Great white sharks off the coast of Massachusetts. (Photo credit: Green Massachusetts)

Let’s be honest. When we talk about great white sharks, we are usually talking about their appetites. White sharks have been found with a number of thought-provoking objects in their stomachs, including a partial suit of armor and an engine block. But what they really like is large, fatty ocean going animals: tuna, seals and sea lions, rays, whale carcasses. These are not always easy to catch, so sharks employ a number of hunting strategies, including a sneak attack from behind (shudder) and rushing up from the depths (double shudder). So, while their feeding style can be quite lively, and more than a little intimidating, scientists believe it is usually a case of “mistaken identity” when a shark bites a human, not mindless, malicious predation. White sharks are visual predators, and sometimes we humans do a fairly good seal impersonation. Often, once the shark realizes there has been a misunderstanding, it will move on to something tastier. Don’t get me wrong; I am not recommending anyone take their chances in the water with these big fish. If there is a shark sighting at your favorite beach, please stay out until you hear it’s safe again. I know they’re out there, but it gives me a bit of comfort to think that if they REALLY wanted to eat us then we’d know about it by now.

Shark survival, and hopefully I’ve convinced you by now that this is a good thing, is dependent on a robust, thriving food chain. Overfishing, coastal pollution (especially nutrient pollution), and the byproducts of power generation are severely impairing our near shore and blue water ecosystems. Coastal areas function as nurseries for ocean going fish, birds, and other marine life. So a small area of degradation can have a big effect out to sea. Protecting sensitive coastal ecosystems is protecting the bottom of the food chain. The things at the bottom feeds the things we like to eat (shellfish, cod, striped bass), the things we like to see (seals, whales), and things we maybe don’t want around, but are good anyway (sharks). CLF is working to protect these important ecosystems. From supporting our National Ocean Policy, to fighting dirty emissions that create unhealthy acidic water, to promoting healthy estuaries, CLF is on the forefront of efforts to protect our oceans and keep their waters clean and productive for generations to come.

(Photo credit: NOAA Photo Library)

It’s more of an obsession, really. I spend a lot of time in the water: surfing, boogie boarding with my kids, or just cooling off. I think about sharks every time I get in the ocean. If I haven’t had a good long think about them before I get in, then I ponder their existence as soon as I’ve made it out past the break and I’m dangling my feet off the sides of my seal shaped surfboard. If you meet a surfer who says they don’t think about sharks, they are lying.

So, why the love? Well, I love the ocean. I love a balanced ecosystem. I love eating fish and shellfish. Sharks are one of our more exciting apex predators. An apex predator is the one at the top of the food chain that keeps the populations in check all the way down the line. Recent studies on shark populations have found that a drop in shark numbers leads to plummeting shellfish populations. Sharks eat other predatory fish, as well as rays and other animals that feed on shellfish. Once the sharks are gone, the clams, scallops and oyster populations are preyed on heavily by animals that would normally not be so abundant.  Unfortunately, sharks are declining precipitously around the world. Sharks are taken intentionally for “finning” (the removal of fins for shark fin soup), and unintentionally as bycatch during the fishing of other species. Marine scientists aren’t exactly sure how things would play out if sharks were gone, but none of the scenarios are good.

In “A Sand County Almanac,” Aldo Leopold wrote about one of the apex predators of the west. In his days with the Forest Service there was a mass kill policy for wolves. As a result, deer populations exploded. This led to major overgrazing of mountain vegetation. Erosion and river-choking sedimentation are a couple of the problems associated with overgrazing. Leopold wrote: “I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer.” This was a formative part of his land ethic. Simply put “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”

The release last year of our National Ocean Policy (NOP) was a big step in promoting a saltwater version of this ethic. CLF’s Priscilla Brooks had this to say about the newly created NOP: “For the first time in this country’s history, we will have a national policy that aligns the great promise of our oceans with the great responsibility for managing them in a coordinated, thoughtful and sustainable fashion. New England has led the charge to balance the ever-increasing interest in our state waters … with the need to protect wildlife and critical habitat areas so that our region’s oceans will continue to be productive for generations to come. From Massachusetts to Rhode Island to Maine, we are developing ocean management plans that will serve as guides for better protection and management in federal waters across the nation.”

