Intentional Bycatch: Growing White Shark Recreational Fishing in California

Recently, an eight foot long White Shark washed ashore on San Diego's Torrey Pines State Beach. The shark had clearly seen some better days. It was determined that the shark died from a combination of hook damage and gastrointestinal injury caused from entanglement with fishing line during a prolonged fight. There was a large gash in the side of its mouth from the hook allegedly being sliced out of the fish, and the state of its internal organs were described as "twisted." This has unfortunately become a growing issue. White Sharks are one of the world’s most iconic marine organisms, having received a level of attention from conservationists and the general human populace matched by few other species. Due to their ecological and cultural importance, white sharks are protected throughout much of their range. This includes the entirety of the California Coastline, a region home to large numbers of juvenile and adult sharks. This protection applies not only to retention and harvest, but extends to any form of targeting, pursuing, or capturing.

The white shark that washed ashore at Torrey Pines:

However, in recent years a concerning trend has emerged in social media fishing circles in California. Recreational shark fishermen have begun intentionally targeting juvenile great whites with hook-and-line techniques, usually from beaches or piers due to the added danger of targeting these large sharks from small vessels. The sharks are nearly always released after photographs for social media. If questioned, those involved adamantly claim that the catches were unintentional bycatch while targeting smaller and legal species of shark. Is this growing practice an ecological issue with potential to harm California’s burgeoning white shark population, or is the widespread increase in captures an indication that the population has improved to the degree that such a fishery can be condoned or even legalized? Here, I aim to provide evidence confirming that such catches are indeed intentional, offer potential mitigation strategies for regulatory and enforcement agencies to enact and utilize, and describe the risks and benefits if such a fishery were to hypothetically become accepted.

An assortment of white sharks captured by anglers. While the anglers in the top two images claim to have caught their sharks incidentally, much of the language used heavily implies that the catches were intentional (e.g. "bucket list," "managed to find a biter," "#personalbest")

The chief issue surrounding this notion of “intentional bycatch” is that it is extremely difficult to confirm intent. Bycatch has a broad range of definitions, but most describe a lack of intent to capture, entangle, or otherwise allow an unwanted species to come into contact with fishing gear. Many social media posts featuring captured white sharks explicitly state the unintentional and unexpected nature of the incident. However, extremely strong clues can be garnered by examining the gear types used. The majority of shark species legal for targeting and retention in California waters (e.g. leopard sharks, tope sharks) are far smaller than even a juvenile white shark. As a result, the gear needed to be sporting and effective when targeting these smaller species is far different from that needed to land a 3.3m white shark. Rather than the light casting tackle (rods and reels specified for 20-40 lb line that put out 10-25 lbs of drag) used for smaller species, heavier tackle such as Penn International VISX and Avet Pro EX reels (both of which can fish up to 130 lb line and put out 45lbs of drag) are seen in many photographs, including two videos of them being used to land white sharks. Such heavy tackle is expensive and inconvenient to fish with from shore, as it cannot be conventionally casted and requires an individual to kayak a bait beyond the surf zone and deploy it hundreds of yards from the beach. This gear type is only fished out of necessity. Aside from enormous sharks, these reels are primarily used for large tunas and billfishes -neither of which are available to land-based fishermen in California.

There are some caveats that further complicate gear type alone as evidence of wrongdoing. Other large sharks such as threshers and makos are popular and legal targets of land-based shark fishermen in California. Both reach formidable sizes that may necessitate the usage of heavy tackle, and these sharks are most commonly cited as the target species in cases of white shark captures due to taxonomic and some behavioral similarities. However, examining the life history traits of these particular sharks diminishes the likelihood of either being the intended targets of this burgeoning fishery. While these sharks can reach large sizes, the adults of these species are characteristically pelagic and unlikely to be encountered within reach of land-based anglers. The majority of threshers and makos encountered inshore are juveniles that do not require tackle of the stature necessary to land even a juvenile white. In addition, closer examinations into the bait and terminal tackle used to “incidentally” capture whites further discredits these claims. Large baits such as whole tuna heads have been photographed before being deployed. These baits are frequently much too large to fit within a juvenile mako or thresher’s mouth. Thresher sharks in particular are known to primarily feed upon small coastal pelagic species, and have small mouths with small teeth undesigned for ripping apart prey half their size.

