Grey nurse shark

[Rod Burston]

New South Wales
Department of Primary Industries

MF06/2695
(stamped 1Sep 2006)

Mr Phillip Ingram
President
Anglers Action Group
PO Box 630
NARRABEEN NSW 2101

Dear Mr Ingram

I refer to your your letter of 13 July 2006 received by the Hon Ian Macdonald MLC, NSW Minister for Primary Industries, concerning shark finning and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the IUCN Red List, population genetics and the grey nurse shark. The Minister has asked me to respond on his behalf.

The finning of any live shark including the grey nurse shark is considered to be inhumane, wasteful and results in the animal's death shortly after release. To address these issues, the practice of finning at sea in NSW waters was banned by the NSW Government and commercial fishers are required to land their shark catch prior to finning. Furthermore, while finning is an obvious threatening process to grey nurse sharks, reviews of the trade in shark fins (e.g. Rose 1996, WildAid 2001) and ongoing monitoring of landed shark fins from MSW waters have indicated that there is little, if any, illegal trade in grey nurse shark fins. Consequently, the grey nurse shark is not currently listed under CITES. Should you wish to pursue this matter further, I recommend that you contact the Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) as they have responsibility for CITES in Australia. Further information concerning CITES in Australia may be found on the DEH web site at http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/index.html

Grey nurse sharks were listed as globally Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List basis in 2000. Members of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group met recently at a workshop (see Cavanagh et al 2003) to review the IUCN Red List for all Australian sharks and rays. As a result, grey nurse sharks in NSW waters are now listed as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List.

The population genetics of grey nurse sharks has been the subject of a collaborative study among scientists from the NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI), Macquarie University and the University of KwaZulu-Natal. This recently published study (Stow et al 2006) used samples obtained from South Africa and the east and west coasts of Australia. The study has provided the first account of genetic structuring in grey nurse sharks. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA indicated substantial genetic portioning and low levels of migration among these regions. The results also showed that the Australian population is especially isolated, and that within Australia there is negligible, if any, migration between east and west coasts. Moreover, the grey nurse shark population off the east Australian coast had the lowest genetic variability and the single mitochondrial haplotype suggested a small number of founding individuals. It is likely that historical processes account for the low genetic variation in the east Australian population. Importantly, the exteremly limited gene-flow into the east Australian population, coupled with very low levels of genetic variation, add further concern over its future survival.

When combined with the results of the ecological research, the grey nurse shark finds itself in an extremely precarious position in NSW. It is for these reasons that I announced that scientists within NSW DPI's Science and Research Division have been tasked with developing a breeding program for the grey nurse shark to overcome its inter-uterine cannibalism. I appreciate your interest in the grey nurse shark and should you require further information about the breeding program, please contact Dr Bob Creese, the Research Leader for the Aquatic Ecosystems Research unit, on 4982 1232.


Yours sincerely


B D BUFFIER
DIRECTOR GENERAL

[Dr. Phil]

Text for a letter submitted to Narooma News, and Bay Post.? I was waiting for a "suitable time" to submit this letter


Dr. Philip Creagh BVSc.
Narooma,
NSW, 2546

Myths and Fallacies about the Grey Nurse Shark - 14th September 2006

One of the principal reasons we have the Batemans Marine Park covering 100kms of coastline of the South Coast is a "back door" method the Marine Parks Authority thought up to "Save the Grey Nurse Shark", as there are 2 "aggregation sites" off the coast and they have identified one or two others, notably Brush Island, at the Northern end.

However there are many fisheries scientists who believe that the Eastern Australian population of the Grey Nurse shark is doomed.?

One of the few, reliable, published studies done into the future of the Grey Nurse Shark was done by Otway (2004).? It identified a worse case scenario of 6 years before the GNS was essentially extinct, and at best, a period of 50 or so years to reach extinction.? However the variability within mortality levels is so high that it makes these numbers almost meaningless.? The one certain thing is that the Eastern Grey Nurse shark population will become extinct.

