Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Commercial Atlantic Blacknose and Recreational Atlantic Shark Fisheries Management Measures; Extension of Comment Period

Shark Stewards, a non-profit organization, opposes the proposed revisions to Atlantic shark fisheries management measures. They argue that the proposal lacks scientific stock assessments, relies on anecdotal evidence rather than data, and threatens vulnerable species by lowering size limits and increasing recreational bag limits.

Fish Feel, an advocacy organization, opposes the NOAA Fisheries proposal to increase Atlantic shark catch limits. They argue that the proposal threatens endangered and struggling species, lacks sufficient scientific data, and fails to address the root problem of overfishing in marine ecosystems.

The Captain Paul Watson Foundation (CPWF) Chapter for Chicago and Illinois opposes the proposed increases in catch limits for U.S. shark populations, specifically citing concerns over depleted populations and the status of threatened species. They urge NOAA to maintain existing limits and advocate for a long-term goal of a permanent ban on all commercial and lethal recreational fishing of sharks in U.S. waters.

The commenter provides a mixed response to the proposed measures, supporting the removal of the Atlantic latitudinal boundary for blacknose sharks but opposing changes to commercial quota linkages and recreational retention limits. They argue that many species are currently overfished and that increasing retention limits without sufficient data or stock assessments could cause significant ecological damage.

An individual concerned about ocean health opposes increasing catch limits for Atlantic shark species, citing a lack of formal assessments and the threatened status of many species. They urge NOAA to maintain existing recreational and commercial limits to protect marine ecosystems and support ongoing population recovery efforts.

The commenter opposes increasing catch limits for shark species, specifically requesting that NOAA maintain existing limits for Atlantic sharks. They argue that many of the proposed species have not been assessed by NOAA and that a majority are recognized as threatened on the IUCN redlist.

The commenter opposes the proposed increases to recreational and commercial shark catch limits, arguing that the changes lack scientific backing. They advocate for maintaining existing limits to protect shark populations and the broader ocean ecosystem.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule changes, arguing that shark populations are declining and that current claims of overpopulation lack scientific basis. They express concern that loosening catch limits and altering size limits will prevent juvenile sharks from repopulating and harm ocean health.

John Borys opposes the proposed increases in shark harvest flexibility and retention limits, arguing that these measures could reverse decades of conservation progress. He contends that increased shark depredation is a sign of recovering populations rather than overpopulation and advocates for a precautionary, science-based management approach.

The commenter opposes increasing catch limits for shark species, specifically arguing against flexible recreational retention limits and higher commercial limits for blacknose sharks. They advocate for maintaining current limits (Alternatives D1 and C1) to protect populations that are currently threatened or severely depleted.