White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias): recovery strategy Atlantic Canadian waters (proposed)

Official title: Recovery Strategy for White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) in Atlantic Canadian Waters

Preface

The federal, provincial, and territorial government signatories under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996) agreed to establish complementary legislation and programs that provide for the protection of species at risk throughout Canada. Under the Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c.29) (SARA), the federal competent ministers are responsible for the preparation of a recovery strategy for species listed as extirpated, endangered, or threatened and are required to report on progress 5 years after the publication of the final document on the Species at Risk Public Registry and every subsequent 5 years.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is the competent minister under SARA for the White Shark (Atlantic population) and has prepared this strategy, as per section 37 of SARA. In preparing this recovery strategy, the competent minister has considered, as per section 38 of SARA, the commitment of the Government of Canada to conserving biological diversity and to the principle that, if there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the listed species, cost-effective measures to prevent the reduction or loss of the species should not be postponed for a lack of full scientific certainty. To the extent possible, this recovery strategy has been prepared in cooperation with other federal government departments, provincial governments, Indigenous organizations, and others as per subsection 39(1) of SARA.

As stated in the preamble to SARA, success in the recovery of this species depends on the commitment and cooperation of many different groups that will be involved in implementing the measures set out in this strategy and will not be achieved by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), or any other jurisdiction alone. The cost of conserving species at risk is shared amongst different groups. All Canadians are invited to join in supporting and implementing this strategy for the benefit of the White Shark (Atlantic population) and Canadian society as a whole.

This recovery strategy will be followed by 1 or more action plans that will provide information on recovery measures to be taken by DFO and other jurisdictions and/or organizations involved in the conservation of the species. Implementation of this strategy is subject to appropriations, priorities, and budgetary constraints of the participating jurisdictions and organizations.

Acknowledgments

DFO wishes to acknowledge the many individuals who provided valuable input into the development of this recovery strategy.

Executive summary

The Atlantic population of White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) in Canada was listed as endangered under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2011. This recovery strategy is part of a series of documents for this species that are linked and should be taken into consideration together; including the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) status reports (COSEWIC 2006; 2021), a recovery potential assessment (RPA) (DFO 2006), an evaluation of scope for harm (DFO 2017), and an action plan (to come). The feasibility of recovery of the White Shark in Atlantic Canadian waters is unknown. In keeping with the precautionary principle, a recovery strategy has been prepared as would be done when recovery is determined to be feasible.

Globally, White Sharks are rare, though they are known to occur in certain areas with greater frequency, and are widely distributed throughout sub-tropical and temperate seas. White Sharks range along the Atlantic coast of North America, especially from Massachusetts to New Jersey in summer and off the Atlantic coast of Florida in winter. White Shark records in Atlantic Canada^{Footnote 1}  are relatively rare, but occur most frequently from June to September (DFO 2020).

Human-induced mortality is the main threat to White Sharks. This species is caught as commercial bycatch, sought as a sport fish, and subject to a lucrative international trade in its body parts, particularly jaws, teeth, and fins. White Shark recovery is limited by the species’ naturally low abundance, low reproductive capacity, slow growth, and late maturation, which contribute to overall low productivity (Bowlby and Gibson, 2020).

The size of the White Shark population in the Northwest Atlantic is unknown. Studies suggest a decline of as much as 86% in the 1970s and 1980s (Baum et al. 2003; McPherson and Myers 2009; Curtis et al. 2014). More recent data suggest an increase in abundance following implementation of conservation measures in the 1990s (Curtis et al. 2014). Despite this positive trend, population abundance estimates remain below a historical estimate from 1961, and the susceptibility of White Shark populations to anthropogenic threats warrants concern about recovering the species.

A description of the broad strategies to be taken to address threats to the species’ survival and recovery, as well as research and management approaches needed to meet the population and distribution objectives, are included in section 7. These will help inform the development of specific recovery measures in 1 or more action plans.

The identification of critical habitat for White Shark is not possible at this time, due to insufficient information. The schedule of studies outlines the research required to identify critical habitat to achieve the species’ population and distribution objectives (section 8).

Incidental interactions with White Sharks during the following activities are exempted by the recovery strategy (section 10 of this document):

• fishing under the authority of a commercial licence issued under the Fisheries Act
• fishing under the authority of a communal commercial licence issued under the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations
• scientific research activities undertaken by DFO and authorized under the Fishery (General) Regulations

In addition, directed interactions with White Sharks during the following activities are exempted by the recovery strategy:

• scientific research activities undertaken by DFO for White Shark conservation purposes and authorized under the Fishery (General) Regulations

A proposed action plan will be completed within 5 years of posting the final recovery strategy.

Recovery feasibility summary

Worldwide, White Sharks are naturally low in abundance (Chapple et al. 2011). The species has a long generation time and a low reproductive capacity, making it particularly vulnerable to human-induced mortality (COSEWIC 2006). It is difficult to assess the feasibility of recovery for the White Shark population in Atlantic Canadian waters due to a lack of data about the population’s abundance, habitat use, migration, and productivity.

The majority of the Northwest Atlantic population of White Shark occurs in the Atlantic waters of the United States (US), and range-wide population changes may have a significant effect on recovery feasibility in Canada. Recovery feasibility in Canadian waters depends on the overall recovery of White Sharks in the US and elsewhere in Atlantic waters. It has been suggested that the Northwest Atlantic population is increasing in abundance (Curtis et al. 2014). Increased tracking efforts may reveal that Atlantic Canadian waters are used more frequently by White Sharks than was previously thought (Skomal et al. 2017). In addition, while climate change may lead to White Shark habitat degradation on a global scale, it could also create preferential habitat for White Sharks within Atlantic Canadian waters, increasing their abundance in Atlantic Canadian waters (Bastien et al. 2020). Conversely, if the population were to experience a decline, as it has in the past (Baum et al. 2003; McPherson and Myers 2009), its range could contract away from the current periphery.; As a result, individuals may migrate toward the centre of the range, resulting in fewer occurrences in Atlantic Canadian waters.

Based on the following 4 criteria established in the Species at Risk Act Policies (Government of Canada 2009), the feasibility of recovery of the White Shark in Atlantic Canadian waters is unknown. In keeping with the precautionary principle, a recovery strategy has been prepared as per subsection 41(1) of SARA, as would be done when recovery is determined to be feasible. This recovery strategy addresses the unknowns surrounding the feasibility of recovery.

1. Are individuals of the wildlife species that are capable of reproduction available now or in the foreseeable future to sustain the population or improve its abundance?

Answer: Yes.

Individuals capable of reproduction are currently available to contribute to population growth and abundance in US waters (Casey and Pratt 1985; Curtis et al. 2014). White Sharks inhabiting Canadian waters are not expected to be distinct or separate from the broader Northwest Atlantic population (COSEWIC 2006). Residency patterns of young-of-the-year, juvenile, and adult White Sharks of both sexes in continental shelf waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight up through coastal waters of Massachusetts suggest that this area serves as a nursery and mating area (Casey and Pratt 1985; Skomal 2007; Curtis et al. 2014; Curtis et al 2018; Shaw et al. 2021).

2. Is sufficient suitable habitat available to support the species, or could suitable habitat be made available through habitat management or restoration?

Answer: Yes.

White Sharks occur in temperate and tropical waters with a wide distribution that includes both coastal and pelagic (offshore) waters (Compagno 2001). In the Western North Atlantic, the White Shark ranges from Newfoundland to northern Brazil (COSEWIC 2021). It is unclear what percentage of the population uses Canadian waters. Habitat use by White Sharks in Atlantic Canadian waters as well as the potential efficacy of future habitat management or restoration efforts are unknown. However, White Sharks are generalist predators that can partially regulate their body temperature (Compagno 2001); 2 characteristics that allow them to succeed in a wide variety of environmental conditions.

3. Can the primary threats to the species or its habitat (including threats outside Canada) be avoided or mitigated?

Answer: Yes.

The primary threats to White Sharks are mortality associated with commercial and recreational fisheries, as well as other factors related to illegal and unreported international trade in shark parts. In the Northwest Atlantic, the incidental catch of White Sharks in US fisheries (for example, longline, gillnet, rod and reel) appears to be the most significant source of mortality (Curtis, pers. comm. 2011; Santana-Morales et al. 2012). White Sharks appear to be captured in a variety of fisheries, using both fixed and mobile gear. Globally, there is no clear conclusion about which fishery is incidentally capturing the most White Sharks.

In Atlantic Canada, 94 White Shark records (76 confirmed and 19 unconfirmed) were collected over the period 1873 to 2020 (DFO 2021). These records include 31 incidental captures in fisheries that are assumed to have resulted in mortality between 1873 and 2016 (DFO 2017). Most of these occurred in cod or hake gillnets and herring weirs. Although incomplete reporting and species misidentification would affect these data, incidental captures causing direct mortality to White Shark are thought to be very rare in Canadian waters (DFO 2017).

The recovery of a wide-ranging species like the White Shark is challenging when its management is shared by several countries. Canadian efforts can contribute to the recovery and protection of the Northwest Atlantic population of White Shark; however, collaboration with other jurisdictions is paramount to the recovery of this population. Collaboration with the US, other nations, and Regional Fisheries Management Organizations can enable the development of mitigation and management measures to contribute to the recovery of this population outside of Canada.

The live release of incidentally captured White Sharks, when possible, is a measure that can be implemented to mitigate threats (DFO 2006) and is 1 condition among others required for the exemption described in section 10 of this recovery strategy. Another condition of the exemption is the mandatory reporting of incidental captures in a DFO-approved SARA monitoring document, which will provide information to better understanding of the threat of bycatch, and to support recovery. In addition, research and monitoring will improve knowledge of White Shark biology, ecology, and seasonal distribution, thereby informing additional mitigation and management measures.

Effects of climate change on White Shark are not well understood but could alter White Shark distribution in Atlantic Canadian waters. The threat of climate change to White Sharks cannot be mitigated at a regional scale; however, this is not identified as a primary threat to the species.

4. Do recovery techniques exist to achieve the population and distribution objectives or can they be expected to be developed within a reasonable timeframe?

Answer: Unknown.