This circle hook was discovered nearby the stranding site of the the Torrey Pines Shark:

These large baits are accompanied by similarly large hooks and stout wire leaders. One particular tackle company has gained notoriety in recent years for supplying anglers with gear and terminal tackle aimed for targeting large species of shark. While it is not stated which particular species of shark their gear is meant for, one product advertised as “Big Bait Casting Shark Rig (IRS Rig) - 600 lb cable and 210 lb Test Cable (12/0-16/0 hooks)” features an accompanying photograph of a juvenile white shark completely removed from the water -explicitly stated as illegal activity by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Instagram account linked with this company boasts over twenty (20) photos of captured white sharks from the last two years alone, many caught by individuals who purchased gear from the tackle company to use. Many of the sharks were photographed completely removed from the water, and some can hardly be considered juveniles. This suggests that the capture of white sharks in California has evolved in recent years from occasional catches to a growing industry that individuals are profiting from.

The above evidence strongly supports the notion that the frequent white shark captures in California hardly meet the criteria of bycatch. However, from an enforcement perspective it would be extremely difficult to find concrete evidence. Unless a CDFW wildlife officer were to wear a wire and obtain a recording of a fisherman admitting to target white sharks, there is simply no proof. Even then, fishermen in general and particularly shark fishermen are often reluctant to share information about their fishing practices -especially if they are aware that they are partaking in illegal activity. A CDFW wildlife officer going undercover and gradually infiltrating a circle of white shark fishermen to gain their trust and obtain the needed evidence would make for a great story, but in reality it would be poor allocation of resources in an already understaffed organization. The same applies for staking out known shark fishing beaches and waiting for illegal activity to commence, such as the removal of a white shark from the water.

Regulations geared at preventing white sharks from being landed have potential to be more effective mitigation strategies than attempting to navigate the intentional bycatch loophole through enforcement alone. Restricting the usage of wire leaders, or wire leaders of a particular gauge/strength and up, may prove to be beneficial. Most smaller sharks do not require 600lb wire leaders to be successfully landed. Although large hooks may subsequently remain in a white shark for a long time, the benefit of preventing long, exhausting battles and the stress of being removed from the water may outweigh the costs. A similar line of thought involves restricting gear type when fishing from land or from piers, e.g. restricting gear class to 50-60lb gear and under. The primary issue with restricting gear type is that targeting adult mako, thresher, and even broadnose sevengill sharks also requires stout tackle and heavy wire leaders, and banning gear types may simultaneously limit opportunity for these legal fisheries. However, fully grown mako and thresher sharks are seldom encountered from shore or piers and such regulations need not apply to vessels due to the apparent absence of documented intentional white shark catches from watercraft. In addition, the usage of circle hooks and heavy monofilament leaders (>200lb breaking strength) may greatly reduce the likelihood of a shark of any species getting hooked past its jaws and cutting through the line. Circle hooks are already popular in shark fishing circles, and their increased usage may prove beneficial for any species targeted with intent to release -not just white sharks.

It has become no secret to policymakers that white shark fishing has become a growing issue, and Gavin Newsom recently signed a new law adding regulations to restrict targeted white shark fishing. The law prohibits the use of bait, lures, or chum to attract white sharks, and restricts anglers from fishing with these techniques in areas where whites are spotted or known to be present. The "known to be present" statement part can be very open to interpretation, as white sharks are known to be found along the entirety of the California coastline. While I imagine that this will specifically pertain to regions of known nursery habitat identified through tagging initiatives, it may result in legal fisheries being restricted or public perceptions of legal shark fishing being damaged. This can even include harassment towards anglers targeting legal species. The instagram story below was taken from the account of an avid mako and thresher fisherman, and reflects anglers' sentiments not only towards those illegally targeting whites, but the regulations enacted to stop the practice.

All of these proposed regulations bear the ever-present challenge of maintaining effective enforcement. They also draw attention to the ecological and moral justification behind devoting time and resources to preventing fishermen from successfully targeting a species that ultimately ends up being released back into its natural habitat. Clearly, as evident in the Torrey Pines case, irresponsible shark fishing can result in a brutal death for the targeted quarry. But remember that the anglers in question allegedly cut the hook out of the shark and exhausted it in a prolonged battle. Both of these practices are universally condemmed in shark fishing circles. Is it possible to safely and sustainably practice catch-and-release fishing for white sharks?

