last & Stephens, 2009).State fisheries management plans and anti-finning legislation applying more broadly to large sharks as a group might in practice affect the conservation status of porbeagle sharks. Nonetheless directed commercial and recreational fishing and/or unintended bycatch continues legally in some form in every state.

The IUCN Red List status assessment for porbeagle is Vulnerable globally (Stevens et al., 2011).

In January 2010 the porbeagle shark was listed as migratory species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) as a result of the legal requirement following the inclusion of the species in Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species (an international agreement to which Australia is a signatory). (DEWHA, 2011)

Similarly for short and long fin makos, in July 2010, an amendment was made to EPBC Act that allows recreational fishing of longfin mako, shortfin mako and porbeagle sharks in Commonwealth areas, despite the offence provisions in Part 13, Division 2 of the EPBC Act, which prohibit killing, injuring, taking, trading, keeping or moving listed migratory species in Commonwealth areas, and trading, keeping or moving a listed migratory species that has been taken in a Commonwealth area (sections 211, 211A, 211B, 211C, 211D and 211E). This provided an exception to the offence provisions for recreational fishing of porbeagle sharks. (DEWHA, 2011)

Despite a lack of information on the status of the Southern Ocean population of Lamna nasus, it is caught by fisheries, and its meat and fins, for which there is huge demand, enter international trade (Fowler et al., 2004).

As previously stated, due to ambiguity surrounding possible transoceanic migratory movements, the lack of definitive knowledge concerning specific locations of subpopulations and the degree of natural interaction among them, the extent to which any populations are exclusively “Australian” in jurisdiction is unknown. Thus the effect the major worldwide threats of overfishing from directed fisheries or as bycatch from intensive international fisheries has specifically on Australian populations of Lamna nasus is unable to be quantified at this time. It is however likely that the same threats facing Lamna nasus globally threaten the species in Australian waters.

The most severe global threat to Lamna nasus is overfishing by directed fisheries, and although there are no directed porbeagle fisheries operating within the Australian EEZ, it is possible that the directed porbeagle fishery in New Zealand affects the species’ occurrence in Australian waters due to its relative proximity. New Zealand catch data for the Pacific southwest, primarily bycatch in tuna longlines, but also trawl and bottom longline catches, sometimes exceed FAO’s total Southern Ocean catch records (FAO FishSTAT, 2008).

In the Southern Hemisphere, most of the porbeagle catch comes as bycatch in tuna longline fisheries, where landings are small but may be underreported (Francis et al., 2001, 2008). Porbeagle is also a target for anglers in countries such as Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States (Babcock, 2008).

Porbeagle is a shark species more vulnerable than most to over-exploitation by fisheries because of their late maturity, longevity, low reproductive capacity, and a very low intrinsic rate of population increase (5-7% per annum) (Fowler et al., 2004).

DataThere is not sufficient data available to enable reliable estimates on past declines in the extent of occurrence of the porbeagle within Australian waters, primarily due to the lack of data establishing baseline abundances of naturally occurring populations of the species (and other large sharks) in Australia’s waters prior to the onset of industrialized commercial fishing (Baum and Myers 2004; Castro et al 1999; Walker 2007). No stock assessments exist for this species in Australian fisheries and the exploitation status is generally ‘undefined’.

The NSW Game Fish Tagging Report, 2009/2010, reported 240 porbeagle sharks tagged within NSW for the season, with 9 recaptured and a recapture rate of 3.8% (NSW DPI, 2010). The 2008/2009 report noted the number of porbeagle sharks tagged as 164, with 2 recaptured and a recapture rate of 1.2% (NSW DPI, 2009).

Blue shark , Prionace glauca The Blue Shark is highly migratory and one of the most wide-ranging of all sharks (Stevens, 2009).

Blue Sharks are rarely target commercial species but are a major bycatch of longline and driftnet fisheries, particularly

from nations with high-seas fleets. Much of this bycatch is often unrecorded. Blue sharks are also taken by sport fishermen, particularly in the United States, Europe and Australia. (Stevens, 2009)

In NSW, the 2010/2011 game fishing season ending on June 30 2011, resulted in 88 blue sharks tagged during the season (NSW DPI, 2011). The NSW Game Fish Tagging Report, 2009/2010, reported 89 blue sharks tagged within NSW for the season, with 2 recaptured and a recapture rate of 2.2% (NSW DPI, 2010). The 2008/2009 report noted the number of porbeagle sharks tagged as 97, with 1 recaptured and a recapture rate of 1% (NSW DPI, 2009).

The 2007 NSW Gamefish Tournament Monitoring final report, to the NSW Recreational Fishing Trust, found that the catch rates of blue sharks declined at monitored tournaments, but can partially be due to very high catch rates in 1995/1996 (Park, 2007).

Gamefish club records since the 1930s indicate 1995/96 as the season with the second highest annual catch of blue sharks and 1996/97 was the season with the highest catch. Catches then declined to the end of the series in 1998/99 (Chan 2001 in Park, 2007).

Black marlin, Istiompax indica The black marlin is one of the largest bony fishes in the world with females capable of reaching a mass of over 700 kg. A highly migratory species, it is found in the tropical regions of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Little is known of this species, which is listed by IUCN as data deficient (IUCN, 2011) although recently a spawning aggregation has been identified in the Great Barrier Reef. This critical habitat is an area frequented by recreational game fishers, who know the area for its black marlin aggregations. (Domeier and Speare, 2012)

Domeier and Speare (2012) note that the predictability of the black marlin’s aggregating behaviour to spawn makes the species particularly vulnerable to exploitation and ‘creates a situation where directed fisheries can rapidly deplete a stock to the point of extirpation’.

In their paper, Domeier and Speare (2012) state that:‘This spawning aggregation forms adjacent to the GBR during the months of October and November. Recreational fishing catch rates for black marlin are highest from Cairns north to the Ribbon Reefs, suggesting that this is the focus of spawning activity.’ And:‘Analysis of recreational data from the annual Lizard Island Game Fish Club’s tournament between 1991 and 1999 identified a peak in strike rates when the water was approaching 26 degrees Celsius.’