Available data are insufficient to support traditional fisheries assessment models, which are typically used to determine quantitative abundance and population and distribution objectives (DFO 2006). As an alternative, this recovery strategy incorporates a qualitative recovery goal until sufficient information is available to develop quantitative population and distribution objectives. As further information becomes available regarding threats and threat mitigation it is assumed that more targeted recovery techniques and management measures can be developed within Canada to reduce human-induced mortality to this species.

1 Introduction

The White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) Atlantic population^{Footnote 2}  was listed as endangered under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2011.

This recovery strategy is part of a series of documents regarding White Shark (Atlantic population) that should be taken into consideration together, including the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) status reports (COSEWIC 2006; 2021), the recovery potential assessment (RPA) (DFO 2006 [PDF 57 KB]), the evaluation of scope for harm (DFO 2017 [PDF 703 KB]), and the subsequent action plan(s) (to come). A recovery strategy is a planning document that identifies what needs to be done to arrest or reverse the decline of a species. It sets objectives and identifies the main areas of activities to be undertaken. Detailed planning for species recovery is done at the subsequent action plan stage.

The RPA is a process undertaken by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Science to provide the information and scientific advice required to implement SARA, relying on the best available scientific information, data analyses and modeling, and expert opinions. The outcome of this process informs many sections of the recovery strategy. For more detailed information beyond what is presented in this recovery strategy, refer to the COSEWIC status reports (COSEWIC 2006; 2021) and the RPA (DFO 2006).

2 COSEWIC species assessment information

Date of assessment: April 2021

Common name (population): White Shark (Atlantic population)

Scientific name: Carcharodon carcharias

Status: Endangered

Reason for designation: This highly mobile species is a seasonal migrant in Atlantic Canada and considered to be part of a widespread Northwest Atlantic population. The status of the Canadian population is considered to be the same as that of the broader Northwest Atlantic population. That broader population is estimated to have declined by >70% over the past 1.5 generations (since the 1960s) because of incidental mortality from fishing. However, the population appears to have remained stable since the 1990s and is projected to remain stable or increase slightly. Although measures to improve fishing practices have been introduced, the primary threat continues to be mortality from incidental capture in fisheries. The species is still vulnerable to this threat because of its long generation time (42 years) and low reproductive rate.

Occurrence: Atlantic Ocean, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Québec

Status history: Designated Endangered in April 2006. Status re-examined and confirmed in May 2021.

3 Species status information

The White Shark has been internationally recognized as an at-risk species for several decades. Table 1 provides a summary of the various status designations assigned to this species. This list is not exhaustive, and these designations are not all associated with legally binding prohibitions to protect the species. More information on national-level protections afforded to White Sharks can be found in Bruce (2008) and Santa-Morales et al. (2012).

Upon listing as an endangered species (2011), the White Shark (Atlantic population) became protected wherever it is found by section 32 of SARA:

“No person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a wildlife species that is listed as an extirpated species, an endangered species or a threatened species.” [subsection 32(1)]

“No person shall possess, collect, buy, sell or trade an individual of a wildlife species that is listed as an extirpated species, an endangered species or a threatened species, or any part or derivative of such an individual.” [subsection 32(2)]

Under section 73 of SARA, the competent minister may enter into an agreement or issue a permit, if the pre-conditions are met, authorizing a person to engage in an activity affecting a listed wildlife species, any part of its critical habitat or its residences.

4 Species information

4.1 Description

White Sharks are large endothermic (warm-blooded) predators that occupy the apex of most food webs where they occur (Compagno 2001). The largest individuals can reach over 6 m in length. Length at birth is between 109 cm and 165 cm. White Sharks can be distinguished by their stout body with a conical snout, and large, flat, triangular serrated teeth. They have long gill slits and conspicuously large black irises. Similar to most sharks, they have 2 dorsal fins; the first is large with a dark rear tip that is not attached to the back, and the second is much smaller. The caudal fin is large and crescent-shaped. As shown in figure 1, the dorsal surface is darker, ranging from grey or brownish-grey to blackish, while the ventral surface of the body is a sharply contrasting white (COSEWIC 2006).

Little is known about White Shark biology and ecology (Bruce 2008). White Sharks are slow-growing and long-lived, surviving up to 73 years (Hamady et al. 2014; Natanson and Skomal 2015). They are late-maturing, at 26 years for males and 33 years for females (Natanson and Skomal 2015). Length at sexual maturity has been estimated as 4 to 5 m for females and 3.1 to 4.1 m for males, based on dissection of reproductive organs of both sexes, and/or the extent of clasper calcification in males (Francis 1996; Pratt 1996; Tanaka et al. 2011). White Sharks have a long gestation period (10 to 20 months), small litter size (2 to 17 pups) (COSEWIC 2006; Bruce 2008), and low reproductive capacity (Smith et al. 1998). Generation time is uncertain due to varying estimates of life history parameters, but is estimated at 23 to 62 years, likely closer to 62 years (Bruce 2008; Hamady et al. 2014; DFO 2017). The species is known to be highly opportunistic and preys on a wide spectrum of organisms such as fish (including skates and other sharks), seals, whales, marine turtles, marine birds, and some invertebrates (squids and crustaceans) (Bruce 2008). Individuals larger than 3 to 4 m feed predominantly on marine mammals (Klimley 1985; Estrada et al. 2006). White Sharks have also been observed to scavenge on dead marine mammals, such as whales (Skomal et al. 2012). White Sharks are known to aggregate near concentrations of schooling fish typically in upwelling areas and near seal colonies (Compagno 2001). Diet varies by region according to the availability, abundance, and vulnerability of prey (Compagno 2001).

White Sharks are obligate ram breathers, meaning they must swim to breathe. If they are restricted from swimming, they will drown.

4.2 Population abundance and distribution

White Sharks are widely distributed throughout temperate and subtropical regions of the world’s oceans (see figure 2). They have been reported in a wide range of water temperatures from 1.6 to 30.4°C (Skomal et al. 2017). The species is most commonly observed in the coastal waters of California, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa (Compagno 2001). In the Western North Atlantic, the White Shark ranges from Newfoundland to Northern Brazil (COSEWIC 2021). Both DNA evidence and tagging studies suggest a single, wide-ranging population in the Northwest Atlantic, with limited gene flow among other populations (Boustany et al. 2002; Gubili et al. 2011; O’Leary et al. 2015). This means that the Northwest Atlantic population is largely genetically isolated from populations elsewhere in the Atlantic, Mediterranean, and Pacific oceans.

White Sharks are globally rare and population data are limited (COSEWIC 2006). Global abundance is unknown, though studies suggest historical population declines in the Northwest Atlantic, off South Africa and Eastern Australia, and in the Adriatic Sea (Pepperell 1992; Reid and Krough 1992; Cliff et al. 1996; Soldo and Jardas 2002; Baum et al. 2003). More recent studies show apparent increases in abundance in the Northwest Atlantic, South Africa, New Zealand, and California (Dudley and Simpfendorfer 2006; Reid et al. 2011; Lowe et al. 2012; Curtis et al. 2014). Even in known hotspots such as off central California and South Africa, population estimates indicate that the species exists in relatively low numbers (Chapple et al. 2011; Andreotti et al. 2016).

The population size in the Northwest Atlantic is unknown, although Curtis et al. (2014) collected 649 verified records (excluding tagged detections) over a 210-year period (1800 to 2010), 94% of which occurred after 1950. In total there are 76 confirmed and 19 unconfirmed records^{Footnote 3}  of White Sharks in Atlantic Canadian waters between 1873 and 2020 (figure 3). Of these, 45 records (33 confirmed, 12 unconfirmed) occurred between 2009 and 2020. The number of White Shark records in Atlantic Canada is likely an unreliable index of the species’ local abundance, due to the relatively few records in Atlantic Canadian waters compared to United States (US) waters (DFO 2006). In recent years, increased research and identification efforts have revealed Atlantic Canadian waters to be more frequently used than previously thought (Skomal et al. 2017).

From 2018 to 2020, DFO tagged 2 White Sharks in Atlantic Canadian waters, and the organization OCEARCH tagged 26 White Sharks. OCEARCH also tagged sharks in US waters that were later tracked into Atlantic Canadian waters. The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MDMF), in collaboration with the Ocean Tracking Network (OTN) at Dalhousie University, and DFO, have tagged sharks in US waters that were similarly tracked into Atlantic Canadian waters. Over 30 acoustic-tagged sharks have been detected in Atlantic Canadian waters (Chisholm, pers. comm. 2016). Work is underway to compile and consolidate acoustic data collected in the region across years. Preliminary and published results from these research programs indicate that White Sharks occur seasonally in Atlantic Canadian waters, ranging widely throughout the region, representing a mix of sub-adults and mature sharks, males and females (Skomal et al. 2017; Bastien et al. 2020).

Prior to 2014, the only published study examining trends in White Shark abundance in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean used catch-per-unit-effort data from an American pelagic longline fishery to estimate a 79% decline between 1986 and 2000 (Baum et al. 2003). However, the magnitude of this decline has been disputed (Burgess et al. 2005). Research by McPherson and Myers (2009) suggested an 86% decline of White Sharks in eastern Canadian waters over 3 generations (1926 to 1988) based on sightings data using different scenarios with varying at-sea observer efforts. Curtis et al. (2014) reviewed data from 1800 to 2010, including previously published data and more recent unpublished records, to create the largest dataset of White Sharks in the Northwest Atlantic. Their analysis suggests that White Sharks in the Northwest Atlantic increased in abundance following the implementation of conservation measures in the US during the 1990s, a common trend for White Shark populations globally. However, the magnitude of population increase is uncertain and is likely affected by changes in distribution (Bowlby and Gibson 2020). Despite this positive trend,  mortality from anthropogenic threats remains a concern for the long-term viability of the Northwest Atlantic population (Curtis et al. 2014). A recently estimated reference point suggested that total annual removals for the Northwest Atlantic population should remain below 10 animals to ensure long-term persistence of the population (Bowlby and Gibson 2020).