So why does the NSW Government spend such extraordinary levels of money on trying to pull the Grey Nurse shark back from the "brink"??

As late as the end of August the Department of Fisheries announced a $600,000 grant to develop an artificial uterus so that the shark can be saved.? This brings the amount of money spent on this shark over the past few years into the millions of dollars.? This is just another stage of throwing money at the problem, whilst they have allowed the Eastern gemfish fishery to collapse.

Grey Nurse numbers have dropped to such a level that, unless you believe all mankind evolved from Adam and Eve, the genetic diversity and hybrid vigour within the remaining population is so low that any breeding program will almost inevitably bring in genetic defects and a vastly reduced ability to survive in the wild.? In other words it is a pointless and expensive exercise.

The radical green conservationists believe that by banning fishing at Montague Island and at other "aggregation sites" this will solve the problem.? However they have a rose tinted view of the world and anthropomorphize anything to do with animals.? They have no concept of the scientific situation, preferring their own blinkered view on the "fix".

The NSW Department of Fisheries Manager for Threatened species, Mr. Gallagher, stated at a recent meeting in Batemans Bay? that it would be a tragedy if the Grey Nurse shark became extinct.?

It MUST be remembered that there is still a healthy, viable population of Grey Nurse Sharks (Carcharias taurus) in Western Australia, South Africa and the USA. The populations in these areas were NOT bought to near extinction by an "anti shark" crusade by scuba divers using powerheads in the 1950's thru to the early '70's.?

At some stage the conservationists within the Department of Fisheries will have to let go some of the massively expensive "lost causes" and turn their attention to worthwhile research into the long term sustainability of productive fish species.? These are the food source for the millions of Australians who benefit from eating fresh locally caught fish.

[ACTAngler]

Does anyone have any sensible questions they want asked at a GNS meeting next week?  DPI scientists will be there.  I was going to start with:

 - "Since the introduction of the GNS Critical Habitat Zones, have there been any confirmed captures of GNS by recreational anglers?"

 - "Have any studies been done to ascertain if current restrictions are working or not?"

 - "xxxx believes the GNS will become extinct in NSW regardless of efforts.  Are you just prolonging the inevitable?" (Can anyone fill in the xxx for me?)

[Pi]

Hi,

Take a look at the document at: http://www.spunge.org/~aag/GNSForum-DotPointSummary.pdf

Subsequent to this Ian Macdonald has stated that the gns population is in a state of decline, hence the need for human interference ie the breeding program.

But others contend that numbers are not what DPI Fisheries state, and are actually increasing. Note that the genetics mentioned above were based on samples taken from the DPI surveys. If the DPI numbers are correct, together with low genetic variation, then there is the argument that they aren't capable of adapting to climatic and other environmental changes as mentioned by Phil Creagh above.

In view of the Red Book listing, low numbers, low genetic variation, there are two point I would hammer:

- why allow any human interaction at all with the grey nurse, especially as nearly everyone is accepting climate change is occuring - and maybe even more as suggested in Al Gore's film?

- should be pushing for further surveys of the gns independ of DPI staff, and conducted with genetic studies, to confirm or otherwise DPI science - isn't this standard scientific procedure?

Phil

[Dr. Phil]

Does anyone have any sensible questions they want asked at a GNS meeting next week?? DPI scientists will be there.? I was going to start with:

 - "Since the introduction of the GNS Critical Habitat Zones, have there been any confirmed captures of GNS by recreational anglers?"

According to Mr Gallagher manager of threatened species NSW Fisheries, there is a credible report that a group of fishermen, now on a charter boat (the story has changed 3 times), caught 7 GNS (average = 50 - 80kg) in a days fishing at the NE end of Montague Island.?
I do not have all details, however:
Date 21st March 2004
They were fishing for Mowong using 4/0 hooks, 50lb braid and cube baits.
caught and released at boat 7 GNS, some cut off with trailing line.
This is NOW part of DPI records

As NSW Fisheries/MPA read this site, Some facts.
March 21st 2004
Wind = 30knots from SE
No charter boats from Narooma Bermagui at Island - it was too windy.? 2 boats looged on at RVCP, came back after 1 hour - "too windy"
GNS would take 30-50minutes to land - total fishing time = 5 hours or more
4/0 hooks would inevitably straighten??
They will be questioned "slightly" more about this incident.
It begs the question .... When do you "responsibley move fishing spots" after you have caught 3 GNS, 5 or 7??
Perhaps if anyone from Fisheries or the Narooma office of the MPA have got any corrections/comments??