This demonstrates that recreational game fishers are actively targeting some species such as black marlin when they are congregating in specific areas and at their most vulnerable – when they are spawning.

NSW Game fish Tagging program reports show that between 1974 – 2010 50,289 black marlins were tagged, with only 393 recaptured, a recapture rate of only 0.78% (NSW DPI, 2010). In 2008-9 1,796 black marlin were tagged in NSW, and 15 recaptured, a rate of 0.84%. In 2009-10 alone a further 1,933 black marlins were caught and tagged in NSW, 24 of which were recaptured, a recapture rate of 1.24% (NSW DPI, 2010).

Given that the majority of these captures are likely to be taking place in known spawning areas, it is likely that this is significantly impacting on the black marlin population, of which we know little.

It is likely that the following species would also be impacted by recreational game fishing: Hammerhead sharks – The Great hammerhead shark and Scalloped hammerhead shark will shortly be listed

under the NSW Fisheries Management Act. Further work needs to be undertaken to ascertain the impact of recreational game fishing on these species. Between 1974 and 2010 5,067 hammerhead sharks were caught and tagged, only 55 of which were recaptured, a rate of 1.09% (NSW DPI, 2010).

Bronze whaler – between 1974 and 2010 5,747 whaler sharks were caught and tagged, only 100 of which were recaptured, a rate of 1.74% (NSW DPI, 2010).

Wobbegong shark – the Spotted Wobbegong shark is currently under assessment as whether it qualifies as a threatened species under the EPBC Act. Impacts are likely to be less than larger sharks but still significant.

Port Jackson Shark - Impacts are likely to be less than larger sharks but still significant. Marlin – all other species (except Black Marlin). There is little publicly available published data for these species,

but it is suggested that all species will be impacted by recreational game fishing in the same way as black marlin, with fishers targeting species’ critical habitat areas where known.

Tuna – other species (except Southern Bluefin tuna). It is also suggested that all tuna species will be impacted by recreational game fishing in the same way as SBT, with fishers targeting species’ critical habitat areas where known.

7. ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING AND JUSTIFICATION Provide details and justification of non-EPBC Act listed ecological communities that, due to the impact of the key threatening process, could become eligible for listing in any category. For each ecological community please include:

a. the complete title (published or otherwise generally accepted), category it could become eligible for listing in;b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing;c. specific information on how the threatening process threatens this ecological community; andd. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the ecological community in relation

to the criteria for listing.The removal of apex predators (sharks) from ecological communities by recreational game fishing is likely to be impacting upon ecological communities, however, none are proposed for specific inclusion in this nomination.

Criterion B: Listing in a higher category of endangerment

8. SPECIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN A HIGHER CATEGORY OF ENDANGERMENT AND JUSTIFICATION

Provide details and justification of EPBC Act listed threatened species that, due to the impacts of the threatening process, could become eligible for listing in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment. For each species please include:

a. the scientific name, common name (if appropriate), category that the item is currently listed in and the category it could become eligible for listing in;

b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing (at least one criterion for the current listed category has been previously met);

c. specific information on how the threatening process significantly threatens this species; andd. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the species in relation to the criteria

for listing. This does not have to be the same criterion under which the species was previously listed.The Southern Bluefin Tuna is the only species currently listed under the EPBC Act which is still the target of game fishers, whose status risks worsening if recreational fishing threats are not addressed. For further information see section 14.     

9. ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN A HIGHER CATEGORY OF ENDANGERMENT AND JUSTIFICATION

Provide details and justification of EPBC Act listed threatened ecological communities that, due to the impacts of the threatening process, could become eligible for listing in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment. For each ecological community please include:

a. the complete title (published or otherwise generally accepted), category that the item is currently listed in and the category it could become eligible for listing in;

b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing (at least one criterion for the current listed category has been previously met);

c. specific information on how the threatening process significantly threatens this ecological community; andd. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the ecological community in relation

to the criteria for listing. This does not have to be the same criterion under which the ecological community was previously listed.

None known

Criterion C: Adversely affected listed species or ecological communities

10. SPECIES ADVERSELY IMPACTED AND JUSTIFICATION Provide a summary of species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, that are considered to be adversely affected by the threatening process. For each species please include:

a. the scientific name, common name (if appropriate) and category of listing under the EPBC Act; andb. justification for each species that is claimed to be affected adversely by the threatening process.

Southern Bluefin Tuna, Thunnus maccoyi The Southern Bluefin tuna (SBT) was listed under the federal EPBC Act as conservation dependent in 2010. The listing does not restrict or prevent recreational and game fishing of southern bluefin tuna, and the species continues to be subject to existing state fisheries management arrangements (DSEWPC, 2011c)

The Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) reported in their advice to the Minister for EPBC Act listing amendment that SBT appears to have undergone a very severe reduction in numbers as a result of heavy fishing pressure throughout its range. SBT is formed of one single global stock, so the reduction in numbers is apparent in the proportion of the SBT stock that migrates through Australian waters. Further, the TSSC commented that that there has been a decline of over 90% in SBT between the late 1950s and the mid 1990s and that the stock remains at very low levels. The Committee considers that this decline is very severe. Therefore, the Committee considers that the species has been demonstrated to have met sufficient elements of Criterion 1 to make it eligible for listing as critically endangered. (TSSC, 2010)

In the IUCN listing, it is stated that the SBT is listed as critically endangered with a decreasing population trend. Its generation length is conservatively estimated to be 12 years. Estimated spawning stock biomass has declined approximately 85% over the past 36 years (1973–2009) and there is no sign that the spawning stock is rebuilding. It is therefore listed as Critically Endangered. If the current exploitation continues, it is estimated that the population will be below 500 mature individuals in 100 years. According the most recent stock assessment, there is no current sign that the spawning stock of this species is rebuilding. (CCSBT 2009; CCSBT 2010 in Collette et al, 2011)

