Gregor M. Cailliet and Merry Camhi

Authors’ note: Mexico and the USA are major world contributors in terms of elasmobranch landings and shark fin exports (Anon. 2001a; FAO 2002). For an overview on these trends, refer to Clarke et al. (this volume). For clarity, the information in this chapter is concerned primarily with the Northeast Pacific Region (NEPR), although for Central American countries in some cases information on the trade in shark fins is provided which refers to the whole of the country.

Introduction
The IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group’s (SSG) NEPR covers an area of ~30,000,000 square miles (100,000,000km²), bounded on the west by 170°W longitude and on the south by a line along 8.5°N, which meets the southern border of the Pacific Coast of Panama. The south-western corner of the region is ~400 miles (~650km) south-west of the island of Hawaii. The northern border lies at 90°N latitude and the eastern border runs along the western coasts of North and Central America, except in arctic Canada, where the eastern edge of the region is the mouth of the Dolphin and Union Straits (120°W longitude). This body of water ranges from arctic, subarctic and boreal water in the north to almost equatorial (tropical) regions. Depths range from nearshore coastal and neritic shelf regions to oceanic and much deeper slope areas. The fisheries near the coast operate from the surface to the bottom, while many of the fisheries in the oceanic region are more limited to relatively shallow depths, except where sea mounts or other geological features rise up vertically toward shallower waters. The NEPR overlaps with three United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Major Fishing Areas, including part of Area 18 to the north, almost all of Area 67 west of the North American continent north of California and the northern part of Area 77, west of the Californian, Baja Californian, Mexican and Central American coasts.

This synopsis of chondrichthyan fishery activities in the NEPR represents the best information available from NEPR members and the published literature (especially the FAO 2002 FISHSTATS capture production database (FAO 2002), see Table 7.10 and Figures 7.26 and 7.27). We also relied heavily on two recent summary documents, Leet et al. (2001), which serves also as California’s stock assessments for selected species and the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s (PFMC 2001) draft Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The coverage and quality of fishery data vary among nations, the US and Canadian data being far more thorough than that of Mexico and Central America. An early primary source of summary information was Bonfil (1994), the most recent overview of world elasmobranch fisheries, with coverage of the US, Mexico and Central America. Since these data were compiled, the TRAFFIC network has carried out a detailed report on fisheries and trade in the region (Rose 1998). In addition, several reviews of the shark fisheries off the US west coast have been written (Cailliet and Bedford 1983; Holts 1988; Cailliet et al. 1993; Figure 7.25. IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group: Northeast Pacific region. Hanan et al. 1993; Hanson 1998; Holts et al. 1998; Camhi 1999; Leet et al. 2001; PFMC 2001). In all cases, for this report, landings in pounds (lbs) were changed to metric tonnes (1,000kg = t; with 2,204lbs/t or 0.4537 t/1,000lbs).

Judging from the kind of elasmobranch landing data available from FAO and the review articles cited above, the fisheries in the NEPR land relatively few species of sharks and batoids. For example, off Canada there are three species of ray, eight species of skate and 14 sharks that are present in British Columbian waters, but only big skate Raja binoculata, longnose skate Raja rhina, black skate Bathyraja interrupta and sixgill shark Hexanchus griseus are regularly taken as bycatch in these fisheries (A.J. Benson, G.A. McFarlane and J.R. King, PacificScientific Advice Review Committee [PSARC] pers. comm.). The list of Highly Migratory Species (HMS) being evaluated by the PFMC includes only five species. These include the common thresher Alopias vulpinus, big eye thresher A. superciliosis, pelagic thresher A. pelagicus and blue Prionace glauca sharks plus the shortfin mako Isurus oxyrinchus. The California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) Status Report of their living marine resources (Leet et al. 2001) summarises the life histories and catches of three of the above pelagic sharks (excluding the bigeye and pelagic thresher, but including the salmon Lamna ditropis, white Carcharodon carcharias and basking Cetorhinus maximus sharks). Leet et al.’s (2001) authors also cover several species of the more demersal species, including the Pacific angel Squatina californica, leopard Triakis semifasciata and soupfin Galeorhinus galeus sharks and several species of skates and rays (order Rajiformes).

