Part Jon Presser Primary Industry and Resourc - White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) Recovery Plan - Jon Presser Primary Industry and Resources SA | Zoe
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth, available from Environment Australia. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to:
Assistant Secretary
Marine Conservation Branch
Environment Australia
GPO Box 787
CANBERRA ACT 2601
For additional copies of this publication, please contact the Community Information Unit of Environment Australia on toll free 1800 803 772.
Cover Image
Photo provided by Rachel Powell
White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias)
Recovery Plan
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments 4
Recovery Team Membership 4
List of Abbreviations 5
Part 1.
1.1 Introduction 6
1.2 Contextual Information
1.2.1 The Region Covered 7
1.2.2 Conservation Status, Historical and Current
Size of Population 7
1.2.3 Individuals /groups affected by the Plan’s Implementation 8
1.2.4 Relevance to Indigenous Australians 8
1.2.5 Relationship between the Plan and other planning processes 9
1.2.6 Major benefits to other native species or communities 10
1.3 Habitat Critical to the Survival of the Species 10
Appendix C Threats – full description of each threat 34
Acknowledgments
Environment Australia would like to thank the members of the Recovery Team and especially Barry Bruce and John Stevens and also Hamish Malcolm and Dave Pollard of the White Shark Recovery Group for their assistance with the drafts. Members or groups of members and colleagues from within their industries or government sectors have drafted many sections of this plan. Thanks are also due to other staff of Environment Australia, in particular Sara Williams, Susie Edwards and Mark Armstrong for all their assistance and advice.
Recovery Team Membership
Representation on the Recovery Team was drawn from a cross-section of affected and interested parties, including government departments, non-government organisations and individuals involved in or interested in shark conservation and management.
Mark Armstrong Environment Australia
Nicola Beynon Humane Society International
Lindsay Best National Parks and Wildlife Service SA
Rebecca Brand Humane Society International
Robyn Bromley Environment Australia (Chair)
Barry Bruce CSIRO - Marine Research
Susie Edwards Environment Australia
Joanna Fisher Australian Fisheries Management Authority
Jennifer Hoy Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia
Peter Mawson Conservation and Land Management WA
Geoff McPherson Department of Primary Industries Qld
Doug Nichol Dept Primary Industries, Water and Environment
Jon Presser Primary Industry and Resources SA
John Pursey NSW Fisheries
John Stevens CSIRO - Marine Research
Bill Talbot NSW Fisheries
Andrew Townley Australian Fisheries Management Authority
Rory McAuley, Fisheries WA
Terry Walker Marine and Freshwater Research Institute Victoria
Grahame Williams Australian Game Fishing Association
Sara Williams Environment Australia
Dennis Witt Tasmanian Fisheries
List of Abbreviations
AFFA Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry Australia
AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority
CALM Conservation and Land Management (Department of - Western Australia)
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora
cm centimetres
CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
COFI Committee on Fisheries
CPUE catch per unit effort
CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
DEHSA Department of Environment and Heritage, South Australia
DPIWE Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Tasmania
EA Environment Australia
EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
ESSS Endangered Species Scientific Subcommittee (now TSSC under new EPBC Act)
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
IPOA International Plan of Action for Sharks
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
km kilometres
m metres
MAFRI Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute, Victoria
MPA marine protected area
NES national environmental significance
NHT Natural Heritage Trust
NSW New South Wales
NPOA National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks
PIRSA Primary Industries and Resources South Australia
Qld Queensland
QFMA Queensland Fisheries Management Authority
Qld DPI Queensland Department of Primary Industries
SA South Australia
TSSC Threatened Species Scientific Committee
Tas Tasmania
Vic Victoria
WA Western Australia
PART 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Recovery Plan provides summary information on the White Shark, including biology, habitat, distribution and historical and current threats to its recovery.
The Plan has been developed in accordance with the Guidelines for the Compilation of Recovery Plans under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). It therefore sets out the recovery objectives, actions required to achieve those objectives, performance indicators, as well as identifying those responsible for implementing the actions and the timeframes involved. The Plan also identifies an aggregated costing for the recovery of the White Shark.
Additional information is provided such as guidelines for decision-makers and tools to assist the implementation of the Plan.
A comprehensive review of the biological information and current behavioural and ecological knowledge of the White Shark is provided in an appendix attached to this Plan.
1.2 CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
1.2.1 The Region Covered
This Plan covers all Australian waters in which the White Shark is found.