This species has been intensively fished since the 1950s, primarily being taken on longlines, and the dramatic decline in the total population of Southern Bluefin Tuna to 7–15% of the 1960 parental biomass is well documented (FSC 2009 in Collette et al. 2011). Canning was the most important form of local utilization of this highly esteemed fish until the early 1980s. If the current exploitation continues, it is estimated that the population will be below 500 mature individuals in 100 years. According the most recent stock assessment, there is no current sign that the spawning stock of this species is rebuilding (CCSBT 2009; CCSBT 2010 in Collette et al. 2011)

This is a highly migratory species, listed in Annex I of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. Current worldwide catch quota has been reduced to 9,448 tonnes per year (CCSBT 2009). However, the current fishing capacity is much higher than the quota. There are several management measures in place including catch control, vessel monitoring, etc. However, more restrictions may be needed. (Collette et al. 2011)

Impacts of recreational fishingThe SBT is among the slowest growing of all tunas, which is a major contributing factor to its having been overfished in the past. (NSW DPI, 2010)

The SBT listing under the EPBC Act does not restrict or prevent recreational game fishing of SBT, and the species continues to be subject to existing state fisheries management arrangements (DSEWPC, 2011c).

In Australia there is no formal allocation of SBT quota to the recreational fishery, although angler catches are restricted by State fisheries regulations. The total catch in the Australian recreational SBT fishery is currently unknown. (DPI Vic, 2011)

Recreational fishing records for the Australia-wide Gamefish Tagging Program over the 7 years 1995 to 2002 inclusive show an average of 12,890 fish are tagged, of which 181 per year are SBT. (Dixon, nd)

Recreational fishing records from the NSW Game Fish Tagging Program show that 3,329 SBT were tagged in 2009/2010 with 3 recaptured, the highest number of species tagged for the season. Two of these were relatively long distance recoveries, confirming some movement patterns shown previously for the species. (NSW DPI, 2010).

This makes SBT the species with by far the highest tagged numbers, with 3,329 releases. The 2009/2010 season is the second year in succession that SBT have topped the tagging list (the only two years when this has happened), and sets a new record for the number of this species tagged in any year. In fact, the number of SBT tagged in this single year represents 31.1% of the total tagged since the program began in 1973. Such has been the recent increase in taggings of SBT that the total number tagged over the past four years (7,649) constitutes 71.6% of the total tagged for the entire 37 years of the program. (NSW DPI, 2010). Recreational game fishing can therefore be said to pose a threat to this critically endangered species.

The Victorian Recreational Fishing Licence Grant program has funded a project that will provide the first scientific estimate of the size of the recreational fishery for SBT in south western Victoria. All this information will be analysed and in 2012 fisheries scientists are expected to be able to report the size of the Victorian recreational catch of SBT. (DPI Vic, 2011)

Great White shark, Carcharodon carcharias - EPBC Act: vulnerable, migratory- Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES): Appendix II

- Convention on Migratory Species (CMS): Appendix I & II

The white shark is widely distributed throughout temperate and sub-tropical regions in the northern and southern hemispheres. It is most frequently found off southern Australia, South Africa, northern California and the north-eastern United States. In Australian waters the white shark's range extends primarily from southern Queensland, around the southern coastline and to the North West Cape in Western Australia. (DSEWPC, 2011b)

Despite a general scarcity of data on the white shark's population size and population trends, there appears to be an overall, long-term decline in abundance of white sharks in Australian and international waters. Evidence for this decline in Australia comes from game fishing records and the shark control programs run in New South Wales and Queensland. For example, the NSW shark control program caught a total of 151 white sharks in the 1950's as compared to only 44 in the 1990's. Similar declines are also evident in the Queensland progam. (DSEWPC, 2011b)

The main threats faced by white sharks in Australian waters are from interactions with commercial and recreational fisheries and shark control programs (DSEWPC, 2011b).

The White Shark Recovery Plan was developed in accordance with the guidelines for the compilation of recovery plans under the EPBC Act. This Plan sets out recovery objectives and actions to achieve those objectives. (DSEWPC, 2011b)

Prior to the implementation of protective legislation, game fishing for White Sharks was carried out mainly in South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales, but also in Victoria and Western Australia. Game fishing in South Australia for White Sharks was at its height in the 1950s. Between 1980 and 1990 White Sharks were also tagged and released although the survival rate of these sharks is not known. Further research in New South Wales using game fishing data for New South Wales calculated that the ratio of White Sharks to all shark species caught had changed from 1:22 in the 1960s to 1:38 in the 1970s and 1:651 in the 1980s. In the 1990s, capture of White Shark by game fishers off the coast of New South Wales was 13:2103 or 1:162. Prior targeting and removal of the largest and oldest of the population by game fishers would have had the effect of removing the most reproductively productive members of the population. (Environment Australia, 2002b)

Estimates of annual capture, based on anecdotal reports, range from less than 10 to 100 per annum in South Australia and 100 to 440 per annum for all fisheries (recreational and commercial combined) in Australian waters. (Environment Australia, 2002b)

Game fishing of the White Shark was carried out in SA, QLD, NSW, and to a lesser degree in VIC and WA before protective legislation was brought about. Regulatory authorities must grant an exemption permit to re-instate tag-release in recreational fishing. There would have to be scientific benefits for such permits to be granted. (DEH 2002)

Game fishing groups have expressed a keen interest in accessing White Sharks for tag-release since the species was protected. Other groups have raised concerns that capture induced mortality or sub lethal stress from tag-release activities may be unacceptably high. Issues of cryptic mortality, sub lethal effect and scientific benefits also need to be addressed. (Environment Australia, 2002b)

Other recreational fishers still occasionally capture White Sharks (for example in gill nets in Tasmanian waters and while fishing for other sharks in Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales, and fishing for snapper in South Australia and Victoria). In some cases small White Sharks are mistakenly identified as other species (for example mako sharks). (Environment Australia, 2002b)

Grey Nurse Shark Carcharias taurus Protection status:

- Protected species in Commonwealth waters under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999: east coast population – ‘Critically Endangered’ (2002); west coast population – ‘Vulnerable’ (2001)

