FWC acts to protect lemon sharks

[Chrystal_Murray]

FWC acts to protect lemon sharks

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) approved a rule Thursday to prohibit all recreational and commercial harvest of lemon sharks from Florida waters. The FWC took this action to protect lemon sharks, because they have a high potential to be overharvested.

Lemon sharks are often found near shore in shallow water, especially in Southeast Florida, where they aggregate in large numbers each year. This makes them easy to locate and raises the potential for large numbers of lemon sharks to be removed from the population with minimal effort by fishermen.

Lemon sharks also are susceptible to overharvest because of their life history characteristics. They are slow-growing, reaching sexual maturity at 12-15 years of age, and have a low reproductive potential, producing 6 to 18 pups per litter every second or third year. Juvenile lemon sharks experience a mortality of 40-60 percent.

Recently, some preliminary data from an ongoing tagging study found that at least 7.5 percent of tagged adult lemon sharks from a Southeast Florida aggregation succumbed to fishing mortality in one season. At that rate, the entire lemon shark aggregation could be harvested in a few years.

In addition, recent regulatory actions for other shark species might put more fishing pressure on lemon sharks in Florida waters, where 90 percent of known lemon shark aggregations occur. The harvest of lemon sharks will still be allowed in offshore federal waters adjacent to state waters.

Healthy lemon shark populations are especially important to Florida's dive charter industry which provides ecotourism trips to see lemon shark aggregations in the winter months.

The FWC's lemon shark rule takes effect on March 23. More information about recent shark-management actions is available online at MyFWC.com/Rules, click on "Fishing – Saltwater."

[DaveR]

Good move. !

[Evan]

Why would you want to harvest a shark in the first place? Don't tell me people eat them...

[Greygator]

Good move! Thanks for the info!

[Mark R]

because they have a high potential to be overharvested.

raises the potential for large numbers of lemon sharks to be removed from the population with minimal effort by fishermen.

could be harvested in a few years.

In addition, recent regulatory actions for other shark species might put more fishing pressure on lemon sharks in Florida waters

Healthy lemon shark populations are especially important to Florida's dive charter industry which provides ecotourism trips to see lemon shark aggregations in the winter months.

Bullsh_t, all speculation, that they apparently don't have the science to back up. I don't fish for them, I don't eat them. I've never heard of them being a targeted species, usually avoided.

So this is to protect Florida's dive charter industry which provides ecotourism trips to see lemon shark aggregations in the winter months that do not exist?

Protection for a species that apparently is not threatened at the moment but might be.

Yes Evan people do eat sharks.

Sorry, another unnecessary useless regulation.

[Evan]

Problem is, if you wait until the demise of a species is certain, then it's already too late. That's the problem with the "uncertain science" argument I see repeated over and over - ALL science is based on speculation. It's all a best-educated-guess. That's the very basis of the scientific method. Even long-standing theories like gravity are based on speculation. So go ahead, attack the science behind these decisions, you'll always be right because nothing is certain. If we follow that lead, however, it's hard to imagine any effective action in the future.

[Rik]

ALL science is based on speculation.

and, quite often, an agenda.

That is often the case in many studies. "Science" is used as the means to an end. Too many times in fishery management you'll have two seemingly qualified scientific reports that are 180 degrees apart.

[Evan]

Seems to me that our statements are perfectly compatible =

Science can be subjective, based on best-guess theories, and sometimes commissioned with a distinct agenda. SO...it should follow that scientific results will never be 100% certain, will never be in 100% agreement with other scientific results, and therefore shouldn't make OR break decisions on conservation. These are "big picture" considerations that shouldn't be totally derailed just because someone has decided to pick apart the limitations of the scientific process.

[DaveR]

With each day that passes I become more disenchanted with government intervention in our lives. That doesn't blind my from the fact that there is a role for some regulation and some creatures require protection. Do lemon sharks? No, not now but sharks are slow reproducers and as soon as they are found to be more useful dead than alive (see sharkfin soup) the lemon and other species currently doing well could face trouble.(I know I used the "c" word Mark.) I couldn't care less if they put most apex predators on the off limits list or a tarpon like management. Wanna fish for food? There are a helluva lot of other fish out there that can maintain there stocks without such stringent protection.
Evan and I agree. I'm scared as hell.

[Rik]

Science should drive agenda, not the other way around.

I am not saying this in the case of the lemon shark. They have little food value so there really shouldn't be much dissent in stopping harvest. However, if you look at the redfish post in this section, there very well may be an agenda issue that is driving the science.

The main guy driving the issue to open up commercial redfish is also on fishery management boards, owns one of the largest seafood companies in Louisiana and has for years been a very vocal pro commercial fisherman advocate. On any 'science' he presented I'd have to ask whether science or agenda came first.