Various actions have already led to a reduction in the level of threat that commercial fishing poses to White Sharks. These include changes to fishing gear, reductions in fishing effort; nation-wide laws prohibiting intentional targeting and take of White Sharks; and changes in community attitudes towards sharks in general.
The White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias, is currently listed as ‘vulnerable’ on Part 13 Division 1 of the EPBC Act (see Table 2). The taking of White Sharks in Commonwealth waters is prohibited under the Act. Those commercial fishers that operate where there is a risk of capture of White Sharks in Commonwealth waters could be in breach of the Act and therefore subject to prosecution. Under Part 13, Section 265 of the EPBC Act, the Minister may accredit a plan of management or a management regime if satisfied that all persons engaged in fishing under the plan take all reasonable steps to ensure listed marine species are not killed or injured as a result of the fishing, and that the fishery does not adversely affect the conservation status of a listed marine species or a population of that species. This accreditation process is the preferred method of dealing with the bycatch of White Sharks. This allows for the assessment of the fishery to ensure that all reasonable efforts are required as part of the management arrangements to avoid killing or injuring listed species and that the result of any take will not adversely affect the survival or recovery of species in the wild.
Under the EPBC Act the take of a listed species requires a report to the Secretary of Environment Australia within 7 days. Penalties apply under Part 3, Section 18 of the Act for an action that has, will or is likely to have a significant impact on White Shark. There is need to inform fishers of their obligations under the EPBC Act.
The requirement to report incidental catch is not apparent in any of the state legislation (Table 2). Very few reports of these encounters are recorded and it is difficult to estimate the number of incidental deaths of White Sharks from commercial fishing except to surmise that it is significant (Presser & Allen 1995).
Table 2. Obligation to report interactions and hold incidentally caught and killed sharks by jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction
Act
Reporting Requirement
Hold incidentally caught & killed shark
Com.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Yes – must report with 7 days to the Secretary, EA
Yes with permit issued by Minister under the Act
Subdivision Management Response - White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) Recovery Plan - Management Response | Zoe
SA
Fisheries Act 1982
No
Yes under S.31 if in conjunction with SA Fisheries (under delegation of Minister)
Vic
Fisheries Act 1995
No
Yes with permit or authority
Tas
Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995
No
Yes with permit for purposes of the Act
NSW
Fisheries Management Act 1994
No
Yes with permit for purposes of the Act
WA
Fisheries Resources Management Act 1994
No
Under S14 exemption
Qld
Fisheries Act 1994
No
Yes with permit for purposes of the Act
All Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) logbooks have provision for the recording of interactions with ‘other species’. The following AFMA logbooks provide for the specific recording of white shark captures: the AL05 (long line sectors of the Southern & Western Tuna and East Coast Tuna & Billfish Fisheries and the Christmas and Cocos Tuna Fisheries), NP13 (Northern Prawn and Torres Strait Prawn Fisheries), GN01A (South East Non Trawl, Southern Shark and Fisheries), SQ05 (Squid Jig Fishery), CS01 (Coral Sea Fishery) and NWS02 (North West Slope Trawl and Northern Prawn Scampi Fisheries). Several other logbooks also provide for the recording of wildlife interactions, which can include White Sharks. These include the TPB02 (Southern & Western Tuna and East Coast Tuna & Billfish Fisheries, and the wild sector of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery), TPB03 (the farmed sector of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery) and the OT03 (other sectors of the Southern and Western Tuna and the East Coast Tuna Fisheries). Logbooks will be further refined to provide better information on the interaction with other species. In addition there is a need to verify information generated from logbook records.
Fishing gear used by commercial shark fishers has changed since the 1970s. Nets are now made from lighter mono filament polyamide mesh that can be broken by larger sharks, and mesh-size has decreased becoming more selective towards catching smaller sharks such as school or gummy sharks. Commercial shark fishers report that White Sharks caught in commercial shark nets are more likely to be entangled than enmeshed, and the headline or footline is often involved in this entanglement. Net height has increased separating the headline and footrope and thus reducing the probability that a scavenging White Shark will become entangled.
In 1996, the fishing effort in the Southern Shark Fishery was less than half the peak effort of 1987, partly due to a reduction in the amount of net permitted per fishing operation (Walker et al. 1998). In Western Australia, there has also been a significant reduction in effort through gear reduction. The management intent is a 50per cent reduction of effort based on 1993-94 levels by 2000-01 (WA State of Fisheries Report 1997/98). The actual effect of decreased fishing effort on White Shark numbers caught is unknown but would be expected to be favourable.
There has been a closure to shark gillnetting and long-lining in ocean waters within 3 nautical miles (nm) of the Victorian coast since 1988. Small White Sharks appear to occur reasonably frequently in some coastal areas of Victoria and this 3 nm closure may provide a refuge for White Sharks while they are within these waters, and at a size when they may be most susceptible to capture in nets and longlines. Monofilament gill nets are banned in ocean waters off New South Wales.
Changes in the Marine Scale –fish Fishery in South Australia have probably also had some benefits. These changes have included reductions in long-line and handline effort since the 1980’s. In 1987/88, gear restrictions were imposed on the long-line fishery with a maximum of 400 hooks per licence permitted (McGlennon and Jones 1999).
Clearly, there is an urgent need to conduct further investigations to assess the accuracy of the current data and identify which fisheries impact on White Sharks and the full extent of the impact the commercial fishing industry has on the Australian population of White Sharks. It is necessary for commercial fisheries managers to improve reporting of the take or interaction with White Sharks.
International response to the over-fishing of sharks around the world has occurred through the United Nations Food Agricultural Organisation (FAO) International Plan of Action for Sharks (FAO 1999) (IPOA – Sharks) Under that plan countries have undertaken to prepare national plans to give effect to this FAO initiative. Australia, through Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia, is preparing a National Plan of Action for the 2002 Committee on Fisheries (COFI) meeting. This plan will include the principles and objectives of the IPOA – Sharks and identify national actions to manage sharks and shark fisheries responsibly.
Actions related to improving the quantification of bycatch are expected to involve modifying fishery operator’s logbooks, and distributing field shark guides to fishery operators. This should improve the State Territory and Commonwealth managed fisheries capacity to report White Shark interactions in logbooks or other appropriate mechanisms.