- Listed as a ‘Vulnerable’ species in New South Wales waters under the Fisheries Management Act, 1994 (since 1999)- Listed as a ‘Vulnerable’ species in Victorian waters under the Fisheries Act, 1995- Protected species in New South Wales waters under the Fisheries Management Act, 1994 (since 1984)- Protected species in Tasmanian waters under the Fisheries Regulations, 1996 (since 1998)- Protected species in Queensland waters under the Fisheries Act, 1994 (Fisheries Regulation, 1995) (since 1997)- Protected species in Western Australian waters under the Wildlife Conservation Act, 1950 (since 1999)- Globally, the species is listed as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals in March 2000. (DEWHA,

2007)

East coast population

Grey nurse shark numbers in inshore New South Wales waters declined dramatically in the 1960s and 1970s due to a combination of spearfishing, recreational and commercial fishing and beach protection shark meshing. This species has a low intrinsic capacity to recover from population decline, as reproductively active females appear to have only two offspring every other year. In recognition of the plight of the east coast of Australia population of this species, the grey nurse shark was declared a protected species by the New South Wales Government in 1984, the first protected shark in the world. Further listings and protection of the east (and west) coast of Australia populations of grey nurse sharks have followed at both State and Commonwealth levels to assist in its conservation. (DEH, 2003)

Current threats to the species are believed to be incidental catch in other shark fisheries, recreational fishing and to a much lesser extent beach meshing. (DEWHA, 2007) Both eastern and western Australian populations need to be conserved to ensure conservation of the genetic variation of the species as a whole (Pogonoski, 2002). The main current threatening processes in Australian waters would appear to be commercial and recreational fishing (including shark control programs in NSW and Qld), in which this species is taken as a bycatch (Pogonoski, 2002).

A national recovery plan is in place for the species and is supported by population size, and animal movement data gained from a tagging program conducted primarily by New South Wales Fisheries, with supporting research from Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and CSIRO staff. (DEH, 2003)

Grey Nurse Sharks are known to be poor fighters and are no longer favoured by gamefishers in comparison to other sharks. However, during the two decades from 1961 to 1980, 405 Grey Nurse Sharks were recorded as being taken by game fishing clubs on the NSW coast, from Bermagui northwards along some 460km of coastline. A decline was detected in the proportion of Grey Nurse Sharks caught by gamefishers in the 1960s and 1970s (Environment Australia 1997), and recreational gamefishers voluntarily banned Grey Nurse Shark captures in 1979. (Environment Australia, 2002)

Although no longer favoured by gamefishers, grey nurse sharks are impacted by general recreational fishers that line fish with baited hooks, particularly in known grey nurse shark aggregation areas. In July 2001, scuba divers observed that over 50% of the Grey Nurse Sharks at Fish Rock (off South West Rocks, NSW) had hooks and lines trailing from their mouths. It is believed that the hooks and line were from recreational fishing gear. Whilst the latter observations are based on individuals that survive these interactions, it is not known how many die as a result of these interactions. In a recent autopsy carried out on a Grey Nurse Shark that died in captivity, the cause of death was attributed to peritonitis arising from perforation of the stomach wall by numerous small hooks of the type used by recreational fishers. The incidental catch by recreational fishers is expected to have been high on the east coast in the past given the estimates of the low numbers now present. It has been hypothesised by the Recovery Team that recreational fishers may be responsible for higher levels of Grey Nurse Shark mortality than previously realised. The NSW Fisheries Grey Nurse Shark surveys have found that the observed numbers of juveniles is much lower than expected indicating that this problem may be continuing. It is suspected that recreational fishers often kill juvenile Grey Nurse Sharks without realising the species identity. (Environment Australia, 2002)

Unfortunately reporting to date of interactions has been poor. With the low number of animals of this species on the east coast and their slow reproductive rate, any killing, taking or injuring a Grey Nurse Shark would be likely to have a significant impact on the population. Issues include the extent of the impact that incidental catch by recreational fishers has on Grey Nurse Sharks is currently unknown and needs to be urgently addressed; and the need to exclude hook and line fishing from important aggregation areas (Environment Australia, 2002)

In a visual diver survey of grey nurse sharks along the entire NSW coastline reported by Otway and Parker (2000), between 5 and 7% of these sharks observed had wobbegong setline hooks embedded in their jaws, and this percentage is evidently still increasing over time. Given that Grey nurse sharks only produces a maximum litter of two pups every two years, the species is highly vulnerable to human-induced mortality (Pollard et al., 1996). (Pogonoski, 2002)

Robbins and Peddemors (2011) investigated the behavioural responses of grey nurse sharks to various recreational line-fishing gears. This involved examining interaction rates with bottom-set baited lines, towed lures and vertical jigs when deployed close to grey nurse shark aggregations. Research was focused at Fish Rock, South West Rocks, a NSW Critical habitat where year-round aggregations of grey nurse sharks occur. After extensive trials of various baiting and fishing techniques, results concluded that grey nurse sharks clearly interact with jigs and stationary baits fished close to the sharks. All types of bait were taken at all times of day. Even the least taken bait types resulted in frequent (10%) shark interactions, demonstrating that bottom-set baits pose a high interaction risk when deployed around grey nurse shark aggregations. (Robbins et al., 2011)

The EPBC Act listed east coast population of grey nurse sharks has recently been subject to reversed fishing bans at Fish Rock and Green Island whilst a review for protections in the area is conducted. (Tobin, 2011)

West coast population

The conservation status of WA populations is less well known, and although rarely seen by divers off the WA coastline ( XXXX XXXX pers. comm. In Pogonoski, 2002)

It appears that grey nurse sharks may be more abundant in Western Australia than originally thought, but at these catch rates population declines are inevitable considering the species' life-history characteristics. (Pogonoski, 2002)

The grey nurse shark is also a popular aquarium species that is displayed by a few large public aquaria, which has some educational value for conservation. However, numbers taken from the wild for the aquarium industry should be minimised, as it is not in the best interest of this threatened species to take any further specimens for display at this stage. Attempts should be made to breed grey nurse sharks in captivity for aquarium uses, in order to reduce the impact of removing further sharks from the wild. (Pogonoski, 2002)