Satellite, archival and acoustic tracking, as well as photographic studies of White Sharks, have significantly improved understanding of local movements, residency patterns, and long-distance migrations of the species (Klimley and Ainley 1996; Bonfil 2004; Bruce et al. 2006; Bruce 2008; Duffy et al. 2012; Skomal et al. 2017). Adult White Sharks are thought to be more wide-ranging than previously assumed. They use inshore, continental shelf, pelagic, and mesopelagic waters, and regularly undertake long offshore migrations (Boustany et al. 2002; COSEWIC 2006). Genetic studies have shown that the dispersal of White Sharks may be sex-biased, with higher site fidelity exhibited by females (Pardini et al. 2001; Gubili et al. 2012). Research in the Pacific off California showed that males exhibit a 1 year migratory pattern, while females exhibit a 2 year migratory pattern using inshore or offshore waters depending on their life cycle stage (Domeier and Nasby-Lucas 2013). Juvenile sharks often remain in localized coastal areas but may also undertake long-distance coastal migrations (Bruce et al. 2006; Shaw et al. 2021). White Sharks appear to follow common routes when moving between areas along the coast. Identification of these routes and the mitigation of harmful human interactions in these areas may have important conservation implications for the species (Bruce et al. 2006).

White Sharks range widely along the Atlantic coast of North America (Curtis et al. 2014; Skomal et al. 2017). Skomal et al. (2017) identified 2 distinct patterns of habitat use in tagged White Sharks of the Northwest Atlantic. Coastal sharks stayed on the continental shelf, and showed predictable seasonal migration patterns. Pelagic sharks occupied habitat beyond the continental shelf for some portion of the year, and showed less predictability in their movement patterns over time and space. However, during the summer months, all tagged sharks, both coastal and pelagic, occupied coastal habitat, ranging from the Gulf of Mexico to New England. Coastal sharks included juvenile, sub-adult, and adult sharks, whereas pelagic sharks comprised only sub-adult and adult individuals. Movements offshore likely coincide with increases in size, which allow White Sharks to occupy a greater thermal range. Coastal and pelagic sharks occupied sea surface temperatures from 4° to 32.6°C and 1° to 30.4°C, respectively. Coastal White Sharks moved throughout the entire water column, spending 95% of their time in the top 50 m, whereas pelagic sharks exhibited a bimodal preference for depths of <  25 m and 200 to 600 m (Skomal et al. 2017). White Sharks are known to occur up to depths of 1,280 m (Bigelow and Schroeder 1948; Skomal et al. 2017). The behaviour of pelagic sharks in the Northwest Atlantic is generally associated with foraging activity (Skomal et al. 2017). However, Skomal et al. (2017) also suggested that offshore movements by females could coincide with gestation, as supported by tagging studies in the Pacific (Comier and Nasby-Lucas 2012; Domier 2012).

Atlantic Canadian waters are seasonally available to the Northwest Atlantic population of White Sharks and represent the northern limit of their distribution (COSEWIC 2006; Curtis et al. 2014). The extent of the species’ range that lies in these waters is unknown. Areas of high shark density vary seasonally, with higher density in the mid-Atlantic Bight, New England, and Canadian waters during summer, and off the Southeastern US and in the Gulf of Mexico during winter (Curtis et al. 2014). The majority of confirmed sightings within Atlantic Canada occur between June to September with the most recorded sightings occurring in August (COSEWIC 2006; DFO 2021). However, tagged White Sharks have been recorded further offshore towards the continental shelf break in winter months (Skomal et al. 2017), with one shark staying around the shelf break near the Eastern Scotian Shelf and Grand Banks from November 2015 to February 2016 (OCEARCH 2021).

The Mi’kmaq people of Atlantic Canada state that the White Shark has been known to their people for thousands of years; a White Shark tooth was found in an oyster midden, dated 1,000 to 2,000 years before present, on Pig Island in the Northumberland Strait, Nova Scotia (Gilhen 1998; COSEWIC 2006). Indigenous knowledge is a source of information about White Shark distribution and habitat use.

Local knowledge possessed by ocean users is also a source of information on White Shark distribution and habitat use.

4.3 Needs of the species

The habitat needs of White Shark within Atlantic Canadian waters are unknown. They occur regularly in Atlantic Canadian coastal and pelagic waters, mainly during summer and fall months, though there have also been documented occurrences in winter months (COSEWIC 2006; Skomal et al. 2017; OCEARCH 2021; DFO 2021).

In Atlantic Canada, it is probable that White Sharks regularly scavenge on and hunt marine mammals (COSEWIC 2006). Warmer waters during the summer and the presence of seal rookeries may help explain their distribution (Brodie and Beck 1983; Lucas and Natanson 2010).

White Shark survival and recovery are subject to inherent limiting factors including their naturally low abundance, slow growth, late maturation, and low fecundity, which lead to overall low productivity (COSEWIC 2006). These factors may be magnified by site fidelity displayed by female White Sharks, which may increase their vulnerability to exploitation (Pardini et al. 2001). White Sharks may also be particularly susceptible to environmental toxicity and pollution, due to their life history and ovoviviparous reproduction (COSEWIC 2006).

5 Threats

5.1 Threat assessment

A threat is defined as any human activity or process that has caused, is causing, or may cause harm, death, or behavioural changes to a wildlife species at risk, or the destruction, degradation and/or impairment of its habitat, to the extent that population-level effects occur (DFO 2014b). COSEWIC (2006) assessed White Shark in Atlantic Canada as endangered largely due to threats occurring outside of Canadian waters that likely influence the ability of the species to recover within Canadian waters. Threats to White Shark are summarized in table 2, and described in more detail in section 5.2 and COSEWIC (2006). Threat assessment categories are defined in appendix C.

The threat assessment presented in table 2 was completed based on information in the COSEWIC status report (COSEWIC 2006), the RPA (DFO 2006), the evaluation of scope for harm (DFO 2017), other published information, and expert opinion. The threat assessment was not subject to scientific peer review and preceded the publication of the most recent program guidance on assessing threats to species at risk (DFO 2014b). The results of the assessment are subject to change as new information becomes available. In the absence of a population estimate, and without knowledge of how threats may have affected the population to date, population-level effects cannot be determined with any certainty. Instead, probable population-level effects are inferred from what is currently known about the rate of mortality and injury to individuals, where available.

5.2 Description of threats

Global threats are relevant to all White Shark populations, but little is known about threats within Atlantic Canadian waters. Threats are described below in a global context and, where possible, information regarding the White Shark in Atlantic Canadian waters is provided. The COSEWIC (2006) assessment identifies human activities, primarily commercial and recreational fishing, the curio trade in jaws and teeth, trade in fins for food and trophies, and the bioaccumulation of toxins, as the main threats to White Sharks. Other potential threats (section 5.2.10) may result in direct mortality or injury to individual sharks, may affect their behaviour and habitat use, and may contribute to reduced population fitness and viability.

5.2.1 Fishing, finning, and curio trade

Global

White Sharks are predominantly caught as commercial bycatch, although small-scale and artisanal fisheries in some areas also target the species (Compagno 2001). White Sharks are mostly targeted for their highly valued teeth, jaws and fins (Compagno 2001; CITES 2004). Teeth and jaws are used in the curio trade for jewelry, souvenirs, decorations, and collectibles. Large sharks are more in demand for the higher value of their jaws and individual teeth (Compagno 2001; Bonfil et al. 2004; Duffy 2004; Fowler et al. 2005). The highly valued fins of White Sharks make them more vulnerable to finning. This refers to the removal and retention of shark fins and the discard of the remainder of the body at sea, a practice which contributes significantly to the overexploitation of sharks worldwide (IUCN 2003). Fins are then sold both as food and as trophies. The meat, skin, cartilage, and liver oil of the species are used for human consumption, although the high mercury content of the meat limits its demand (Compagno 2001).

The high value and notoriety of White Shark products encourage poaching and illegal trade. Evidence suggests that where legislative protections for the species exist, White Sharks were still poached and traded as of the early 2000s, including in Australia, South Africa, and the US (CITES 2004; Shivji et al. 2005). Considering the high value, ease of transport, and ready market for White Shark teeth, this threat may be more significant than current Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) records indicate (Cooper 2009). Because of the unknown extent of fishing throughout its range, including illegal and unreported fishing and trade, combined with the high value of White Shark products, this threat is considered to be a high concern globally.

Atlantic Canada

Finning in Canadian waters, and by Canadian licence holders operating outside the Canadian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), has been banned since 1994 (DFO 2007). Canada has adopted protective shark finning policies (Pikitch et al. 2008) that are described in section 7.1. Illegal trade of White Shark products in Atlantic Canada is thought to be minimal or non-existent, though further information is required to properly assess its contribution to the level of concern for this threat. Directed fishing and retention of bycaught White Sharks is not permitted within Atlantic Canadian waters. The level of concern for this threat within Atlantic Canadian waters is unknown, but is expected to be low.

5.2.2 Commercial bycatch

Global

Bycatch refers to interaction of non-target species with fishing gear. White Sharks are captured in both fixed gear and mobile gear fisheries. Because White Sharks are obligate ram breathers, they are particularly susceptible to mortality as a result of bycatch in fishing gear that restricts or prohibits movement, limiting the flow of water over their gills. Compagno (2001) lists longlines, hook-and-line, fixed bottom gillnets, pelagic gillnets, fish traps, herring weirs, trammel nets, bottom and pelagic trawls, and purse seines as fisheries with the highest rates of White Shark bycatch. Globally, it is unclear which of those fisheries capture the most White Sharks as bycatch (Diaz and Serafy 2005; Moyes et al. 2006; Campanaet al. 2009). COSEWIC (2006) indicated that the American pelagic longline fishery is the primary cause of bycatch mortality in the Northwest Atlantic, based largely on Baum et al. (2003), with most bycatch occurring south of Florida. Historical and current studies from southern California in the Pacific indicate that net fisheries, such as trammel nets, drift and set gillnets, catch more White Sharks than other fisheries studied (Lowe et al. 2012; Santana-Morales et al. 2012).

There are no comparable studies of White Shark bycatch from net fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic.

Commercial bycatch in the southern US appears to be the most important source of mortality for the species in the Northwest Atlantic; the bycatch mortality rate appears to be high in some fisheries (Curtis et al. 2014). This threat is considered a high level of concern globally.