Elasmobranch landings from the NEPR over the past 16 years have averaged ~34,800t, with the majority (~66 %) landed by Mexico (region 77; see also Bonfil 1994). Overall, the trend has been one of steady increase in elasmobranch landings, starting from approximately 2,288t in 1950 peaking at 48,412t in 1992 and ending with 42,946t in 2000 (Table 7.10, Figure 7.26), the last year for which FAO data were available at the time of writing (FAO 2002). Because FAO statistics do not distinguish species landed for this area very well, one cannot say much in detail about the taxonomic composition of the catches of elasmobranchs. Management of these resources varies considerably among nations, regions and taxonomic groups, with comprehensive management limited to California and Alaska. 

Management and conservation
There is virtually no regional or international management for sharks or rays in the Northeast Pacific region (PFMC 2001). Domestic management for these fisheries is limited to the USA and Canada, although there is only a draft federal management plan for sharks in US Pacific waters (PFMC 2001) and this only covers five species of pelagic sharks. According to Susan E. Smith (NMFS, La Jolla pers. comm.), this plan will prohibit the retention of C. carcharias, C. maximus and megamouth shark Megachasma pelagios while fishing for highly migratory tunas, billfish and sharks within the US west coast Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). For the eastern Pacific, only California and Alaska currently have regulations for sharks (Camhi 1999; Leet et al. 2001; PFMC 2001). Nowhere in the NEPR are batoids subject to fishery management. This may change as a result of the analysis of commercial landings in California and subsequent FMPs required by new state legislation (Leet et al. 2001).

A set of National Standard Rules for Shark Exploitation and Conservation in Mexican waters was published in the Mexican Federal Gazette 12 July, 2002 (Leonardo Castillo-Geniz pers. comm.). These have not yet been implemented.

The management structure for chondrichthyan fishes in nations bordering the NEPR (Canada, USA, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama) is rather fragmented. Some species are heavily regulated, but not uniformly across contiguous jurisdictions between states and between adjoining countries. The FAO’s International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks), approved by FAO member states in February 1999 (Fowler and Cavanagh, this volume), should be used to encourage countries in the region to assess the status of the elasmobranch populations in their EEZs and then to develop domestic management plans for their elasmobranch fisheries (FAO 2000a; Fowler et al. 2002). All NEPR countries should be working toward the development of a regional management plan.

The US finning ban has already been mentioned above and is discussed in detail this chapter (see USA (Pacific coast)). Costa Rica also has a finning ban, discussed in the section for that country. The draft set of National Standard Rules for Mexico also details a potential ban on finning.

A new treaty, the Multilateral High Level Conference, is currently under development to address management needs for highly migratory fishes by Pacific rim and Pacific Island countries. Although sharks are not included in the current negotiations, this treaty may provide the best opportunity for cooperative, international management for sharks in the biggest area of ocean on earth. In addition, recent papers have suggested increasing marine reserves to reduce fishing pressures to allow better management and hopefully sustainable fisheries (Pauly et al. 2002) and extending these to elasmobranch fisheries (Stevens 2002).

Some elasmobranch fisheries are managed in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Plan (PFMC 2001) and the two groundfish plans in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea/ Aleutian Islands (NPFMC 1994, 1995). In addition, the three US fishery management councils in the Pacific (Pacific, North Pacific and western Pacific) are currently assessing the management needs of sharks in their respective regions and looking to develop more effective management measures over the next few years (Camhi 1999).

Although there is no federal management plan yet approved for sharks in the US Pacific (PFMC 2001), a number of states have implemented shark management for state waters in the NEPR. California, by far, has the most extensive demersal and pelagic shark fisheries (Cailliet and Bedford 1983; Holts 1988; Leet et al. 1992, 2001; Cailliet et al. 1993; Holts et al. 1998) and shark fishery regulations, which apply to both state (0–3 miles from shore) and federal waters (3–200 miles offshore) (Hanson 1998; Camhi 1999; Leet et al. 2001; PFMC 2001).