The GFAA has an agreement with the Department of Environment under the Endangered Species Act for the tag and release of white shark and grey nurse shark taken incidentally while game fishing in Commonwealth waters. A similar agreement exists between the GFAA and the Fisheries agencies in the States of Queensland, New Wales, Tasmania and Western Australia. (Rose, 2001)

School Shark Galeorhinus galeus The School shark is currently listed under the EPBC Act as conservation dependent, and as vulnerable by IUCN. The decline in this species has been severe. Full data on the School shark is available on the SPRAT database. Although recreational fishing of the school shark is limited, NSW DPI data (NSW DPI, 2009, 2010) shows that the species is still targeted by the NSW Game Fishing Tagging program. In light of the severe decline in this species even small mortality levels will impact on the species. (DSEWPaC, 2012)

11. ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES ADVERSELY IMPACTED AND JUSTIFICATION Provide a summary of ecological communities listed as threatened under the EPBC Act that are considered to be adversely affected by the threatening process. For each ecological community please provide:a. the complete title (exactly as listed) and category of listing under the EPBC Act; andb. justification for each ecological community that is claimed to be affected adversely by the threatening process.None known

Threat Abatement

12. THREAT ABATEMENT Give an overview of how threats posed by this process are being abated by current (or proposed) activities. Identify who is undertaking these activities and how successful the activities have been to date.

Current policies/regulationsIn all States/Territories it is prohibited for recreational fishers to sell any part of their catch, which would include sharks, tuna and marlin. Other than this policy and a restriction on the take of some protected species of shark in Commonwealth and State waters and a shark bag limit in Western Australia (described below) there are no other policies on the take of shark. Existing shark finning bans mostly apply to commercial fishers, though in the States of New South Wales and Western Australia the ban also currently applies to recreational fishers, that is, it applies to all take of shark in those waters.

Specific equipment restrictions and minimum size limits do apply to game fishers for the take of shark and other fish. These have been formulated to promote ethical and sportsman-like angling practices and to provide basic angling guidelines for use in fishing tournaments and any other group angling activities (GFAA 2000). (Rose, 2001)

Game fishers also argue that they are properly managed due to the scientific data they provide. Given the low level of recapture rates the nominee would argue that this recapture rate is so low as to encourage more catch-and-release fishing than required to undertake scientifically robust data.

MonitoringDe Faria et al (2010) explain that collecting and aggregating catch and effort data relating to the recreational fishing sector is difficult because, in the majority of cases, recreational fishers do not have to report their activities to a management agency. Although individual fishers may have limited impact, recreational fishing can have a large effect

on shark, tuna and marlin populations due to the large number of people who participate in the fishery.

The 300 or more shark species found in Australia live in a wide range of habitats and have varied biology, behaviour, body-size and other physical attributes. The paucity of data on catches and their biology, including growth, maturity and fecundity, prevent reliable stock assessment for all but a few species. International initiatives, along with action by various levels of government and angler associations in Australia, have recognised that a precautionary approach is necessary for managing fishing activities that catch sharks. (McLoughlin & Eliason, 2008)

Several projects are in progress to improve the level of biological information on sharks and extend understanding of the interaction between commercial fisheries and sharks. However, there is a lack of information on the impacts of recreational fishing on sharks and rays and few of the current projects underway in Australia are looking at this. (McLoughlin & Eliason, 2008)

The management of recreational fisheries has generally been hindered by a lack of information. However, there is increasing information showing that the impacts from recreational fishing are considerable. What is needed in all jurisdictions is detailed time-series data of recreational catch and effort and the broader ecological impacts. (McPhee et al., 2002). This must also include within tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, many of which are currently reviewing shark management measures. It is vital that the impact of recreational fishing on sharks, tunas and marlins are taken into account in these for a too.

McPhee et al (2002) further explains that on-going monitoring itself is not the single answer to improving recreational fisheries management and ensuring the practice is ecologically sustainable, and that there must be the political will to use information obtained from monitoring programmes in a timely fashion to enact regulations that control recreational fishing and ensure long-term resource sustainability.

The 2011 discussion paper on Recreational Fishing in Australia states that:“In recent years, recreational fishers have come a long way in their understanding that, collectively, their impact on fish stocks can be significant and it is not uncommon for fishers to advocate tighter regulatory controls of their own catches. They have embraced improved knowledge of unsustainable targeting (e.g. some shark species) and fishing practices (e.g. spearing blue groper), leading to substantial changes in their attitudes and behaviour. Recreational fishers have worked closely with fisheries researchers in recent studies of the best and most humane capture, handling and release techniques for maximising the survival of released fish. These are examples of the great changes that have occurred in the collective mind-set of recreational fishers, resulting in a growing sense of personal responsibility, environmental stewardship and respect for fish.”

It is clear however, that despite this discussion paper outlining proposed approaches for better handling and release techniques, recapture rates are extremely low, and further work is required to examine the reasoning behind these low recapture levels.

During the late 2000s, Recfish Australia, FRDC, Recfishing Research and the Australian Fisheries Management Forum agreed on the need for a national recreational fisheries data plan to meet the separate and collective recreational sector and government information needs. A 2009 FRDC funded study, Development of a strategy to address national needs for recreational fishing data for fisheries management and development, recommended steps towards a national data plan that could assist delivery of strategies and actions to achieve this goal. These strategies should address issues of coordination, data standards and interpretation.(RFAC, 2011)

Recreational Fishing Industry development strategy projects include monitoring the recreational take of shark species in Australian waters ($40,000) but this has provided very little support into researching the impacts on recreational game fishing for sharks. (RFAC, 2011) For the majority of game fish species targeted, there are no stock assessments to demonstrate the state of the stock, and therefore what level of take (by recreational fisheries or other) is sustainable. The collection of data on these stocks is therefore encouraged, but there is currently a lack of precautionary approach applied with respect to the levels of catch permitted for these species, particularly for critically endangered species such as the Southern Bluefin tuna.