Atlantic Canada

Commercial bycatch of White Shark resulting in mortality^{Footnote 4}  in Atlantic Canadian waters is thought to be rare, based on 31 records between 1873 and 2016, though it is probable that this underestimates the true rate of interactions resulting in mortality (DFO 2017). Approximately 55% of authenticated bycatch occurrences were in cod or hake gillnets and herring weirs (DFO 2017). A total of 2 White Shark mortalities were recorded in weirs in the Bay of Fundy in 2010 and 2011 (DFO 2017).

Information on bycatch of White Sharks is sparse. Throughout Atlantic Canada, there are only 4 records of White Shark in at-sea observer databases. For all 4 records, species identification was unconfirmed due to small recorded sizes of the individuals caught and a lack of photo or video confirmation. Other bycatch records were obtained from COSEWIC (2006), through a literature review, and recent records were obtained from fish harvesters. There are 2 records of White Shark interactions in DFO-approved SARA monitoring documents. However, Hurtubise et al. (2020) found that, for endangered Leatherback Sea Turtles, these records underestimate true turtle-fishery interaction rates in Atlantic Canada. These findings are likely also true for other SARA species for which the submission of SARA monitoring documents are required, including White Shark.

Commercial gear types that have caught White Sharks incidentally in other jurisdictions but have no recorded interactions with White Sharks in Atlantic Canada have the potential for future interactions in Atlantic Canada. These include but are not limited to mid-water trawls, mid-water gillnets, and bottom longlines (Compagno 2001).

No studies have investigated shark catch or mortality rates from herring weirs; however, mortality could be low if the entrapped shark remained submerged and was free to move and breathe prior to escape or live-release in a timely manner. Brush weirs, however, go dry as the tide goes out, making live-release of large animals such as White Sharks improbable.

Although White Shark mortality rates in gillnets in Atlantic Canada have not been determined, they are expected to be high because the gillnet gear restricts movement and limits the flow of water over the gills, impairing breathing. The only known study to examine shark bycatch mortality in Atlantic Canadian gillnet fisheries took place in Newfoundland waters from 2001 to 2003 (Benjamins et al. 2010). This study was unable to determine mortality rates for any species including White Sharks.

Commercial bycatch is considered to be of low concern within Atlantic Canadian waters based on available records; however, the relative rarity of White Sharks in these waters and the variability in at-sea observer coverage in Canadian fisheries that may interact with White Sharks makes quantitative assessments of bycatch frequency challenging.

5.2.3 Recreational fishing

Global

Recreational shark fisheries are often poorly documented by government agencies and are not typically considered a priority for management. White Sharks are subject to targeted sport fisheries for game-fishing records and trophy jaws due to their size, notoriety, and powerful resistance to capture (Compagno 2001; CITES 2004). However, an increasing number of anglers worldwide are voluntarily using catch and release practices for sharks. This trend often coincides with voluntary tagging programs (Babcock 2008). This threat is considered to be of medium concern.

Atlantic Canada

Records indicate that in Atlantic Canada, White Sharks have only been caught during recreational fishing activities twice since 1873. This low number is attributed in part to their scarcity, size, and ability to bite through regular tackle (DFO 2006).

In Canada, recreational shark fishing is restricted to hook and release with the exception of DFO-authorized shark tournaments, which are subject to mandatory dockside monitoring of landings. White Sharks are not permitted to be landed during tournaments.

At present, a few shark fishing charters and recreational fishing tours exist within Atlantic Canada but none are permitted to target or retain White Sharks. This threat is of low concern in Atlantic Canadian waters.

5.2.4 Shark control programs

Global

Large White Sharks are intentionally targeted by beach meshing programs to protect swimmers in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand (CITES 2004; Curtis et al. 2012). The numbers of such captures are low, and thus the threat to the population is likely low, though the mortality rate of those captured in the meshing is high. Australian and South African beach meshing programs caught on average 10 to 50 White Sharks annually (Dudley 2003; Bonfil et al 2004). No White Sharks have been captured in New Zealand’s beach meshing program since 1975 (Duffy 2004). The level of concern for this threat is considered low globally.

Atlantic Canada

Beach meshing programs do not occur in Atlantic Canadian waters.

5.2.5 Harassment

Global

Due to their sometimes-lethal interactions with humans, White Sharks have acquired a negative reputation that is perpetuated by popular media. As a consequence, campaigns to kill White Sharks sometimes take place after shark attacks or in anticipation of such attacks (for example, shark culls) (CITES 2004; Fergusson et al. 2005; Curtis et al. 2012). In addition, White Sharks are sometimes killed because they are considered a nuisance to fisheries. The issue is exacerbated by their tendency to investigate boats and other floating objects, bringing them to the surface and potentially increasing their chance of being intentionally injured or killed (Compagno 2001). Harassment is considered a low to medium level of concern.

Atlantic Canada

Given the low encounter rate in commercial and recreational fisheries, White Shark abundance in Atlantic Canadian waters is thought to be relatively low (COSEWIC 2006). Therefore, the likelihood of someone having an opportunity to harass a White Shark is also relatively low.

5.2.6 Ecotourism

Global

Poorly managed ecotourism operations are a potential source of disturbance to White Sharks. In several parts of the world (for example, South Africa, Australia), cage diving and other types of tourism operations have been developed to observe White Sharks in their natural environment. The long-term effects of these activities on White Shark populations are unknown (CITES 2004), although effects on White Shark behaviour may be of concern (Laroche et al. 2007; Huveneers et al. 2018). The threat is considered a low level of concern.

Atlantic Canada

As public awareness of and interest in White Sharks in Atlantic Canadian waters increases, the potential for ecotourism operations directed at the species also increases. Currently, there is limited ecotourism directed at White Sharks within Atlantic Canada. This threat is considered to be a low level of concern.

5.2.7 Public aquaria

Global

Public aquaria captured live White Sharks for exhibits during the 1970s and 1980s; these sharks usually perished after a few days in captivity (Compagno 2001). The Monterey Bay Aquarium in California has had 5 live White Shark exhibitions since 2004. All sharks survived and were successfully returned to the wild after 6 months or less spent at the Aquarium. The threat is considered historical and low since White Sharks are infrequently taken for this purpose.

Atlantic Canada

Live capture of White Sharks is not considered a threat within Atlantic Canadian waters, as it is not known to occur, nor is it permitted.

5.2.8 Persistent bioaccumulation of toxins

Global

Due to their diet and longevity, White Sharks are likely to bioaccumulate pollutants in their bodies, as has been observed in other shark, ray, and skate (elasmobranch) species (Cagnazzi et al. 2019). White Shark specimens from South African waters were found with high levels of organochlorine pesticides, metals (for example, mercury), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (Schlenk et al. 2005). Juveniles in the Southern California Bight had mercury levels 6 times greater than the established wildlife screening value of concern, significant levels of organic contaminants in their livers, and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) concentrations exceeding those reported for any other elasmobranch (Mull et al. 2012). The potential for female White Sharks to transfer contaminants to offspring is elevated due to the species’ high trophic position (Lyons et al. 2013). Accumulations of these toxins result in severe health issues (for example, reproductive impairment, skeletal abnormalities, endocrine disruption, and immunotoxicity) in a number of marine mammals, and may be of concern for White Sharks. However, research suggests that White Sharks may have physiological protective mechanisms to mitigate the effects of such toxins, as White Sharks in South Africa had blood concentrations of mercury and arsenic that would normally be toxic in other animals but they showed no evidence of adverse health effects (Merly et al. 2019). This threat is considered a low level of concern.

Atlantic Canada

Little is known about bioaccumulation of toxins in White Sharks in Canadian waters, though according to 1 study (Zitko et al. 1972) in the Bay of Fundy-Gulf of Maine, muscle and liver tissue from White Sharks had higher levels of PCBs and chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides than that of other fishes. More recent and substantive studies are not available. This threat is of an unknown level of concern, though it is expected to be low.

5.2.9 Habitat degradation

Global

Increasing coastal development, dumping of organic waste, overfishing of prey species, and climate change may lead to degradation of important feeding, mating, and pupping areas for White Sharks. However, White Sharks may adapt their behaviour and habitat use in response to habitat degradation. Documentation of how habitat degradation may have altered the health, distribution, and productivity of sharks remains scarce. This threat is considered a low level of concern.

Atlantic Canada

White Sharks’ habitat use within Canadian waters is unknown, thus the level of concern for this threat within Atlantic Canadian waters is unknown, but expected to be low.

5.2.10 Other threats

Some additional anthropogenic activities are thought to present potential threats to White Sharks globally and in Atlantic Canada, although they are poorly understood. These are not included in table 2, as little to no information is available to assess the level of concern, which would result in an unknown status.

Anthropogenic electromagnetic fields

Elasmobranch species, such as White Shark, possess an electrical sense that can detect localized electromagnetic fields (EMFs) that they may use for larger-scale navigation (reviewed in Hueter et al. 2004). Studies of other elasmobranchs indicate that the detection of EMFs helps them to detect prey, avoid predators, and orient themselves at local scales. They may use EMFs in their environment both actively and passively for navigation (Hueter et al. 2004).

Anthropogenic sources of EMFs have been introduced into the marine environment from a wide variety of sources in many parts of the world (Normandeau et al. 2011). Little is known about their impact on marine species and ecosystems. Results of 1 study showed that tracked eels diverted from their migration route due to EMFs but eventually followed their original trajectory (Thomsen et al. 2015). Although there is a lack of information on EMF effects to White Shark and other marine species, EMFs present a potential threat.

In Atlantic Canada, potential anthropogenic sources of EMFs include submarine power and telecommunication cables and offshore renewable energy development structures (for example, wind or tidal power) (Isaacman and Daborn 2011; Normandeau et al. 2011; DFO 2013a). Such EMFs may interfere with a shark’s ability to use its electromagnetic sense which could have effects on shark behaviour and the carrying out of life functions. The range of EMF emissions from sources such as submarine cables may be minimal and localized. Given current knowledge gaps in shark biology, the level of concern that this threat may pose to White Sharks globally and within Atlantic Canada is not well understood (Isaacman and Daborn 2011; Normandeau et al. 2011; DFO 2013a).

