Shark Size limits -- Archive

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

Subject: Shark Size limits

Author:
Jim Day

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 941018666PDT
In reply to: Jim Day 's message, "Shark size limit question" on 941018328PDT

Here was my reply

According to DFG numbers over 4000 small Mako's under 60 inches are taken in the waters of Southern California each year. This number is almost 80% of the recreational catch: which is over 5500 sharks, I personally think it's about time that some of these sharks were released.

Does this mean we now have to fight. Maybe.....

Randal the first part of your statement is accurate enough, I have to disagree with some of the rest.

You say:
"A size limit restricted to adult mako sharks would effectively shut down the recreational fishery because of the scarcity of large fish in Southern California waters"

Well it kind of reminds me of fishing Halibut. Every year I catch a large number of shorts, and a few keepers. I remember initially this seemed like a drag but now I'm used to it and It's a price I'm willing to pay To help keep up flattie numbers.
Eight of of ten Mako's caught locally are under the 60 inches I and others have proposed. That doesn't eliminate all sharks just as said eight out of ten. Once again I'd compare that with halibut. ten years ago my catch ratio of shorts to keepers was at least eight to one if not two. I've gone through years where I'd only catch One or two legals all year. To be honest I usually catch a lot more Mako's over 60 inches in an average year than that. Since the limits for butts have been in place the fishing has dramatically improved. Maybe the same could happen with Mako's

You said "So far, there is no supporting biological information to show conservation benefits from a minimum size limit on mako sharks." Well Technically that's true. Then again Technically theres no proof that putting my head up my ass is a bad thing either, you see since it hasn't been done there is no statistical or "technical" proof either way. Of coarse that doesn't mean we shouldn't try it.( The Mako Limit is what I'm talking about here) Lots of things are theory's till you can put them to the test.
The speed of light being absolute for instance, can't do it so really theres no telling. We can set size limits, and what we do know from experience is that a number of species of fish have had positive population increases by the use of size limits. Contrary to your posts earlier, not all size limits are based on reproductive adulthood. The idea of a limit is to protect very young, and to improve there chances of reaching adulthood. Though a 60 inch Mako is not old enough to breed, releasing 4000 young Mako's a year in southern California should benefit their population numbers. (these numbers are based on catch numbers and size ratio data from the DFG) A 60 inch limit still allows over a 1000 Mako's a year to be taken so the Rec. fishery would still exist. Compare this to the number of Marlin or Swordfish taken each year and it looks like
quite a large recreational catch. The bottom line here: Mako's killed as pups have no chance to reach adulthood plain and simple.

There have been a number of arguments made that protecting pups would lead to an overfishing of larger Breeder Mako's. I first will use Randals own argument here quote:
"The adults live in different habitat, either far offshore or in very deep water. Many shark populations are know to segregate by size, an adaptation thought to keep young sharks from being preyed on by larger relatives."
Really large Mako's are rather uncommon in these waters. A few are caught each year but they are certainly as not as vulnerable here in this particular location to overfishing as our nursery pups. Still this is a real concern, perhaps a slotted limit is in order.

A number of fisheries have slotted limits. For instance Sturgean in California must be realeased if they are under 46 inches or greater than 72 inches. In othe words you can only keep Sturgeon if they are between 4 and 6 feet in length. I would propose the exact same thing for mako's: 60 inches minimum size, with no fish larger than 84 inches kept as well. In other words Mako's could only be kept if they fall between 5 ft and 7 ft in length. I think this could work well. A number of years ago I was in the "Mako Del Ray" tournament. The minimum size limit was 60
inches: though over twenty fish were weighed in (this was a few years ago) none were over this proposed seven foot upper size limit. I personally feel the upper size limit is not that necessary in Southern California, but will agree to the Logic that really large Mako's have survived the test of time and should be allowed to pass on their genes. So thats what I propose, I personally think size limits are coming: its just a matter of time.

These small sharks should be released to presserve the population.

while there's still a population to be presserved.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
That is sad...	BeachBum	941078971PDT