Catch and ReleaseStudies by Lewin et al (2006) into the impacts of recreational fishing explains catch and release management is only sufficient if the fish are released unharmed and the detrimental impacts are minimized, and that the mortality and magnitude of physiological disturbance and the time required for recovery positively correlates with the water temperature, duration of catch, fighting, handling, and air exposure. Further, that catch and release may be less successful if used during periods of extreme water temperatures, and during the reproductive period (Lewin et al., 2006)

The Gamefish Tagging Program (GTP) was established in the 1970s, mainly to give recreational fishers, and in particular game fishers, the opportunity to assist in gathering research data. New South Wales Fisheries supply fish tags to members of registered fishing clubs affiliated with the GFAA and/or the Australian National Sportfishing Association. The program operates through 177 fishing clubs throughout Australia, with the main concentration being along the East Coast (collectively 138 clubs). (Rose, 2001)

The GFAA has detailed and extensive gear restrictions and only fish caught in accordance with these rules, and within the intent of these rules will be considered for Australian records (GFAA 2000 in Rose, 2001).

The GFAA has an agreement with the Department of Environment under the Endangered Species Act for the tag and release of white shark and grey nurse shark taken incidentally while game fishing in Commonwealth waters. A similar agreement exists between the GFAA and the Fisheries agencies in the States of Queensland, New Wales, Tasmania and Western Australia. (Rose, 2001)

The New South Wales and Victorian GFAA have self-imposed bans on the take of grey nurse in those state waters (instigated by the New South Wales GFAA in 1979) that became official with their New South Wales State protection in 1984 and then Commonwealth protection in 1997. The New South Wales and Victorian GFAA also have self-imposed minimum size limits since 1983 which prohibits the take of any shark smaller than 45kg. In 1987 this minimum size limit was raised to 60kg for gear with a breaking strain up to 10kg, 80kg for gear with a breaking strain up to 37 kg and 120 kg for gear with a breaking strain of 60 kg. In all other States/Territory there are no minimum weight restrictions. (Rose, 2001)

It is reported that the following tagging and improved survival tips have been implemented (NSW DPI, 2010) Elect one crew member as the person in charge of the tagging equipment, to ensure that:

- the number of the tag in position on the tag pole matches that on the tag card- details of the tagging are promptly recorded on the card- the card is handed to the fishing club recorder or mailed to NSW DPI as soon as possible

Use non-offset circle hooks whenever possible when using live or dead baits. These hooks minimise deep hooking, foul hooking and bleeding and promote the survival of tagged fish.

Keep your tag cards in an orderly bundle. This will help to ensure that tags do not become loose and fall out of their corresponding tag card

Load your tagging pole with a tag before you hook a fish to ensure that it is attached properly and is readily available whenever you wish to tag a fish.

Check the length of your billfish tag applicator 75mm is the optimal length for most billfish —this ensures that the tag is placed at the correct depth and reduces the risk of the tag being shed by the fish.

Do not attempt to tag very active fish, especially if the fish is jumping at the side of the boat. Poor tag placement can injure fish or result in the tag being shed. The recommended tagging area is shown below. It is better to release the fish without tagging, if accurate tag placement is not possible.

13. DEVELOPMENT OF THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN Would the development of a threat abatement plan be a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate the process? What other measures could be undertaken?The nominee has submitted this nomination for recreational game fishing of sharks, marlin and tuna to be listed as a key threatening process under the EPBC Act as we believe there are currently the following problems:

- insufficient data for the majority of species to determine whether the catch of species is sustainable- little monitoring of the impact of catch and release programs on the target game fish species- increasing scientific evidence of high mortality of sharks, tuna and marlin from catch and release programs- little Australia-wide data on the total impact of recreational game fishing on these species

The Centre for Policy Development’s 2011 report on ‘Securing our Marine Economy’ states that “ The Federal Government should survey recreational fishing to establish accurate catch records. Where recreational catch is significant, overall catch levels should be set in combination with commercial fishing targets. Combined catch levels should be based on multi-species ecosystem targets, informed by up-to-date science.” (Eadie and Hoisington, 2011). The report further explains that “…we don’t have enough information on recreational catch and on how marine ecosystems function to manage multiple pressures well.” (Eadie and Hoisington, 2011).

A threat abatement plan is necessary, at a National and State scale, in order to collect and monitor further information on species populations affected by recreational fishing. This includes the need to identify critical habitat that is used to meet essential life cycle requirements such as mating, pupping and feeding and protect these sites from the impacts of both commercial and recreational fishing activities; and the need to inform recreational fishers of their obligations under

the EPBC Act. (Environment Australia, 2002). Identifying and protecting these critical habitat areas and protecting them from recreational fishing would help to ensure populations are protected when at their most vulnerable. Given the disparate nature of recreational fishing XXXX XXXX believe that a threat abatement plan to be the most effective means by which to ensure a coordinated approach to the threats posed to sharks, tuna and marlin can be dealt with and addressed.

14. ELEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN A THREAT ABATEMENT PLANIf the threatening process is recommended for listing under the EPBC Act, what elements could a threat abatement plan include?TAP needs to:

Analyse the current levels and impacts of recreational fishing for gamefish species Identify those species most at risk from recreational game fishing Promote the need for an assessment of the shark stocks being targeted to determine what level of catch can be

considered sustainable, if any Promote further research regarding survival rates post tagging

15. ADDITIONAL THREAT ABATEMENT INFORMATIONIs there other information that relates to threat abatement that you would like to provide?None

Indigenous Values

16. INDIGENOUS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCEIs the key threatening process known to have an impact on species or country culturally significant to Indigenous groups within Australia? If so, to which groups? Provide information on the nature of this significance if publicly available.    The nominee is not aware of recreational game fishing having any culturally significant value to indigenous groups, but suggests that further work be undertaken to confirm this. 

Reviewers and Further Information

17. MAJOR STUDIESIdentify major studies that might assist in the assessment of the nominated threatening process.Skomal, G.B., 2007, Evaluation the physiological and physical consequences of capture on post-release survivorship in large pelagic fishes, Fisheries Management and Ecology, issue 14, pp.81-89.