Acoustic disturbance

Ocean noise is increasing in all of the world’s oceans. Sources of anthropogenic noise include commercial shipping, natural resource exploration and extraction, and industrial development (for example, pile driving).

Based on their auditory system, White Sharks are thought to be sensitive to even the smallest vibration or sound (Martin 2003). Field and laboratory experiments on other shark species indicate that sharks can hear sounds with frequencies ranging from about 10 hertz (Hz) (cycles per second) to about 800 Hz, and are most responsive to sounds lower than 375 Hz. Studies also show that sharks are most attracted to irregular pulse sounds at relatively low frequencies, such as those commonly associated with a struggling fish (Martin 2003). The results of these studies may be applicable to White Sharks; however, the overall impact of anthropogenic noise on White Sharks is poorly understood. It may displace White Sharks from preferred foraging areas, or obscure their ability to detect prey, which may have energetic costs for individuals and at the population level.

Coastal and offshore development

Coastal and ocean development includes coastal construction on land, in-water development such as wharf construction and dredging, oil and gas exploration and development, and renewable energy development such as wind and tidal power, among other activities. These activities could cause habitat degradation (for example, by introducing contaminants and excess sediments), underwater noise, and other impacts to White Sharks and their prey. Tidal power, in particular, is gaining attention in Nova Scotia as an industry with potential to deliver renewable energy at a larger scale than what is currently in place (Province of Nova Scotia 2012).

Tidal power development within the Bay of Fundy has the potential to overlap with areas of known White Shark occurrence. Tidal power generation involves placing a power-generating structure, such as a turbine, in the marine environment. Potential effects on species in the area may arise from physical interactions, acoustic disturbance, or the creation of EMFs from subsea power cables (AECOM 2009). Collisions with tidal turbines could occur and potentially result in injury or mortality of White Sharks and their prey. The potential for mortality or injury likely depends on the tidal system design (for example, turbine diameter, number of turbines, blade speed, position in water column). Cables associated with tidal power generation emit low level EMFs and are not likely to cause avoidance behaviour (AECOM 2009). Some tidal energy designs may present risks to White Shark prey and the cumulative effects of multiple tidal turbines, especially at commercial scales, could increase the likelihood or severity of threats to White Sharks. Because the effects of tidal power development on White Sharks are unknown, environmental effects monitoring plans that will fully monitor the potential effects of tidal power projects on the species should be developed.

6 Population and distribution objectives

Population and distribution objectives establish, to the extent possible, the number of individuals and/or populations, and their geographic distribution, that are necessary for the recovery of the species. The population and distribution objectives for White Shark in Atlantic Canada are:

Population objective:maintain or increase the population of White Sharks that frequents Atlantic Canadian waters.

Distribution objective:maintain the distribution of White Sharks in Atlantic Canadian waters.

There is insufficient information available on White Shark abundance and distribution in Atlantic Canadian waters to set quantitative objectives. Planned and ongoing research and management measures in Canada are expected to contribute to recovery of the population and provide information that will help refine these objectives in the future.

The population and distribution objectives recognize that White Sharks occurring in Atlantic Canadian waters represent an unknown proportion of the greater Northwest Atlantic population. The approach to increasing the population of White Sharks that frequents Atlantic Canadian waters will be through increasing the Northwest Atlantic population as a whole, thereby proportionately increasing the number of animals frequenting Canadian waters. This recovery strategy therefore focuses on reducing human-induced mortality in Canadian waters, while also collaborating internationally, to influence total abundance of White Shark in the Northwest Atlantic. If in the future the Northwest Atlantic population is deemed stable, recovery efforts will focus on maintaining this stability. No efforts will be made to alter White Shark distribution patterns in isolation of changes in overall population abundance and distribution.

White Shark recovery in Atlantic Canada will depend on conservation strategies implemented throughout the population’s range. For this reason, recovery efforts in Atlantic Canada alone may never result in a full delisting or down-listing of the species.

Population and distribution objectives will be reassessed within a biologically meaningful timeframe where recovery can be measured effectively, or as new information becomes available. A 5-year or similar reporting timeframe would not provide an accurate assessment of recovery, given the longevity and late age at maturity of this species. Generation times remain uncertain with estimates in support of a shorter (for example, 26 years) or longer (for example, 62 years) generation time (DFO 2017). In any case, the species’ longevity and life history characteristics mean that it may take decades for population changes to become evident and for recovery to be achieved. Interim measures of progress will be necessary to track recovery in the shorter term (section 9).

7 Broad strategies and general approaches to meet objectives

7.1 Actions already completed or currently underway

Broad strategy 1: research and monitoring

DFO Science initiated White Shark research in Canada in 2016. Work to date has focused on developing an acoustic monitoring network, as well as an acoustic and satellite tagging program in collaboration with Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MDMF). This project focuses on collecting behavioural information through archival satellite tagging, where tags have been deployed on individuals in the US and in Canada, as well as deploying acoustic tags and receivers to increase detections of acoustic-tagged White Sharks in Atlantic Canada. The research will also inform the identification of critical habitat. DFO also maintains a reporting line and database for White Shark sightings information (appendix D).

Sharks of the Atlantic Research and Conservation Coalition (ShARCC), established by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Dalhousie University, is a coalition of academia, industry, government, and non-government organizations, whose goal is to promote the conservation of sharks, skates and rays in Atlantic Canada. The activities undertaken by ShARCC address multiple shark species and are not directed at White Sharks specifically. In 2011, WWF hosted a Canadian Atlantic Shark Forum in Halifax, Nova Scotia, bringing fish harvesters, scientists, and managers together to discuss shark-related issues. The forum identified conservation, research, and management priorities for sharks in Atlantic Canada (WWF 2011).

Dalhousie University’s Ocean Tracking Network (OTN) has initiated a study to track tagged sharks in collaboration with the MDMF Shark Research Program (Ocean Tracking Network 2013). Passive acoustic receivers placed in Atlantic Canadian waters by OTN have detected White Sharks tagged by MDMF. In collaboration with DFO Science, the MDMF Shark Research Program continues to tag White Sharks and is using the data for a population study (Chisholm, pers. comm. 2016).

The American organization OCEARCH has also conducted White Shark tagging (satellite and acoustic) in Atlantic Canadian waters (2018 to 2020) to track individual movements throughout the Northwest Atlantic, and has also collected biological data to support a variety of research projects.

Broad strategy 2: management and protection

Since listing in 2011, White Shark has been subject to SARA section 32, which means that it is prohibited to kill, harm, harass, capture, take, possess, collect, buy, sell or trade any part or derivative of an individual of the species. When applicable, fishing licences also acting as SARA permits issued under the authority provided by section 74, have been issued annually since 2018, following a review of the proposed activity and determining that the SARA section 73 permitting requirements would all be met. These licences permit incidental interactions with White Sharks and are subject to conditions, such as releasing any White Shark to the water in the manner that causes the least harm, and reporting any interactions with White Sharks, dead or alive, in a DFO-approved SARA monitoring document.

The at-sea observer program contributes to monitoring White Shark interactions with fishing gear. The percentage of at-sea observer coverage varies substantially among fisheries, with some fisheries having no at sea observer coverage. Dockside monitoring is required for 100% of all commercial large pelagic landings, including any authorized bycatch shark landings, although no fishery is permitted to land White Shark (DFO 2007; Hanke et al. 2012).

DFO’s “Policy for Managing Bycatch” as part of the Sustainable Fisheries Framework incorporates an ecosystem-based and precautionary approach to fisheries management (DFO 2013b). This policy supports and supplements SARA recovery documents and will guide management decisions to mitigate bycatch of shark species, including White Sharks.

Canada’s “National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks” (DFO 2007), hereafter referred to as the National Plan of Action, creates a national framework for the management of commercial shark species and is expected to indirectly benefit White Shark through increased management efforts directed at shark species. For example, the plan identifies the need to improve discard reporting. Progress on this has been made through efforts such as implementing a supplementary bycatch log sheet in 2017 for the pelagic longline fleet in the Maritimes Region, but there remains more work to be done across Atlantic Canada.

The “Atlantic Canadian Shark Conservation Action Plan for Selected Pelagic Shark Species” (DFO 2014a, unpublished report), hereafter referred to as the Atlantic Canadian Shark CAP, was prepared as a regional counterpart to the National Plan of Action to guide the management of sharks within Atlantic Canadian waters. This plan identifies current measures used to monitor, assess, protect and manage shark species that frequent Atlantic Canadian waters and recommends ways to enhance the management of both commercial and non-commercial shark species, including White Shark (DFO 2014a).

Canada has banned shark finning since 1994 through fishing licence conditions. This ban is stated in national and regional policies, such as the National Plan of Action and the Atlantic Canadian Shark CAP, and is applied through DFO’s fisheries licence condition restrictions in commercial large pelagic and groundfish fisheries in Atlantic Canada. These licence conditions prohibit finning practices. In 2016, Canada committed to a Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) decision to adopt a “fins naturally attached” policy, requiring all bycaught sharks landed in Canada to have their fins left naturally attached (that is, fins not removed from a shark’s carcass) (DFO 2016). This was implemented by March 2018 in all fisheries, through licence conditions (DFO 2019). The fins naturally attached policy is consistent with international best practice to reduce the risk of shark finning (DFO 2016). When present aboard fishing vessels, Conservation and Protection officers and at-sea observers ensure that licence conditions are met. This practice extends to all Canadian-licensed fishing vessels outside of Canada’s EEZ (DFO 2007, 2013b).

In 2019, the Government of Canada amended the Fisheries Act to define and prohibit the practice of shark finning and to ban the import and export of shark fins that are not attached to a shark carcass, except in accordance with a permit issued by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada for scientific research relating to shark conservation and only if such research is likely to benefit the survival of any shark species (DFO 2019). Policies and other legislation that apply to all shark species, as discussed above, provide additional layers of protection to that already provided under SARA for White Shark.

Broad strategy 3: international collaboration

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has not adopted a “fins naturally attached” policy (Shark League 2017). However, since 2004, ICCAT has implemented a policy that the total weight of the shark fins on board must not exceed 5% of the total body weight of the sharks on board^{Footnote 5} , in directed and bycatch fisheries, up to the first point of landing (ICCAT 2005; DFO 2014a). With the exception of the finning policy and encouraging the reporting of shark catches, no specific measures have been developed for White Sharks on the high seas, beyond the protections listed in table 1 (Anon. 2010).