The White Shark is widely distributed, and located throughout temperate and sub-tropical regions in the northern and southern hemispheres. In Australia, its range extends primarily from Moreton Bay in southern Queensland, with at least one record as far north as Mackay, (Paterson, 1990:154) around the southern coastline and to North West Cape in Western Australia (Bruce 1995).
1.2.2 Conservation Status, Historical and current size of Population
The White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias, is also known in Australia as the Great White Shark or White Pointer and is fully protected in Commonwealth waters under the EPBC Act where it is listed as a vulnerable species. The listing of the White Shark as vulnerable was based on a number of factors, including evidence of a declining population, its life history characteristics (long lived and low levels of reproduction), limited local distribution and abundance and at the time of listing, and still being under pressure from the Australian commercial fishing industry.
The White Shark is also fully protected in the coastal waters of Tasmania, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia; and protected in the coastal waters of New South Wales and Queensland with exemptions made for beach meshing.
Internationally White Sharks are listed as ‘vulnerable’ on the IUCN Red List of threatened species (IUCN 2000) as well as protected in South Africa (1991), Namibia, the Maldives, Florida and California (US) and Malta.
There is little historical information on population estimates for the White Shark. The current population status of White Sharks in Australia is difficult to assess due to:
poorly known stock structure and movement patterns;
paucity of information on captures across all fishing sectors;
ambiguities in available data;
shortage of verified data; and
lack of suitable indices of abundance or population monitoring programs.
Available data sets suggest a decline in abundance and size of White Sharks in some areas (Reid and Krogh 1992). These data include beach meshing records for New South Wales and Queensland, game fishing records from New South Wales and South Australia, and anecdotal sighting frequencies by tourism operators and divers in South Australia which all report declining catches and sightings (Bruce 1995). This interpretation is complicated by a marked interannual variability that may not be related to population size (Bruce 1995, Fox & Taylor pers comm. in Strong et al. 1992) as well as other factors such as changes in shark meshing regimes or decreased fishing effort (Peperell 1992). There are also competing claims that the number of White Sharks has increased in certain areas (for examplejuvenile White Sharks in some areas of Victorian coastal waters). Despite the inadequacies in the available data, there appears to be an overall, long-term decline in abundance of White Sharks in Australian waters
There are similarly few data sets from which an assessment for worldwide populations of White Sharks can be made. Game fishing data from the east-coast of North America indicate declines in the proportion of White Sharks taken relative to other shark species caught, similar to that reported off eastern Australia by Pepperell (1992). Casey and Pratt (1985) reported a drop in the ratio of White Sharks to all other sharks captured from 1:67 in 1965 to 1:210 in 1983 for the mid-Atlantic Bight.
Cliff et al. (1996a) reported marked interannual variability in the capture rates of White Sharks in the South African beach meshing program, with a cyclical period of 4-6 years. They also reported a significant decline in White Shark captures between 1973 and 1993.
A full description of the Biology of White Sharks can be found at Appendix A
1.2.3 Individuals /groups affected by the Plan’s Implementation
Section 270 (2)(g) of the EPBC Act indicates the need to identify interests that will be affected by the plan’s implementation.. The list below is not exhaustive and also includes organisations represented on the Recovery Team.
Commonwealth
Department of the Environment and Heritage (Environment Australia)
Australian Fisheries Management Authority
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia
CSIRO Marine Laboratories
State/Territory/Local Government
Queensland Fisheries Management Authority
Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Energy
Fisheries Western Australia
Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management
New South Wales Fisheries
Marine and Freshwater Research Institute
Tasmania - Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment
Department of Primary Industry and Resources South Australia
Department for Environment and Heritage South Australia
South Australian Research Development Institute
Victorian Fisheries
Non-government Organisations and others
Humane Society International
Cage Dive Groups
Tour Groups
Australian Game Fishing Association and other game fishing bodies
Australian Shark Conservation Foundation
Recreational fishers
Surf life saving organisations
Beach users.
Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council
Western Australian Fishing Industry Council
Seafood Industry Victoria Inc
South Australian Fishing Industry Council Inc
Queensland Seafood Industry Association Inc
NSW Seafood Industry Council Inc
Australian Seafood Industry Council
1.2.4 Relevance to Indigenous Australians
There are no known significant interactions between Aborigines and the White Shark.
1.2.5 Relationship between the Plan and other Planning Processes
Comparable regulations or actions that reflect actions within this Plan have been introduced in South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales and Western Australia. The following table provides a summary explanation of the legislation underpinning the protection of the White Shark in relevant Australian jurisdictions.