De Faria, F., Simpfendorfer, C., Sutton, S., Tobin, R., and Awruch, A.C., 2010, Recreational fishing of sharks in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: Catch and release stress [presented abstract at Sharks International Conference], Fishing and Fisheries Research Centre, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland.

18. FURTHER INFORMATIONIdentify relevant studies or management documentation that might relate to the species (e.g. research projects, national park management plans, recovery plans, conservation plans, threat abatement plans, etc.).     

19. REFERENCE LISTPlease list key references/documentation you have referred to in your nomination.

Babcock, E. A. (2008). Recreational fishing for pelagic sharks worldwide. Pp. 193-204. In: Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation (eds M. D. Camhi, E. K. Pikitch and E. A. Babcock). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.

Baum, J. K. and Myers, R. A. (2004). Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecology Letters 7: 135-145.

Bensley, N., Woodhams, J., Patterson, H.M., Rodgers, M., McLoughlin, K., Stobutzki, I. and Begg, G.A., 2010, 2009 Shark Assessment Report for the Australian National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, Bureau of Rural Sciences, available online at http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/pe_brs90000004188/NPOA_Shark2009_ap14.pdf

Baum JK, Myers RA, Kehler DG, Worm B, Harley SJ & Doherty PA (2003). Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science 299:389-392.

Campana SE, Marks L & Joyce W. (2005). “The biology and fishery of shortfin mako sharks (Isurus oxyrinchus) in Atlantic Canadian waters”. Fisheries Research 73: 341-352.

Casey JG & Kohler NE (1992). "Tagging Studies on the Shortfin Mako Shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) in the Western North Atlantic." Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 43: 45–60.

Castro, J. I., Woodley, C. M. and Brudek, R. L. (1999). A Preliminary Evaluation of the Status of Shark Species. Series title: FAO Fisheries Technical Paper – T380.

Clarke SC, Magnussen JE, Abercrombie DL, McAllister MK & Shivji MS (2006a). Identification of shark species composition and proportion in the Hong Kong shark fin market based on molecular genetics and trade records. Conservation Biology 20: 201–211.

Clarke SC, McAllister MK, Milner-Gulland EJ, Kirkwood GP, Michielsens CGJ, Agnew DJ, Pikitch EK, Nakano H & Shivji MS (2006b). Global estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets. Ecology Letters 9: 1115–1126.

Collette, B., Chang, S.-K., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Juan Jorda, M., Miyabe, N., Nelson, R., Uozumi, Y. & Wang, S. 2011. Thunnus maccoyii. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. available online at www.iucnredlist.org

Compagno LJV (2001). “Sharks of the World. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of Sharks species known to date”. Volume 2: Bullhead, mackerel and carpet sharks (Heterodontformes, Lamniformes and Orectolobiformes). FAO Species Catalogue for Fisheries. Available online at http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/eims_search/advanced_s_result.asp?J OB_NO=x9293

Cooke, S.J. and Sneddon, L.U., 2006, Animal welfare perspectives on recreational angling, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 104, pp. 176-198.

Cooke, S. J., J. F. Schreer, K. M. Dunmall, and D. P. Philipp. 2002. Strategies for quantifying sublethal effects of marine catch-and-release angling—insights from novel freshwater applications. American Fisheries Society Symposium 30:121–134.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), 2006, “Assessment and Status Report on the Shortfin Mako Isurus oxyrinchus in Canada”. Available online at http://dsppsd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/CW69-14-498-2006E.pdf

De Faria, F., Simpfendorfer, C., Sutton, S., Tobin, R., and Awruch, A.C., 2010, Recreational fishing of sharks in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: Catch and release stress [presented abstract at Sharks International Conference], Fishing and Fisheries Research Centre, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland.

Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH), 2002, White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) Recovery plan, Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), 2003, Review of Grey Nurse tagging research, available online at http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/species/sharks/greynurse/pubs/grey-nurse-tagging.pdf

Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts (DEWHA), 2007, Grey Nurse Shark, Australian Government, available online at http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/species/sharks/greynurse/index.html

Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts (DEWHA), 2011, Legislative change for recreational fishing of three shark species, Australian Government, available online at http://goo.gl/vqLZi

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC), 2011a, Sharks in Australian Waters, Australian Government, available online at http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/species/sharks/index.html

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC), 2011b, Sharks in Australian Waters: White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias), Australian Government, available online at http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/species/sharks/greatwhite/index.html

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC), 2011c, Southern Bluefin Tuna decisions: FAQs, Australian Government, viewed online at http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/bluefin-tuna-faq.html

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012).Galeorhinus galeus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. Available from:http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:45:18 +1100.

Dixon, P., n.d., Final Recommendation: Thunnus macoyii (Southern Bluefin Tuna), Ref. no. FR 26 File no. FSC 03/04, Fisheries Scientific Committee, viewed online at http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/208268/FR26-southern-bluefin-tuna.pdf

Domeier ML , Speare P (2012)Dispersal of Adult Black Marlin (Istiompax indica) from a Great Barrier Reef Spawning Aggregation. PLoS ONE 7(2):e31629.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031629 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0031629 Accessed 20 March 2012

Dulvy NK, Baum JK, Clarke S, Compagno LJV, Cortés E, Domingo A, Fordham S, Fowler S, Francis MP, Gibson C, Martínez J, Musik JA, Soldo A, Stevens JD & Valenti S (2008). "You can swim but you can’t hide: the global status and conservation of oceanic pelagic sharks and rays." Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18: 459-482.

Eadie, L. and Hoisington, C., 2011, Stocking Up: Securing our marine economy, September, Centre for Policy Development

Environment Australia, 2002a, Recovery Plan for the Grey Nurse Shark (Carcharias Taurus) in Australia, Commonwealth of Australia, available online at http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/grey-nurse-plan/pubs/greynurseshark.pdf

Environment Australia, 2002b, White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) Recovery Plan, July, Commonwealth of Australia, viewed online at http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/gwshark-plan/pubs/greatwhiteshark.pdf

Francesco Ferretti, Boris Worm, Gregory L. Britten, Michael R. Heithaus and Heike K.Lotze, Patterns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean, Ecology Letters, (2010) 13: 1055–1071

Ferretti, F., Worm, B., Britten, G.L., Heithaus, M.R., and Lotze, H.K, 2010, Patterns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean, Ecology Letters, (2010) 13: 1055–1071

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). (2008). FISHSTAT Capture Production. (1950-2008). Database available at http://www.fao.org.