- "Have any studies been done to ascertain if current restrictions are working or not?"

Current restrictions started Dec 2002.? Before the ink was dry, we were fighting the NCC and NPA (mostly Kessler of the NCC) who didn't agree with the restrictions and wanted a 1500m. exclusion zone around ALL aggregation sites.? McDonald started a "review" by late 2003.

"xxxx believes the GNS will become extinct in NSW regardless of efforts.? Are you just prolonging the inevitable?" (Can anyone fill in the xxx for me?)

xxxx = Otway, and about 10 Marine Scientists I know.?
I have done my own PVA, and have had my son, who is an environmental scientist with 1st class honours in Environmental statistics do a PVA, we all came up with the same conclusion for the GNS.?
It is very reminescent of the John Cleese skit about the Pet shop, and the owner (Cleese) who brings in the dead parrot - the owner of the pet shop does not think it is dead.
Believe me when I say, as a Veterinarian, I have had SEVERAL similar episodes (over 30 years).? I NEVER thought I would see it with a public servant earning well North of $100K/year.

[Rod Burston]

I don't subscribe to the view that the GNS is doomed. I also believe that there are many more GNS out there than claimed.

The only population study we have is that of Otway 2004. This tag and "recapture" study was conducted June 2003 and showed a population of 430 odd (300 to 700?) The result was not duplicated in a check survey some 3 months later. There were no tags seen during the second survey inferring that there was a very big population of sharks out there. The second survey is not even acknowledged in Otways report!!! The failure to duplicate the result of the first survey in the second survey invalidates the findings.

This means that we still don't know how many GNS sharks are out there. Numerous freediver sightings of aggregations from 20 to 250 over the last few years tend to suggest that they have got it terribly wrong. Professional divers tend to confirm this picture. Even Ben Crop admitted on mid north coast TV last year that the sharks were numerous.

Yes, Shane, there is one very crucial question you can ask. "Was there a second GNS survey conducted during the last two weeks in August 2003 and why wasn't this survey acknowledged in Otways 2004 report" Ask for the answer in writing.

GNS are plentiful in many more parts of the world than just WA, SA and USA. There is even a recognised population in Torres Straight. So why wouldn't there be populations in between, in places like the Kimberly?

[Oly]

What meeting re GNS??

[ACTAngler]

What meeting re GNS??

Organised by Nature Coast Marine Group in Moruya on Wednesday night, but I understand that it had been cancelled.

[Oly]

if it it held again, ask them for their impressions of Magic Point, and if scuba diving has had an adverse impact on the GNS there.

It was admitted by Megan Kessler at a meeting re GNS that magic point ( held at South Sydney Amateur Fishos Club last year ) that GNS at Magic Point had suffered due to too much scuba diving. yet still they dont propose to bans cuba diving in these areas.

Put the propsoal to the group that all activity should be removed from the GNS at Montague- including scuba diving. After all there is so few of them, and they have to swim around Australia to consume the 1800 kilos( from memory) of kingies that spearos take a year (from the 2001 Rec Survey that DPi ignores despite spedning 1 million bucks on it) as their sole source of protein then it might be good to give them a true rest from bubbles, fins and flash lights


  Watch the back flip.

[Tarki]

                                                 
                                                          GREY  NURSE  SHARK..........RIP..................Reached its "evolutionary use by date," and never ever, really recoved from the massive slaughter by stunt spearpersons during the 1960's. Those same stunt spearo's, who literally killed thousands for the media, and are now on the bandwagon to save the same shark and are now blaming recreational fishers. Just get a copy of the book titled "Shark Hunter," by Ben Cropp and have a look at the stories and pics.
  So just let it go quietly and peacefully.........into oblivion.              Tarki.