Table 1. Legislation that protects White Sharks or identifies their status as needing particular conservation action in Australia.
Part 13 Div 1 Listed as ‘vulnerable’ species with prohibition on taking and trade.Part 13 A Prohibition of certain exports and imports.
16 July 1999Amended Sept 2001
Vic
Fisheries Act 1995Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
S.69 Aquatic Biota can be declared protected by the Governor in CouncilS.71 A person must not take, injure, damage, destroy, possess, keep, display for reward, release or sell any protected biotaSpecies listed as Vulnerable
4 August 19986th October 1997
Tas
Threatened Species Protection Act 1995Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995Fisheries (General and Fees) Regulations 1996
Species declared “Vulnerable”S.135(2) A person must not take any protected fishRule 18(a)3, a person must not take, or be in possession of the white shark
Declared 1 March 2000Initially declared under previous Act in 1995.Applied 9th December 1998.
NSW
Fisheries Management Act 1994
Part 7a Threatened Species under Schedule 5 (Species vulnerable to extinction)S.8 Fisheries Closure Notification- taking of White Sharks prohibited by all methods in all waters except approved shark meshing contractors for scientific purposes
Protected under Part 7a on 14 May 1999Gazetted January 1997Section 8.Amended January 1997
S.46 A person must not take, possess, sell or purchase, consign, bring in to the state: any totally protected fishS. 14(2)(ba) (i) such fauna is wholly protected throughout the whole of the State at all times; and (ii) a person who commits an offence under section 16 or section 16A with respect to or in relation to such fauna is liable, not withstanding any other provision of this Act, to a penalty of $10,000.
November 199717 December 1999
Qld
Fisheries Act 1994
S.78 (1) A person must not unlawfully take, possess or sell a regulated fish
18 July 1997
SA
Fisheries Act 1982
S.42 A person must not take a fish declared by regulation to be protectedRegulations restrict tackle recreational fishers can use and prohibit the use of berleying and mammal baits
January 1998
IUCN
Red List - vulnerable
1996
Table adapted from work compiled by CSIRO Marine Research
1.2.6 Major benefits to other native species or communities
Section 270 of the EPBC Act requires that this Plan specifies any major benefits to species or ecological communities other than White Sharks that may be derived from actions taken in accordance with this Plan. Conservation measures to benefit White Sharks and their habitat may benefit inshore marine communities. In addition, by managing fishery bycatch and researching alternatives to shark meshing, these threats to other species, such as whales, dolphins, marine turtles, pelagic rays, some fish species and other sharks may be reduced,. Some of these species are also threatened or are uncommon. Marine communities may also benefit from any marine protected areas that may be established to protect White Sharks and conversely White Sharks may benefit from marine protected areas established within their range.
1.3 HABITAT CRITICAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES
The EPBC Act specifies that recovery plans should identify the habitats that are critical to the survival of the species or community concerned and the actions needed to protect those habitats (S270 (2)(d).
To date there is little solid information or research findings upon which to identify habitat critical to the survival of the White Shark. An important early step towards the identification of habitat critical for the survival of the White Shark would be the identification of the characteristics of habitat critical to the survival of White Shark. Also as White Sharks appear to move through developmental habitats as they grow, the identification of critical habitat for White Sharks may be difficult given the unknown nature of their developmental needs at various life stages.
A full description of White Shark habitat can be found at Appendix B.
1.4 OVERVIEW OF THREATS AND ISSUES
There are a number of sources of mortality (other than natural mortality) of White Sharks in Australian waters. The most predominant of these are dealt with below.
1.4.1 Commercial Fishing
Despite not being commercially targeted, White Sharks are caught as bycatch on long-lines and in nets of professional fishers and in fin fish farm cages such as tuna farms. This is currently suspected to be the largest cause of mortality. The actual rate of capture of White Sharks by commercial fishers is difficult to assess and has not yet been quantified. This is because captures are not usually recorded, and in many cases, captured sharks are either not landed intact or not landed at all. 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.
Further investigations are needed to quantify the capture of White Sharks from commercial fishing in each of the fisheries and establish the impact the commercial fishing industry has on the Australian population of White Sharks. It is necessary for commercial fisheries managers to assist industry to improve reporting of the take or interaction with White Sharks.
A full description of this threat can be found at Appendix C
1.4.2 Recreational Fishing
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 (Chan 2001). 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.
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 sublethal stress from tag-release activities may be unacceptably high. Issues of cryptic mortality, sublethal effect and scientific benefits also need to be addressed.
