1. Geoff Shester, Ph.D. Presentation to California Fish and Game Commission June 4, 2014

2. White sharks should be listed under CESA Genetically distinct population Inherently vulnerable: Long-lived (>70 years), slow to reproduce, few young Low numbers of breeding females (47) Overexploitation: Gillnet fisheries kill >200 shark pups per year Over 78,000 public comments supporting CESA listing and protection for white sharks

3. Concerns with Dept Status Review/Recommendation Overly optimistic, flawed interpretation of data Erring against conservation in light of uncertainty Inadequate, unbalanced peer review/ Lack of scrutiny Conclusions and listing recommendation based primarily on speculation, NOT actual evidence

4. Population Estimates at Known Aggregation Sites Photographic mark-recapture is scientifically robust NMFS BRT challenged assumptions and reanalyzed data “the current abundance estimates comprise the best available scientific information” (Dept at 19) Aggregation Site Original estimate (sub-adults & adults) NMFS BRT re-analyzed estimates (sub-adults & adults) NMFS BRT estimate of mature females Central CA 21916620 Guad. Isl. 12015427 Total 33932047

5. Show us the sharks Dept concluded population “much greater” 1. Undetected aggregation sites However, someone would have noticed by now We know where all major pinniped rookeries are 2. Far more undetectable sharks are at the aggregation sites However, if they are there to feed, why wouldn’t we ever see them Estimates already account for sharks we haven’t seen yet

6. Central CA and Guadalupe tagged sharks transit ALL locations where white sharks have ever been observed Jorgensen et al. 2010 (sharks tagged in Central California)

7. No evidence for other major aggregation sites Año Nuevo sharks WERE assessed (Chapple et al. 2011) “6 of 8 sharks identified at Año Nuevo were identified at other locations” “the exclusion of the Año Nuevo Island data only reduced our estimate by <3%” Department did not identify other potential unassessed aggregation sites

8. Where are all the female sharks? Major skews in observed sex ratios of adults at both aggregation sites: Central California: 3.8 males per female Guadalupe Island: 1.6 males per female Severe conservation implications: Females experience higher mortality Male aggression Has created major extinction threat in other species

9. False population trend Department concluded “NEP population of white shark is increasing” based on several indices However, shark increase CANNOT explain these indices –Increases are Biologically Impossible NMFS BRT: “[p]opulation trend information is somewhat inconclusive” due to the “lack of systematically collected data on abundance over time” IndexTime span (years) Reported increase in index Maximum possible population growth* Reported CA fishery CPUE 7>600%41% Sea lion bite marks 2>29,900%10% Sea otter mortalities 4200-300%22% * Published max 5%/year

10. Overexploitation: Bycatch in gillnet fisheries Current “minimum estimate” ~208 white shark pups killed per year [NMFS BRT,p. iii, 48, 90-91] ~192/year in Baja California gillnets ~16/year killed in CA gillnets (28 caught, 12 survive) ~40% already dead upon retrieval [Dept. statement 2013] CA set gillnet halibut fishery Main US contributor to bycatch Managed directly by Dept. and Commission Occurs in white shark nursery (S. CA)

11. Overexploitation: Bycatch Mortality Breeding adult females*50100 Birth events per year2550 Pups per birth event1010 Total pups produced per year250500 Pups killed per year in gillnets*200200 Bycatch mortality80%40% Published pop. estimates Double Published pop. estimates *Estimates rounded for simplicity

12. High Bycatch Mortality “Implausible”? For reference: Less than 10% mortality is “typical” for marine mammals and turtles known to be declining due to bycatch 20% bycatch mortality on critically endangered vaquitas [NMFS BRT p. 81] 5 of 7 tagged juvenile white sharks were recaptured in a gillnet within 6 months (Weng et al., 2007; Weng et al. 2012; Dewar et al. 2013)

13. Fishing Mortality on Adults Adult white shark caught and landed in gillnet off Guaymas, Mexico in Sea of Cortez, 2012. Rate unknown.

14. Most plausible explanation of data White sharks are far below healthy, historic levels A single catastrophic event could wipe out remaining population Fisheries continue to take severe levels of bycatch, despite current regulations, effort, and protections Preventing recovery High extinction risk from overexploitation

15. Remedy: Manage bycatch, support science Consider new regulations to manage bycatch 1. Limit gillnet soak times 2. Time-area closures 3. Hard bycatch caps Increased observer coverage, outreach, and research (CDFW recommendations) …AND pressure on Mexico Lyons et al. (2013): white shark bycatch hotspots in areas of low target species catch rates

16. CA Set Gillnets among dirtiest US Fisheries NMFS observer data: 2007, 2010, 2011 65% of animals caught were discarded 78% of all sharks/rays/skates discarded (> 20 spp.) 470 pinnipeds 241 seabirds From Oceana “Wasted Catch” Report Bycatch in CA set gillnets (NOAA)

17. Summary and Conclusions CESA requires best available science, not speculation Cannot “rubber stamp” Dept. recommendation Best available science strongly warrants listing white sharks as Endangered or Threatened Bycatch is a Top Conservation Priority It’s time for the Commission and Department to address bycatch in fisheries under their authority