In 2005, NAFO banned shark finning and the trans-shipment and landing of shark fins that are not attached to a shark carcass in the NAFO Regulatory Area (NAFO 2005). In 2016, NAFO adopted measures that prohibit the removal of shark fins on vessels (NAFO 2016). As a contracting party to NAFO, both of these measures apply to Canadian vessels when operating in the NAFO Regulatory Area.

Canada is a signatory to the United Nations “International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks”, which aims to ensure the long-term conservation and management of sharks through data collection and research, threat mitigation, and collaborative action (FAO 1999).

Broad strategy 4: engagement, stewardship, and public outreach

There are resources that provide information on best practices for White Shark handling and release from both commercial and recreational fishing gear. These include; “Guidelines for releasing large animals from herring weirs” (GMWSRS 2014) and “Shark fishing: best catch, handle and release practices” (WWF n.d.).

WWF has produced an “Identification Guide to Sharks, Skates, Rays and Chimaeras of Atlantic Canada” in collaboration with DFO, which includes a section on White Sharks (WWF 2012).

The Grand Manan Whale and Seabird Research Station (GMWSRS) in New Brunswick, in collaboration with WWF, launched a Shark Identification Network and database that encourages reporting of all shark sightings. Its main focus is on Basking Sharks (Cetorhinus maximus), but it also encourages reporting of White Shark sightings (Shark Identification Network 2013). From 2012 to 2017, WWF and the GMWSRS received support from the Government of Canada’s Habitat Stewardship Program for their work which includes education, outreach, and stewardship initiatives.

MDMF also collaborates with the Atlantic White Shark Conservancy and others on a web map and application, “Sharktivity”, that shows White Shark sightings and detections geographically (Atlantic White Shark Conservancy 2017).

DFO produced a pocket identification guide for sharks in Atlantic Canada, including White Shark, as well as a White Shark poster, identification card, and online video. These materials are intended to encourage and improve the accuracy of shark reporting by assisting targeted audiences in identifying commonly observed species, including commercial fishers and recreational ocean-users. Hard copies of the pocket shark identification guide have been distributed to fish harvesters and an online version is hyperlinked in appendix D. In Newfoundland and Labrador, DFO continues to train at-sea fishery observers in shark identification and, since 2012, has distributed an identification guide for sharks occurring around the province to commercial harvesters and other ocean users.

DFO conducts public outreach and education at events such as Oceans Day, as well as at shark tournaments within Nova Scotia, and on Newfoundland radio shows that focus on regional commercial and recreational fisheries and marine ecosystems. Public shark displays at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Nova Scotia and at the Greenwich Interpretation Centre in Prince Edward Island National Park include life-size White Shark models and educational panels.

7.2 Strategic direction for recovery

A description of the broad strategies to address identified threats and of the research and management approaches needed to meet population and distribution objectives is presented in table 3. These will help inform the development of specific recovery measures in 1 or more action plans.

A higher proportion of the Northwest Atlantic White Shark population is expected to occur in US waters compared to Atlantic Canadian waters (Casey and Pratt 1985; Curtis et al. 2014); thus, the success of recovery actions in Atlantic Canadian waters will rely upon action also being taken elsewhere in the Northwest Atlantic. DFO's primary role will be to adopt and support shark management policies that limit harm and mortality to individuals when in Atlantic Canadian waters, contributing to the recovery of the Northwest Atlantic population as a whole. Canada will also participate in bilateral discussions with the US and in international fora to contribute to rebuilding the Northwest Atlantic population of White Shark where possible. DFO encourages other agencies and organizations to participate in the recovery of the Atlantic population of White Shark, through the implementation of this recovery strategy.

a. “Priority” reflects the degree to which the approach contributes directly to the recovery of the species or is an essential precursor to an approach that contributes to the recovery of the species:

• “high” priority approaches are considered likely to have an immediate and/or direct influence on the recovery of the species
• “medium” priority approaches are important but considered to have an indirect or less immediate influence on the recovery of the species
• “low” priority approaches are considered important contributions to the knowledge base about the species and mitigation of threats

8 Critical habitat

8.1 Identification of the species’ critical habitat

Critical habitat is defined in SARA as “…the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species and that is identified as the species’ critical habitat in the recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species.” [subsection 2(1)]

Also, SARA defines habitat for aquatic species as “… spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply, migration and any other areas on which aquatic species depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes, or areas where aquatic species formerly occurred and have the potential to be reintroduced.” [subsection 2(1)]

For the White Shark (Atlantic population), the identification of critical habitat is not possible at this time, given currently available information on population distribution and habitat use. The schedule of studies outlines the research required to identify critical habitat to achieve the species’ population and distribution objectives.

8.2 Schedule of studies to identify critical habitat

Further research is required to identify critical habitat necessary to support the species’ population and distribution objectives and protect the critical habitat from destruction. This additional work includes the studies in table 4.

a. Timeline reflects the amount of time required for the study to be completed from the time the recovery strategy is published as final on the Species at Risk Public Registry.

9 Measuring progress

The performance indicators below provide a way to define and measure progress toward achieving the population and distribution objectives. Progress towards meeting these objectives will be reported on in the report on the progress of recovery strategy implementation.

A successful recovery program will achieve the aim of developing an understanding of White Shark abundance and distribution in Atlantic Canadian waters, and quantifying and mitigating threats to the species, through research and management measures, as well as educational activities.

Overarching progress measures

Overarching progress measure #1: The portion of the Northwest Atlantic population of White Sharks that frequents Atlantic Canadian waters is maintained or increased.

Overarching progress measure #2: The distribution of White Sharks in Atlantic Canadian waters is maintained.

Interim progress measures

Until a baseline is established to evaluate the success of the overarching progress measures, the following interim progress measures will be used:

Interim progress measure A: a reliable estimate of White Shark abundance and distribution in Atlantic Canadian waters has been established.

Interim progress measure B: a reliable, consistent, and precise estimate of total White Shark bycatch in Atlantic Canadian fisheries is known.

Interim progress measure C: effective threat mitigation measures have been applied and adapted as new information becomes available, such that total allowable harm is not exceeded^{Footnote 6} .

Interim progress measure D: critical habitat is identified for White Shark in Atlantic Canadian waters.

Interim progress measure E: Canadian participation in international initiatives for the recovery and conservation of White Sharks is maintained and enhanced where appropriate.

10 Activities permitted by the recovery strategy

SARA states that “Subsections 32(1) and (2), section 33 and subsections 36(1), 58(1), 60(1) and 61(1) do not apply to a person who is engaging in activities that are permitted by a recovery strategy, an action plan or a management plan and who is also authorized under an Act of Parliament to engage in that activity, including a regulation made under section 53, 59 or 71.” [subsection 83(4)]

The initial RPA for White Shark (DFO 2006) concluded that any level of harm would jeopardize the species’ survival or recovery. Given that subsequent findings by Curtis et al. (2014) suggested that the population appears to be increasing, DFO re-examined the scope for allowable harm for White Shark in 2016 (DFO 2017). There were 4 criteria considered for this assessment, as outlined in the Revised Framework for the Evaluation of Scope for Harm under section 73 of SARA (DFO 2004):

1. is the population so small or spatially concentrated that it is vulnerable to elimination by catastrophic events?
2. is the recent trajectory of the population stable or likely to be increasing?
3. are known sources of human-induced mortality unlikely to increase?
4. is there a high likelihood of achieving recovery goals in reasonable timeframes with allowable harm present?

Relative to criteria 1 to 3, this new allowable harm assessment examined past and recent research on White Shark and the Northwest Atlantic population in particular. Criterion 4 was assessed using a simulation model developed for White Shark that accounted for uncertainty in life history parameters (for example, conflicting estimates of longevity and age at maturity) while modeling the probability of population decline under different mortality scenarios (representing different levels of allowable harm). DFO (2017) concluded that there is scope for human-induced mortality in Canadian waters without jeopardizing survival or recovery of the species relative to the 4 criteria based on the following:

1. The spatial distribution and movement patterns of White Sharks make them relatively invulnerable to localized catastrophic events
2. Although there is substantial uncertainty about the recent population trajectory for White Shark in the Northwest Atlantic, the best available and most current trend estimate suggests that the population has been increasing since the 1990s (Curtis et al. 2014), although the magnitude of increase is uncertain. Indirectly, the development of a fishery-independent monitoring program for White Shark off Cape Cod (since 2009) supports the idea that White Sharks are becoming more abundant in waters adjacent to Canada and possibly in Atlantic Canadian waters
3. The main cause of human-induced mortality in Atlantic Canadian waters was identified as incidental captures by commercial fisheries. Weirs and gillnets appear to have the highest potential for interaction. However, there is no apparent relationship between the extent of commercial fishing and incidental mortality of White Shark from 1950 to 2016. If incidental mortality in Canadian waters represents a chance event, it is unlikely to increase markedly in relation to future changes in commercial fishing activities
4. There is a high likelihood that the population and distribution objectives can be achieved under various scenarios of allowable harm for White Shark in Canada, even if annual bycatch mortality increases from historical estimates. If the Northwest Atlantic population of White Shark is characterized by very low intrinsic rates of population increase, few of the simulated population trajectories were predicted to be declining under current mortality levels (3 animals per decade). However, the proportion of population trajectories in decline changes relatively quickly as mortality increases, doubling if 1 mortality occurs each year, increasing by > 5.5 times with 3 mortalities per year, > 14 times with 10 mortalities per year and > 19 times with 20 mortalities per year. At this highest level of mortality, 72% of population trajectories were predicted to be in decline

Given the historical rarity of incidental captures of White Sharks, even at times when they were thought to be more abundant (for example, during the 1950s and 1960s) the highest levels of mortality modelled are not expected to occur in Atlantic Canada (DFO 2017). 

Considering the outcomes of the DFO (2017) analysis, population and distribution objectives can likely be achieved if anthropogenic mortality levels remain at current levels, or increase slightly. A maximum mortality rate of 1 White Shark per year, averaged over any 10 year period (that is, maximum of 10 mortalities over 10 years), is therefore deemed acceptable. Scope for harm will be re-evaluated if important new information becomes available (for example, a population abundance estimate is available or has been updated, population trend information suggests a change, or if it is determined that females undergo reproductive senescence).