Ecosystem-based management is at the heart of the NOP. Healthy shark populations are just one facet of a balanced ecosystem. Seal populations have been recovering after near decimation from hunting (and a thriving shark population will keep the seals in check). Some commercial fish populations are now recovering from decades of overfishing. Shellfish, seals, sharks, commercial fish – all are linked. We can’t “manage” one without the effects cascading through the others. Ecosystem-based ocean management plans will consider these connections.

So, even as I picture just what it would look like if a great white shark came rushing from the depths for a neoprene-wrapped snack (me), I still love sharks.  I try to be sensible. I avoid the water at dawn and dusk (unless the waves are really good). I stay in shallow water. I get out of the areas where seabirds are working – evidence of major food chain activity. And I’ll take a shark sighting as seriously as anyone. But, since sharks are essential for thriving, productive oceans, they are good to have around. Even if I don’t want them around me.

Catch the latest news from Talking Fish, the blog brought to you by CLF and others that is focused on the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries.

July 1: “Federal judge puts an end to judicial fishing season for Amendment 16,” by Peter Shelley

June 30: “Overfishing 101: How Science Helps Managers End Overfishing and Rebuild Depleted Stock Populations,” by Lee Crockett

“New England’s listening session on the National Ocean Policy was this week – how did fishing factor into the conversation?” by Talking Fish

June 29: “The Catch of Climate Change: What is Ocean Acidification?” by Nancy Shrodes

New Bedford Harbor. Photo credit: brixton, flickr

Yesterday, in a ruling by the Massachusetts District Court in a lawsuit by the City of New Bedford and others challenging the legality of the fishing regulations known as Amendment 16 , Judge Rya Zobel denied the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment in the case, upholding the regulations. CLF intervened in the case in September 2010 on the side of the Federal government. CLF’s motion and the government’s motion for summary judgment were allowed, terminating the case. Read CLF’s complete press statement >

In response, CLF’s Peter Shelley reflected on the decision’s significance in the commercial fishing industry in a blog post published in Talking Fish, the blog developed by CLF and others that focuses on fisheries management issues in New England. Shelley wrote:

Federal judge Rya Zobel was talking fish recently when she declared an end to the judicial fishing season for Amendment 16, terminating the two suits brought by the Cities of New Bedford and Gloucester and a variety of commercial fishing interests from Massachusetts and the mid-Atlantic. Judge Zobel’s ruling, while it may yet be appealed to a higher court by the plaintiffs, puts to bed several issues that have been floating around New England’s groundfish for several years.

First, the decision strengthens the role of the New England Fishery Management Council and NMFS in their critical planning process by emphasizing that the “Agency’s informed conclusion, reached at Congress’ express direction after an extended and formal administrative process” effectively binds the reviewing court’s hands under well-established principles of law. By  emphasizing this point, the Court made clear that the plan development process through the Council was where attention should be paid by all interested parties and that the courts were not available to second guess management planning decisions. Many saw New Bedford’s and Gloucester’s legal action as a thinly disguised effort at an end run around the council. Fortunately, it hasn’t paid off. Keep reading on Talking Fish >

Background on Amendment 16

This amendment, part of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, establishes science-based annual catch limits for cod, haddock, flounder and other groundfish as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act to end overfishing in U.S. waters. Amendment 16 also creates a voluntary sector system for the New England groundfish fishery. CLF has been in support of Amendment 16 since its inception, reasoning that the new regulations allow fishermen to increase their profits while leaving more fish in the ocean, which is particularly important for species such as the Atlantic cod, which have been dangerously overfished in previous decades. Read more on CLF’s involvement with Amendment 16 and fisheries management issues in New England >