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).
A full description of this threat can be found at Appendix C.
1.4.3 Shark Control Activities
Shark control activities in Australia include beach meshing and drumlines, which most often kill the captured shark. Some non-lethal methods that are being trialed include using electrical fields to repel sharks but these practical trials have encountered many logistical problems. White Sharks are a target species in control activities but other non-target species are impacted by shark meshing such as turtles, dugongs and dolphins.
Queensland and New South Wales are the only two States to employ protective beach meshing. There are currently a total of 49 meshed beaches set offshore between Newcastle and Wollongong in New South Wales (approximately 200 km of coastline). In Queensland, a mixture of baited drumlines and nets are used. Drumlines consist of a marker buoy and float supporting a trace and baited hooks anchored to the bottom, and are intended to target dangerous species of sharks and reduce the bycatch of non-target species.
Shark meshing effort has increased over time. If the catch per unit effort (CPUE) equates to some measure of abundance then there has been a significant decline in White Shark abundance in both programs. The average size of White Sharks caught in New South Wales meshing operations has also declined over the period, though this is apparently not evidenced in the Queensland data. The degree to which beach meshing is impacting on White Shark populations is unknown although the decline in captures suggests it is significant.
A full description of this threat can be found at Appendix C.
1.4.4 Trade
The killing of White Sharks for trade targets two main areas – trade in trophy products such as jaws, and teeth and the trade in fins for food items such as ‘shark fin soup’. Increasing demand for White Shark products particularly fins, jaws, and teeth, has increased their value. Recent reports have been made identifying values of up to $50 000 paid for jaws from South Africa and $600 for individual teeth, despite their current protection there. Illegal trade in White Shark products may be a threat to the Australian population of White Sharks.
There are several commercial fisheries in Australia that frequently take shark fins as by product. Dried shark fin can attract a high price on Asian markets. The high market value for shark fins is leading to a high level of targeting of sharks that may be unsustainable. There is a growing acceptance that shark finning is both wasteful, when fins are removed and the carcass is discarded. This method is also a possible inducement to fishers to actively target sharks.
A full description of this threat can be found at Appendix C.
1.4.5 Tourism
Tourism does not pose a direct threat to White Sharks but through indirect means may limit the recovery of the population by altering the behaviour of the animal.
Both shark cage diving and shark boat tours are dependent on attracting sharks to an area by berleying (also known as ‘chumming’). Berleying involves releasing a mixture of fish oil and/or animal products into the water at regular time intervals to develop a slick to attract sharks in the vicinity. The use of berley may encourage White Sharks to appear or stay longer in a location that they would not normally visit, and there is the possibility that sharks will become habituated and begin to associate humans and boats with food. In addition the effect of berleying in areas adjacent to seal/sea lion colonies may result in higher mortality of seals/sea lions as a consequence of the increase presence of White Sharks. Tourism activities also raise the issue of disturbance to White Sharks and their prey. The effect of watercraft and human activities on sharks and marine mammals in the vicinity needs to be established.
However, it should be noted that some tourism activities in particular cage diving are contributing to data collection for further research
A full description of this threat can be found at Appendix C.
1.4.6 Tag and Release
Tag and release if not undertaken with care or without knowledge can contribute to White Sharks dying through the stress of being captured. Tag and release programs can provide information on movement patterns, site fidelity, growth, population estimates and mortality estimates. Tag and release programs must be assessed against the risk to the individual sharks and the benefit of the knowledge it is proposed to gain.
A full description of this threat can be found at Appendix C.
Part 2. RECOVERY OBJECTIVES
Section 270 of the EPBC Act specifies the content of a Recovery Plan.
2.1 Recovery Plan Objective:
The overall Recovery Plan objectives are:
‘To recover White Shark numbers in Australian waters, to a level that will see the species removed from the schedules of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
To implement the actions that lead to eventual removal of the species from the threatened species schedules of Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.’
2.1.1 Specific Objectives:
The specific objectives of this Plan are to:
monitor and reduce the impact of commercial fishing on White Sharks;
investigate and evaluate the impact of recreational fishing on White Sharks;
monitor and reduce the impact of shark control activities on White Sharks;
identify and manage the impact of tourism on White Sharks;
monitor and reduce the impact of trade in White Shark products;
develop research programs toward the conservation of White Sharks;
identify habitat critical to the survival of White Sharks and establish suitable protection of this habitat from threatening activities;
promote community education and awareness in relation to White Sharks; and
develop a quantitative framework to assess the recovery of the White Shark.