In accordance with subsection 83(4) of SARA, this recovery strategy permits the activities described in sections 10.1 to 10.3, below.

Persons wishing to engage in activities other than those described in sections 10.1 to 10.3 of this recovery strategy that are likely to kill, harm, harass, capture or take individuals, or destroy any part of its critical habitat (once identified) should apply to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for a permit under section 73 of SARA. If a permit is issued it will, among other things, include terms and conditions governing the activity that the Minister considers necessary for protecting the species, minimizing the impact of the authorized activity on the species or providing for its recovery. Whether or not a permit will be issued is at the Minister’s discretion. A permit cannot be issued unless the Minister is of the opinion that:

1. all reasonable alternatives to the activity that would reduce the impact on the species have been considered and the best solution has been adopted
2. all feasible measures will be taken to minimize the impact of the activity on the species or its critical habitat (once identified), and
3. the activity will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species

SARA permit applications can be downloaded from the DFO Species at Risk website.

10.1 Commercial and communal commercial fisheries

In accordance with subsection 83(4) of SARA, this recovery strategy permits harvesters who:

1. hold a licence under the Fisheries Act to engage in commercial fishing activities, or
2. are fishing under the authority of a communal commercial licence issued under the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations (SOR/93-332)

to incidentally interact with White Shark such that it results in the unintentional killing, harming, harassing, or capturing of individual White Sharks. This exemption is subject to the following conditions:

• live or dead individual White Sharks or their parts shall not be retained
• a White Shark incidentally captured during fishing activities must be returned forthwith to the place from which it was taken, and where it is alive, in a manner that causes it the least harm
• all interactions with individual White Sharks, dead or alive, shall be recorded in a DFO-approved monitoring document (for example, a SARA log, a fishery monitoring document) and submitted as specified in the licence conditions for individual fisheries (including nil reports, where required)
• the licence holder must also comply with any other conditions related to White Shark included in DFO’s fishing licence conditions where mitigation measures are fishery-specific

Licence conditions are reviewed regularly and will be modified, if necessary, as new information becomes available. Other fishery-specific management or mitigation measures may be implemented through conservation harvesting plans and/or integrated fisheries management plans. Management or mitigation measures will be reviewed and modified if necessary as new information becomes available. DFO will work with industry for commercial licences and First Nations for communal commercial licences to refine these measures to support White Shark recovery.

10.2 DFO-led scientific activities directed at White Shark for conservation purposes

In accordance with subsection 83(4) of SARA, this recovery strategy permits scientific research activities that are led by DFO, and authorized under section 52 of the Fishery (General) Regulations (SOR/93-53) directed at White Shark, such that they result in the harassing, capturing, harming, or unintentional killing of individual White Sharks. This exemption is subject to the following conditions:

• By December 31 of each year, irrespective of whether permitted activities took place, a report shall be submitted to the regional Species at Risk Program outlining activities carried out in that calendar year. Report requirements include but are not limited to:
  • a description of each activity requiring use of the exemption and the licence number for the associated authorization under section 52 of the Fishery (General) Regulations
  • a record of interactions with White Shark that occurred while conducting the exempted activities, including nil reports
  • an assessment of the impact of the exempted activities on individual White Sharks (for example, injuries, behavioural changes)

• The licence holder complies with all conditions of licence related to White Shark

This recovery strategy also permits biological sampling in the course of research activities, which may result in the collection and possession of White Shark parts (for example, blood or tissue).

In the event of a mortality of an individual White Shark, resulting from DFO-led research activities or a mortality that otherwise becomes known to DFO, this recovery strategy permits the DFO researchers to collect and possess that dead individual White Shark or its parts for research purposes. Possession is subject to the following conditions:

• the regional Species at Risk Program shall be notified immediately if there is a White Shark mortality in the course of DFO-led research activities

• the licence holder is authorized in the licence to collect and possess White Shark parts or a carcass (should unintentional mortality occur)
• the licence holder complies with all conditions of licence related to White Shark

10.3 DFO-led research activities likely to interact incidentally with White Shark

In accordance with subsection 83(4) of SARA, this recovery strategy permits scientific research activities that are led by DFO, and authorized under section 52 of the Fishery (General) Regulations (SOR/93-53) such that they result in the incidental killing, harming, harassing, and capturing of individual White Sharks. This exemption is subject to the following conditions:

• every reasonable effort shall be made to release live captured White Sharks as soon as possible, nearest to the place where taken, and in a manner that causes the least harm
• By December 31 of each year, irrespective of whether permitted activities took place, a report shall be submitted to the regional Species at Risk Program outlining activities carried out in that calendar year. Report requirements include but are not limited to:
  • A description of each activity requiring use of the exemption and the licence number for the associated authorization under section 52 of the Fishery (General) Regulations;
  • A record of all interactions with White Shark that occurred while conducting the exempted activities, including nil reports; and
  • An assessment of the impact of the exempted activities on individual White Sharks (for example, injuries, behavioural changes).
• the licence holder complies with all conditions of licence related to White Shark

In the event of a mortality of an individual White Shark resulting from research activities, or a mortality that otherwise becomes known to DFO, this recovery strategy permits the researchers to collect and possess that dead individual White Shark or its parts (for example, blood or tissue). Collection and possession is subject to the following conditions:

• the regional Species at Risk Program shall be notified immediately if there is a White Shark mortality in the course of DFO-led research activities,
• the licence holder is authorized in the licence to possess a White Shark carcass (should unintentional mortality occur) for as long as is necessary to transfer it to an authorized individual conducting directed research
• the licence holder complies with all conditions of licence related to White Shark

Research that is not led by DFO, either directed at White Sharks or with the potential to interact with White Sharks, is not included in this exemption. Persons wishing to engage in such activities must apply for and obtain a permit under section 73 of SARA issued by DFO.

11 Statement on action plans

The federal government’s approach to recovery planning is a 2-part approach, the first part being the recovery strategy and the second part being the action plan. An action plan contains specific recovery measures or activities required to meet the objectives outlined in the recovery strategy.

A proposed action plan for the White Shark (Atlantic population) will be completed within 5 years of posting the final recovery strategy.