[Rod Burston]

Bay Post
Grey nurse shark extinction inevitable
Posted by Phillip Creagh
Monday, 18 September 2006

ONE of the principal reasons we have the Batemans Marine Park covering 100km of coastline of the South Coast is a "back door" method the Marine Parks Authority thought up to save the grey nurse shark, as there are two aggregation sites off the coast and they have identified one or two others, notably Brush Island, at the northern end.
However, there are many fisheries scientists who believe that the eastern Australian population of the grey nurse shark is doomed.
One of the few, reliable, published studies done into the future of the grey nurse shark was done by Otway in 2004. It identified a worse case scenario of six years before the shark was, essentially, extinct, and, at best, a period of 50 or so years to reach extinction.
However, the variability within mortality levels is so high that it makes these numbers almost meaningless. The one certain thing is that the eastern grey nurse shark population will become extinct.
So why does the NSW Government spend such extraordinary levels of money on trying to pull the shark back from the "brink"?
As late as the end of August the Department of Fisheries announced a $600,000 grant to develop an artificial uterus so that the shark can be saved. This brings the amount of money spent on this shark over the past few years into the millions of dollars. This is just another stage of throwing money at the problem, while they have allowed the eastern gemfish fishery to collapse.
Grey nurse numbers have dropped to such a level that, unless you believe all mankind evolved from Adam and Eve, the genetic diversity and hybrid vigour within the remaining population is so low that any breeding program will almost inevitably bring in genetic defects and a vastly reduced ability to survive in the wild.
In other words, it is a pointless and expensive exercise.
Some conservationists believe that banning fishing at Montague Island and at other "aggregation sites" will solve the problem. However, they have a rose-tinted view of the world and anthropomorphise anything to do with animals. They have no concept of the scientific situation, preferring their own blinkered view on the "fix".
The NSW Department of Fisheries threatened species manager stated at a recent meeting that it would be a tragedy if the shark became extinct. It must be remembered that there is still a healthy, viable population of the sharks (Carcharias taurus) in Western Australia, South Africa and the USA. The populations in these areas were not bought to near extinction by an "anti-shark" crusade by scuba divers using powerheads from the 1950s to the early 1970s.
At some stage the conservationists within Fisheries will have to let go some of the massively expensive "lost causes" and turn their attention to worthwhile research into the long-term sustainability of productive fish species. These are the food source for the millions of Australians who benefit from eating fresh, locally caught fish.
 
 

[Nete-Quette]

Shark protection plans may go to court
Animal conservation groups are considering legal action to force the New South Wales Government to better protect the grey nurse shark.

There are now an estimated 500 grey nurse sharks left on the east coast of Australia, and the State Government is currently considering protection at five critical habitat sites.

Nicola Beynon, from Humane Society International, says the Government is not acting fast enough.

She says environmental groups and divers agree that better protection needs to be put in place before it is too late.

"There are 16 sites that this shark depends on," she said.

"They're small sites, they need to be protected from fishing as a matter of urgency otherwise we're looking at the grey nurse shark going extinct in the decade."

Environmental groups and divers will meet in Sydney today to work out their campaign strategy.

Shark protection legal action 'a waste'
The New South Wales Minister for Natural Resources, Ian Macdonald, says taking legal action against the State Government over the conservation of grey nurse shark would be a waste of money.

There are less than 500 of the sharks left on the east coast.

Animal conservation groups say the Government is taking too long to save the shark.

They are meeting in Sydney today to discuss how to speed up the efforts, including taking legal action against the NSW Government.

But Mr Macdonald says the Government is already doing what it can.

"We are spending a lot of money on the breeding program," he said.

"If we're able to complete this successfully it will have a dramatic impact on the survival of the shark, not only in Australia but overseas.

"Our view is we have the measures in place and it would be a complete waste of money by the green groups to be running off to the courts."