Fowler, S., Raymakers, C. and Grimm, U. (2004). Trade in and conservation of two shark species, porbeagle (Lamna nasus) and Spiny Dogfish (Squalas acanthias). Bundesamt für Naturschutz – Skripten 118.

Fox Shark Research Foundation (FSRF) 2004, Fox Shark Research Foundation [online] Available: www.sharkfoundation.com, Accessed 24 July 2006

Game Fishing Association of Australia (GFAA), 2009, GFAA eligible gamefish species – tag and release (operative from 1st July, 2009), viewed online at http://goo.gl/cMsCe

The NSW Greens, 2011, Grey nurse shark in peril over summer due to another government delay, media release, December 21, available online at http://catefaehrmann.org/tag/grey-nurse-shark/

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), 2005, Report of the 2004 Inter-sessional meeting of the ICCAT Subcommittee on bycatches: shark stock assessment. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 58(3): 799-890.

IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 20 March 2012.

Last PT & Stevens JD (2009). “Sharks and Rays of Australia”. CSIRO Publishing.

Lewin, W-C., Arlinghaus, R., and Mehner, T., 2006, Documented and Potential Biological Impacts of

Recreational Fishing: Insights for Management and Conservation, Reviews in Fisheries Science, 14:305-367.

Li, Owen , Sutton, Stephen G. and Tynan, Liz (2010) 'Communicating Scientific Information to Recreational Fishers', Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 15: 2, 106 — 118

Lynch, A.J., Sutton, S.G., and Simpfendorfer, C.A, 2010, ‘Implications of recreational fishing for elasmobranch conservation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park’, Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 20: 312-318.

McLoughlin, K. and Eliason, G., 2008, Review of information on cryptic mortality and the survival of sharks and rays released by recreational fishers, Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences.

McPhee, D. P., D. Leadbitter, and G. A. Skilletter. Swallowing the Bait: Is Recreational fishing in Australia ecologically Sustainable? Pac. Conserv. Biol., 8: 40–51 (2002).

Mood, A., 2010, Worse things happen at sea: the welfare of wild-caught fish, Fish Count, UK.

NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI), 2009, NSW DPI Game Fish Tagging Program Report 2008/2009, available online at http://goo.gl/EGfSl

NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI), 2010, NSW DPI Game Fish Tagging Program Report 2009/2010, available online at http://goo.gl/j2lR5

NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI), 2011, NSW DPI Game Fish Tagging Program, viewed online at http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/recreational/saltwater/gamefish-tagging

Park, T., 2007. NSW Gamefish Tournament Monitoring – Angling Research Monitoring Program. Final report to the NSW Recreational Fishing Trust. NSW Department of Primary Industries – Fisheries Final Report Series No. 94. available online at http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/areas/systems-research/wild-fisheries/outputs/2007/909

Pepperell, J., 2005, Recreational fisheries for sharks, Australian Government Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Bureau of Rural Sciences, Available online at http://www.mesa.edu.au/seaweek2005/pdf_senior/is11.pdf

Pogonoski, J.J., Pollard, D.A., and Pazton, J.R., 2002, Conservation overview and action plan for Australian threatened and potentially threatened marine and estuarine fishes, February, NSW Fisheries Research Institute, Environment Australia, available online at http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/marine-fish-action/pubs/marine-fish.pdf

Reardon MB, Gerber L & Cavanagh RD (2006). “Isurus paucus”. In: IUCN 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 25 February 2009.

Recreational Fishing Advisory Committee (RFAC), 2011, Recreational fishing in Australia – 2011 and beyond: A national industry development strategy, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Robbins, Dr.W. and Peddemors, Dr. V., 2011, Investigating the behavioural response of grey nurse sharks to recreational lures and baited lines, April 27, Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence, available online at http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/areas/systems-research/wild-fisheries/outputs/2011/grey-nurse-update

Rose, C., 2001, Recreational Shark Catch in Australia, Australian Shark Assessment Report for the Australian National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, Shark Advisory Group for the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australia, viewed online at http://goo.gl/T2GmL

Simpfendorfer C, Cortés E, Heupel MR, Brooks E, Babcock EA, Baum JK, McAuley R, Dudley SFJ, Stevens JD, Fordham S & Soldo A (2008). “An integrated approach to determining the risk of overexploitation for data-poor pelagic Atlantic sharks. An Expert Working Group Report”. Lenfest Ocean Program, Washington.

Skomal, G.B., 2007, Evaluation the physiological and physical consequences of capture on post-release survivorship in large pelagic fishes, Fisheries Management and Ecology, issue 14, pp.81-89.

Stevens, J. 2009. Prionace glauca. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. Available online at www.iucnredlist.org

Stevens, J., Fowler, S.L., Soldo, A., McCord, M., Baum, J., Acuña, E., Domingo, A. & Francis, M. 2006. Lamna nasus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. Available online at www.iucnredlist.org

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2010, Advice to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee on Amendment to the list of Threatened Species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: Thunnus maccoyii (Southern Bluefin Tuna) Listing Advice, Viewed online at http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/69402-listing-advice.pdf

Tobin, M., 2011, Shark threat fears raised in NSW, December 21, ABC News, available online at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-21/shark-threat-fears/3742454?section=nsw

Victorian Department of Primary Industries (DPI Vic), 2011, Fisheries, March, Victoria State Government, available online at http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/fisheries/science-and-research/rfl-notes-counting-catch

Walker, T. I. (2007). The state of research on chondrichthyan fishes. Marine and Freshwater Research 58: 1-3.

Wood AD, Collie JS & Kohler NE (2007). "Estimating survival of the shortfin mako Isurus oxyrinchus (Rafinesque) in the north-west Atlantic from tag-recapture data". Journal of Fish Biology 71: 1679–1695.