The pelagic stocks of P. glauca, A. vulpinus and I. oxyrinchus were fairly heavily exploited in the 1980s as part of a driftnet fishery targeting swordfish (Cailliet and Bedford 1983; Hanan et al. 1993; Holts et al. 1998; and an experimental pelagic longline fishery (O’Brien and Sunada 1994). Bedford (1992) and Hanan et al. (1993) indicated that in the early 1980s drift gillnet fishing exerted strong effects on pup, subadult and young adult A. vulpinus, actually causing a decline in catch per unit effort (CPUE) and the disappearance of the larger (presumably older) size classes, in California waters. The vast majority of sharks taken in these fisheries were juveniles, suggesting that the area off southern California and Baja California is a nursery area for I. oxyrinchus and P. glauca. Concerns over reduced average size (Cailliet and Bedford 1983; Holts 1988; Hanan et al. 1993; Holts et al. 1998) led the state to impose gear restrictions, seasonal-area closures and limited access permits for the drift gillnet fishery for both A. vulpinus and I. oxyrinchus and a ban on pelagic longlines in state waters because of unacceptably high bycatch of P. glauca (Hanan et al. 1993; O’Brien and Sunada 1994; Camhi 1999; Leet et al. 2001; PFMC 2001). These regulations have been effective in reducing fishery effort and recent analyses of CPUE and other data suggest that, despite the earlier declines, the A. vulpinus population may be stable or increasing (Holts et al. 1998; Leet et al. 2001; PFMC 2001). The status of the populations or stocks of these three species of sharks is currently unknown. However, PFMC (2001) has categorised all three as not overfished. In addition, the state has established recreational bag limits on the above three species, as well as G. galeus, H. griseus, sevengill sharks Notorhynchus cepidianus and T. semifasciata.

California has banned the landing of fins detached from the shark since 1996. The white shark is now permanently protected from directed fishing in California waters. In addition, T. semifasciata is partially protected in California by a 36-inch (0.91m) size limit (commercial and recreational) and a three-fish recreational bag limit. Although the fishery for Pacific angelshark in central California had already collapsed, probably due to overfishing (Richards 1987; Cailliet et al. 1992; Leet et al. 1992, 2001), a prohibition on the use of nearshore gillnets in 1994 temporarily eliminated this fishery, which targeted mainly California halibut Paralichthys californicus. Landings are on the rise again, primarily due to longlining and trawl catches in nearshore waters (Leet et al. 2001).

In 1998, Alaska prohibited directed commercial shark fisheries in its waters and implemented restrictive regulations for the recreational fishing for sharks, which also apply to federal waters. There are currently few regulations controlling the sizeable directed dogfish fishery in the state of Washington, although recent trends in landings in Puget Sound fisheries may lead the state to implement S. acanthias management. Despite rapidly increasing skate landings along the entire US Pacific Coast, no state has implemented management for skates (Camhi 1999).
Squalus acanthias in British Columbia are subject to a small, directed fishery and are taken as bycatch in the groundfish fishery targeting hake and halibut (Bonfil and Saunders 1997; Bonfil 1999). Since 1978, management for
S. acanthias has consisted simply of a total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to each of the gear sectors (trawl and hook-and-line) that has never been reached. Bycatch of S. acanthias in these fisheries are poorly documented. Recently, A.J. Benson, G.A. McFarlane and J.R. King (PSARC pers. comm.), have drafted a Review of Elasmobranch Biology, Fisheries, Assessment and Management for Canadian waters in the NEPR. Once this review is completed and published, it should prove useful for developing management schemes for these elasmobranch resources (see www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/csas/docrec/2001/ res2001-129e.pdf). At the time of writing, an IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group Red List Workshop was being planned to assess the status of the chondrichthyans of this region. Refer to www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/organizations/ssg/ssg.htm.