[row]

Legal action urged to protect endangered shark
SMH. Date: October 6 2006

Wendy Frew, Environment Reporter
CONSERVATIONISTS and diving groups may take Federal Court action against the NSW Government for what they say is its failure to protect the critically endangered grey nurse shark.
With fewer than 500 sharks on the east coast of Australia and one shark killed by human activity each month, the species could become extinct within 10 years, conservationists say.
It is already listed as an endangered species under state and federal law. But conservationists want the Government to ban line fishing - recognised in NSW law as a key threat to the species - in all 16 main NSW habitats.
Both the state and federal governments yesterday dismissed the legal threat, saying it would not help the species.
A Humane Society International representative, Nicola Beynon, who attended an emergency meeting of scientists, conservationists and diving groups in Sydney yesterday, said it was not too much to ask anglers to give up some fishing spots to save the species.
"The population at South West Rocks is one of the most critical because it is the biggest ? but 70 per cent of the sharks there will be trailing fishing hooks," she said.
South West Rocks is not protected by marine park status.
Ms Beynon acknowledged the State Government was considering sanctuary-level protection at six of the sites in marine parks being created at Port Stephens and Batemans Bay but worried the Government would scale back the sanctuaries under pressure from recreational fishing groups.
The NSW Greens MP Ian Cohen criticised the Government's efforts to establish a breeding program that involved artificial wombs and test tube pups, saying there was no evidence it would work.
"We are dealing with a species that is on an international level with the snow leopard and the white tiger," Mr Cohen said.
"So on a global scale it will be a real loss to biodiversity.
"The minister has been warned and pleaded with ? but he is prepared to sacrifice the grey nurse shark to politics."
The NSW Minister for Natural Resources, Ian Macdonald, defended the Government's efforts to protect the shark and the artificial breeding program.
"We believe the population has stabilised," Mr Macdonald said. "You would find there would always be some deaths [from fishing hooks and nets] but we believe we have limited that by banning the key threat, which is set line fishing."
He said those who accused the Government of giving in to recreational fishing groups "demonstrate an unreasonable paranoia".
"We are trying to find a balance where people can enjoy recreational fishing in our waters while ensuring protection [of the shark] ? our advice is that extreme measures won't help," he said.
A spokesman for the federal Minister for the Environment, Ian Campbell, said the Commonwealth "would strongly encourage NSW to do what they need to do" but said threats of legal action "would do nothing to protect the species".

[row]

Govt defends measures to protect grey nurse sharks. 05/10/2006.
ABC News Online

[This is the print version of story http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1756153.htm]
Last Update: Thursday, October 5, 2006. 5:28pm (AEST)
Govt defends measures to protect grey nurse sharks
The New South Wales Government has defended its protection of grey nurse sharks and described a potential legal challenge against it as a "waste of money".
But animal conservation groups say not enough is being done and the species could be extinct in a decade.
A meeting of environmental groups and divers say with 500 grey nurse sharks left on the east coast, more protection is needed to save the critically endangered species.
Diver Peter Hitchens from South West Rocks says he sees sharks with fishing hooks attached every day.
"I have seen autopsy results with hooks inside the stomach, which causes septicemia the sharks die as a result."
Today conservation groups agreed legal action might force the NSW Government to put in no go zones at 16 critical habitat sites.
Natural Resources Minister Ian Macdonald disagrees.
"I think they should save their money and work with the Government".
The NSW Government is considering protection at Port Stephens and Bateman's Bay, but it is yet to make a decision.

[Tarki]

  The entire east coast is habitat for the Grey Nurse Shark! Labor's Minister, Bob Debus, calls them cuddly creatures, the Labradors of the sea. And as any user of the marine environment knows full well, they are a top order predator, and all sharks BITE.
  The Labor government would rather ban the states one million recreational fishers from fishing, than ban their shark nets off the Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong beaches. These nets are not selective about the sharks they catch and kill. They do catch and kill Grey Nurse Sharks. Just ask the contractors!   Tarki.