Some opinions from the public on the Torrey Pines white shark. Amazingly, some have blamed researchers for its death. "Big Daddy Trips 619" seems to have more pressing concerns in his life:

The practice of shark fishing incurs a considerable degree of controversy, even in instances of catch-and-release. Proponents argue that catch-and-release shark fishing, when executed properly, does no long-term harm to the animal and can even aid ecological studies via tagging efforts. Detractors often rely upon reasoning that may be more emotion-based than rooted in scientific evidence, often centering arguments around the inherent cruelty of harming or disturbing these charismatic animals.

However, many also argue that the mortality rates of catch-and-release fishing may be high. Examining evidence in favor of or against catch-and-release shark fishing is complicated due to discrepancies between species, sizes, time out of the water, experimental design, and even any implicit biases that may come with conducting research on any controversial topic. A study by Vincent Raoult and Troy Gaston of the University of Newcastle indicated that sharks that were immediately released exhibited rapid recovery rates, while those kept out of the water for fifteen minutes rarely survived. While the latter test group was aimed to mimic catch-and-release fishing, a brief perusal of online shark fishing videos quickly reveals that sharks are rarely kept out of the water for anything close to that length of time. Many shark fishing resources indeed stress the importance of quick releases and minimizing time spent out of the water. Various other studies have produced figures ranging from 3% to 89% mortality, with significant variation in survivability between species.

Broadnose Sevengills such as this one caught by law-abiding angler Steven Mirasol are generally attributed to be resilient to catch-and-release fishing:

That last point is of particular importance, as no studies have been conducted assessing the survival rates of beach-caught white sharks. This is presumably in large part due to their protected status. It is well-known that removing large sharks from the water for extended periods of time causes their internal organs to be severely damaged by the unsupported weight of their bodies. In the case of the shark that washed up onto Torrey Pines, evidence of organ damage strongly suggested that the shark had been removed from the water for a significant amount of time. However, no efforts have been made to quantify the effects of beaching on white shark physiology and survival in comparison to other large species. A recent study in 2018 identified fisheries bycatch as the primary cause of mortality in juvenile white sharks off California and Mexico, but all of the mortality incidents occurred in association with gillnets or longlines. In addition, the status of the white shark population off the coast of California is uncertain. Current estimates describe the population in California as numbering at ~300 individuals. If the aforementioned 20 documented white shark captures were all different individuals, it would mean that at least 7% of California’s white shark population has been caught and released by a small group of anglers in the last two years. This seems highly unlikely, particularly given that many more photos of white sharks captured within the last two years exist. It is also probable that many catches have remained undocumented. However, recent data suggests that the population has been steadily increasing at a rate of up to 35% in the last decade. Many researchers concur that there are likely far more white sharks in the California Current than previously reported. To evaluate whether or not a catch-and-release fishery can be tentatively adopted in California, it is critical to develop an improved understanding of white shark release mortality rates and a conclusive assessment of the population as a whole.

Graduate students from the Chris Lowe lab at CSU Long Beach and Jacques Elstner of Scripps Institution of Oceanography tagging a Great White to learn more about their migratory behavior:

White sharks were once feared and loathed by humans. Nowadays, they command a considerable degree of respect and admiration. However, this admiration has recently evolved into a growing status as the ultimate gamefish for land-based anglers to test their skills on. Plenty of evidence supports the notion that such catches are indeed intentional, but enforcement and regulation is complicated by similar, but legal fisheries that exist for other species of shark. There is a considerable scarcity of knowledge concerning the survival rates of white sharks caught from beaches or piers, as well as the effects that any release mortality would have on the population as a whole. In addition, there is next to no information available that quantifies the number of white sharks caught and released by recreational fishermen each year, or even the number of fishermen that partake in this fishery. Due to the illegality of targeting white sharks for any purpose, there is very little cooperation between fishermen and researchers/managers to help answer these questions. Despite the charisma of white sharks, if population data suggest that the species can support a catch-and-release fishery -or even extremely limited harvest- it may be advantageous for CDFW funding purposes to enact a lottery system in which fishermen can pay exorbitant sums of money for the opportunity to catch the ocean’s largest predatory fish. However, the fallout from conservation groups may overwhelm any monetary benefits gained from this. Regardless of the future of white shark fishing in California, as of writing it is currently illegal to interfere with their natural behavior in any way. This also isn't likely to change anytime soon. If you want to hook an enormous fish that tests both physical and mental strength while requiring the heaviest of tackle to land, go Bluefin Tuna fishing. You'll at least get some great meals out of it, and if you end up in the news because of a tuna you killed, you'll be celebrated as a hero instead of condemmed as a murderer.