SOME FACTS ON MAKO SHARKS AND THE EPBC ACT

COUNTRIES NOT PARTY TO THE EPBC ACT THAT WILL STILL FISH FOR MAKO SHARKS REGARDLESS OF AUSTRALIAS DECISION
U.S.A. JAPAN, INDONESIA,MALAYSIA MOST PACIFIC ISLAND COUNTRIES VIETNAM KOREA ETC ETC

---

 
1. MAKO SHARKS THROUGH EXTENSIVE TAGGING (BOTH HISTORICAL AND POP UP SATELLITE AND DATA TAGS) HAVE BEEN PROVEN NOT TO BE INTER HEMISHERE TRAVELLERS AND NOT EVEN CIRCUM HEMISHERE TRAVELLERS WITH SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT MAKO SHARKS DO NOY MIGRATE NORTH SOUTH OR EAST WEST

---

2. THE RECREATIONAL ANGLING COMMUNITY IS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IN EXCESS OF THE TAGGINGOF 11900 MAKO SHARKS IN SOUTH EAST AUSTRALIAN WATERS 

In response to queries from some of our members and various statements made in the press
and on Internet forums regarding the banning of fishing for Mako Sharks, GFAV contacted the
Game Fishing Association of Australia on 8th December 2009 to ascertain whether they were
aware of anything at the national level. GFAA acknowledged our request and indicated that
they would be issuing a statement regarding this and we subsequently received it on 10th
December.
We were astonished to learn that from 31st January 2010 three species of shark will be
protected and will be placed in the same category as the Great White Shark. This means that
recreational anglers will not be able to capture or Tag & Release the following sharks
after 31st January 2010:
Shortfin Mako
Longfin Mako
Porbeagle
This is a catastrophic setback for game fishing in Victoria and has huge implications for our
clubs as well as the fishing & boating sectors, coastal communities etc.
I attended the Victorian DPI Fisheries Recreational Roundtable Forum on Friday, 12th
December along with VRFish and outlined the potential impact of this action. DPI Fisheries had
just become aware of the problem themselves and they had pre-organised a conference call
with Andrew McGregor from the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
(DEWHA - is the department responsible for implementing these restrictions).
My summation of the situation is:
• Australia is a member of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS).
• The CMS has two Appendixes that describe different levels of protection. Appendix I
requires that very stringent measures be put in place. Appendix II requires members of the
convention carefully manage the stock to conserve the species.
• In December 2008 the three species of shark listed above were added to “Appendix II” of the
convention (IE – carefully manage the stock to conserve the species).
• The Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) describes
the actions to be taken by Australia in response to the listing by the CMS.• The EPBC act does not distinguish between the different levels of protection, which results in
Australia applying the highest level of protection to species being added to either appendix.
We are hopeful that the EPBC can be altered to better reflect the level of protection required by
the Convention. We are also hopeful that either an exemption or deferral of implementation of
the restrictions can be granted subject to alteration of the EPBC.
GFAV is arranging an emergency meeting of the Committee this weekend to clarify (in more
detail) the current situation and to plan our strategy.
I have a meeting with VRFish on Monday to work out how we can best communicate with all
game-fishing stakeholders and to build an action plan. I am very pleased to advise that there is
very strong support from the Victorian DPI Fisheries and VRFish.
This listing is a dramatic development and will require strong support from our Clubs and
affiliated members. Now is not the time to apportion blame or argue about commercial fishers
or other countries - now is the time to direct your passion towards working together to ensure
the survival of game fishing in Victoria.
Regards,
Geoff Fisher.

---