References

• AECOM (AECOM Canada Ltd.) 2009. Environmental assessment registration document – Fundy tidal energy demonstration project Volume I: environmental assessment. Prepared for FORCE (Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy). Project number 107405.
• Atlantic White Shark Conservancy. 2017. Meet Sharktivity - Atlantic White Shark Sighting And Resource App. Web site. [accessed March 8, 2018].
• Andreotti, S., M. Rutzen, S. van der Walt, S. von der Heyden, R. Henriques, M. Meÿer, H. Oosthuizen, and C.A. Matthee. 2016. An integrated mark-recapture and genetic approach to estimate the population size of White Sharks in South Africa. Marine Ecology Progress Series 552: 241–253.
• Anon. (Anonymous). 2010. Kobe II Bycatch Workshop Background Paper: Sharks. Joint Tuna RFMOs, International Workshop on Tuna RFMO Management Issues Relating to By-catch and to Call on RFMOs to Avoid Duplication of Work on this Issue. 23–25 June, Brisbane, Australia.
• Babcock E. 2008. Recreational fishing for pelagic sharks worldwide. pp.193–202. in M.D. Camhi, E.K. Pikitch and E.A. Babcock (eds.). Sharks of the open ocean: biology, fisheries and conservation. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford, UK.
• Bastien, G., Barkley, A., Chappus, J., Heath, V., Popov, S., Smith, R., Tran, T., Currier, S., Fernandez, D.C., Okpara, P., and V. Owen. 2020. Inconspicuous, recovering, or northward shift: status and management of the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) in Atlantic Canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 77(10): 1666-1677.
• Baum, J. K., R.A. Myers, D.G. Kehler, B. Worm, S.J. Harley, and P.A. Doherty. 2003. Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science, 299: 389-392.
• Benjamins, S., Kulka, D., and J. Lawson. 2010. Recent incidental catch of sharks in gillnet fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Endangered Species Research, 11: 133-146.
• Bigelow, W.C. and W.C. Schroeder. 1948. Sharks. In Fishes of the Western North Atlantic. Memoirs of the Sears Foundation for Marine Research, (1):56- 1216 576. 1217
• Bonfil, R., A. Boustany, D. D. Chapman, M.L. Domier, C. Duffy, S. Fowler, S. Frodham, R. Johnson, A. Kock, K. Laroche, L. Lauck, C. Mciff, S. O'Brien, H. Oosthuizen, E. Pikitch, M. Scholl, M. Shivji, J. Stevens, W. Tsontos, and H. Walter. 2004. White Shark Carcharodon carcharias: status and management challenges. Pp 4. Conclusions of the Workshop on Great White Shark Conservation Research. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, New York.
• Boustany, A. M., S.F. Davis, P. Pyle, S.D. Anderson, B.J.L. Boeuf, and B.A. Block. 2002. Expanded niche for White sharks. Nature, 415(6867): 35.
• Bowlby, H. D., and A.J.F. Gibson. 2020. Implications of life history uncertainty when evaluating status in the Northwest Atlantic population of white shark (Carcharodon carcharias). Ecology and evolution, 10(11): 4990-5000.
• Brodie, P. and B. Beck. 1983. Predation by sharks of the gray seal (Halichoerus grypus) in eastern Canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 40: 267–271.
• Bruce, B. D., J.D. Stevens, and H. Malcolm. 2006. Movements and swimming behaviour of White sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) in Australian waters. Marine Biology,150(2): 161-172.
• Bruce, B. D. 2008. The biology and ecology of the white shark, Carcharodon carcharias. Pp. 69–81. in M. D. Camhi, E. K. Pikitch, and E. A. Babcock (eds.), Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.
• Burgess, G.H., L.R. Beerkircher, G.M. Cailliet, J.K. Carlson, E. Cortes, K.J. Goldman, R.D. Grubbs, J.A. Musick, M.K. Musyl, and C.A. Simpfendorfer. 2005. Is the collapse of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico real? Fisheries, 30(10): 19–26.
• Cagnazzi, D., G. Consales, M.K. Broadhurst, and L. Marsili. 2019. Bioaccumulation of organochlorine compounds in large, threatened elasmobranchs off northern New South Wales, Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 139: 263–269
• Campana, S. E., W. Joyce, and M.J. Manning. 2009. Bycatch and discard mortality in commercially caught blue sharks Prionace glauca assessed using archival satellite pop-up tags. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 387: 241-253.
• Casey, J. G. and H.L. Pratt Jr. 1985. Distribution of the white shark, Carcharodon carcharias, in the Western North Atlantic. Memoirs Southern California Academy of Sciences, 9: 2-14.
• Chapple, T. K., S.J. Jorgensen, S.D. Anderson, P.E. Kanive, A.P. Klimley, L.W. Botsford, B.A. and B. A. Block. 2011. A first estimate of white shark, Carcharodon carcharias, abundance off Central California. Biology Letters. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2011.0124
• Chisholm, J., pers. comm. 2016. Email correspondence to A. Gromack. June 2, 2016. Shark Research Scientist, Shark Research Program, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, New Bedford, Massachusetts.
• CITES (Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species). 2004. Proposal for the inclusion of Carcharodon carcharias in Appendix II [PDF 686 KB]. CoP13 Prop. 32 Rev. 1. Pp. 39. Bangkok, Thailand. Website.
• Cliff, G., S.F.J. Dudley, and M.R. Jury. 1996. Catches of white sharks in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa and environmental influences. pp 351–361 in A. P. Klimley and D. G. Ainley (eds.), Great White Sharks: the Biology of Carcharodon carcharias. Academic Press, London: U.K.
• CMS (Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals). 2007. Meeting to Identify and Elaborate an Option for International Cooperation on Migratory Sharks under the Convention on Migratory Species. Mahé, Seychelles, 11–13 December 2007. Website. [accessed July 5, 2021].
• Compagno, L.J.V. 2001. Sharks of the World. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the shark species known to date. Volume 2. Bullhead, mackerel and carpet sharks (Heterodontiformes, Lamniformes and Orectolobiformes). FAO, Rome, Italy.
• Cooper, E. 2009. WWF-TRAFFIC Canada review review of the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database of shark products [unpublished data]. Email correspondence to L. Outhouse. April 2013. National Director, WWF-TRAFFIC and Wildlife Trade, Vancouver, British Columbia.
• COSEWIC. 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the White Shark Carcharodon carcharias (Atlantic and Pacific populations) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 31 pp.
• COSEWIC. 2021. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the White Shark Carcharodon carcharias (Atlantic and Pacific populations) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 55 pp.
• Curtis, T. pers. comm. 2011. Email correspondence to A. Cosandey-Godin (contractor). 2011. Sustainable Fisheries Division, Northeast Regional Office, NOAA, Gloucester, Massachusetts, NOAA.
• Curtis, T., B. Bruce, G. Cliff, S. Dudley, S.F.J. Klimley, A. Kock, R.N. Lea, C.G. Lowe, J.E. McCosker, G. Skomal, J.E. Werry, and J West.  2012. Responding to the risk of white shark attack: updated statistics, prevention, control methods, and recommendations.  Pp. 477-509 in Domeier (ed) Global perspectives on the biology and life history of the white shark. CRC Press Boca Raton.
• Curtis T.H., C.T. McCandless, J.K. Carlson, G.B. Skomal, N.E. Kohler, L.J. Natanson, G.H. Burgess, J.J. Hoey, and H.L. Pratt Jr. 2014. Seasonal Distribution and Historic Trends in Abundance of White Sharks, Carcharodon carcharias, in the Western North Atlantic Ocean. PLoS ONE 9(6): e99240.
• Curtis, T. H., G. Metzger, C. Fischer, B. McBride, M. McCallister, L.J. Winn, J. Quinlan, and M. J. Ajemian (2018). First insights into the movements of young-of-the-year white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Scientific reports, 8(1): 1-8.
• DFO. 2004. Revised framework for evaluation of scope for harm under section 73 of the Species at Risk Act. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Stock Status Report 2004/048.
• DFO. 2006. Recovery potential assessment report on white sharks in Atlantic Canada. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/052.
• DFO. 2007. Canada’s national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks [PDF 547 KB]. Website. [accessed August 7, 2013].
• DFO. 2013a. Science review of the Labrador-Island Transmission Link Project environmental impact statement (EIS). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2012/021.
• DFO. 2013b. Policy for Managing Bycatch. Website. [accessed February 19, 2018].
• DFO. 2014a. Atlantic Canadian Shark Conservation Action Plan for selected pelagic shark species. Unpublished report.
• DFO. 2014b. Guidance on assessing threats, ecological risk and ecological impacts for species at risk. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2014/013. 21 pp. (Erratum: June 2016).
• DFO. 2016. New management measures to strengthen shark finning prevention. Website. [accessed December 21, 2016].
• DFO. 2017. Evaluation of Scope for Harm for White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) in Atlantic Canada. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2017/025.
• DFO. 2019. Government of Canada bans shark finning. Website. [accessed July 29, 2021]
• DFO. 2021.White Shark sightings and strandings database. Dartmouth, NS.
• Diaz, G. A. and J.E. Serafy. 2005. Longline-caught blue shark (Prionace glauca): factors affecting the numbers available for live release. Fisheries Bulletin, 103:720–724.
• Domeier, M.L. and N. Nasby-Lucas. 2013. Two year migration of adult female white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) reveals widely separated nursery areas and conservation concerns. Animal Biotelemetry, 1: 2. 
• Dudley, S.F.J. 2003. Shark Catch Trends and Effort Reduction in the Beach Protection Program, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Proceedings of Scientific Symposium, 2002. North Atlantic Fisheries Organization SCR Doc. 02/124.
• Dudley, S.F.J. and C.A. Simpfendorfer. 2006. Population status of 14 shark species caught in the protective gillnets off KwaZulu-Natal beaches, South Africa, 1978–2003. Marine and Freshwater Research, 57: 225–240.
• Duffy, C. 2004. International trade in white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) goods from New Zealand. Shark News 16: 1-2.
• Duffy, C., M.P. Francis, M.P. Manning, and R. Bonfil. 2012. Regional population connectivity, oceanic habitat, and return migration revealed by satellite tagging of White Sharks, Carcharodon carcharias, at New Zealand aggregation sites. Pp. 301-318. in M.L. Domeier (ed). Global perspectives on the biology and life history of the White Shark, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
• Estrada, J. A, A.N. Rice, L.J. Natanson, and G.B. Skomal. 2006. Use of isotopic analysis of vertebrae in reconstructing ontogenetic feeding ecology in white sharks. Ecology, 87(4): 829-34.
• FAO. 1999. International plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. [accessed August 7, 2013].
• Fergusson, I., L.J.V. Compagno, and M. Marks. 2005. Carcharodon carcharias. IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. Website. [accessed February 6, 2011].
• Fowler, S.L., R.D. Cavanagh, M. Camhi, G.H. Burgess, G.M. Cailliet, S.V. Fordham, C.A. Simpfendorfer, and J.A. Musick (comp. and eds.). 2005. Sharks, rays and chimaeras: The status of the chondrichthyan fishes. Status Survey. IUCN/ SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
• Francis, M.P. 1996. Observations on a pregnant white shark with a review of reproductive biology. Pp. 157-172. in A.P. Klimley and D.G. Ainley (eds.). Great White Sharks: the Biology of Carcharodon carcharias. Academic Press, San Diego.
• Gilhen, J. 1998. Fishes of Nova Scotia: species reported in the accession books of Henry Piers, Curator of the Provincial Museum, Halifax, from 1899-1940. Curatorial Report, Nova Scotia Museum of Natural History, Halifax.
• GMWSRS (Grand Manan Whale and Seabird Research Station). 2014. Guidelines for Releasing Large Animals from Herring Weirs. Grand Manan Whale and Seabird Research Station Bulletin No. 6.
• Government of Canada. 2009. Species at Risk Act Policies [Draft]. Species at Risk Act, Policies and Guidelines Series. Ottawa, Ontario. Environment Canada. 48 pp.
• Gubili, C., C.A.J. Duffy, G. Cliff, S. Wintner, M. Shivji, D. Chapman, B. Bruce, A. Martin, D. Sims, C.S. Jones, and L. Noble. 2012. Applications of molecular genetics for conservation of the white shark, Carcharodon carcharias, L. 1758. Pp. 357-380. in M.L. Domeier (ed) Global perspectives on the biology and life history of the white shark, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
• Hamady, L.L., L.J. Natanson, G.B. Skomal, and S.R. Thorrold. 2014. Vertebral bomb radiocarbon suggests extreme longevity in White Sharks. PLoS One 9(1): e84006. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084006.
• Hanke, A.R., I. Andrushchenko, and G. Croft. 2012. Observer coverage of the Atlantic Canadian swordfish and other tuna longline fishery: An assessment of current practices and alternative methods. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/049.iii + 84 p.
• Hueter R.E., D.A. Mann, K.P. Maruska, J.A. Sisneros, and L.S. Demski. 2004. Sensory Biology of Elasmobranchs. Pp 325-368. in J.C. Carrier, J.A. Musick, M.R. Heithaus (eds) Biology of Sharks and their Relatives, CRC Press Boca Raton, Florida.
• Hurtubise, J.A., Bond, E.P., Hall, K.E., and M.C. James. 2020. Evaluating mandatory reporting of marine turtle bycatch in Atlantic Canadian fisheries. Marine Policy, 121: 104084.
• Huveneers, C., Y.Y Watanabe, N.L. Payne, and J.M. Semmens. 2018. Interacting with wildlife tourism increases activity of white sharks. Conservation Physiology, 6(1), coy019.
• ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas). 2005. Report of the 2004 inter-sessional meeting of the ICCAT subcommittee on by-catches: shark stock assessment Tokyo, Japan, 14-18 June 2004. Collected Volume of Scientific Papers ICCAT 58: 799-890.
• IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2003. Shark Finning. Information Paper. Website. [accessed February 6, 2011].
• Isaacman, L. and G. Daborn. 2011. Pathway of effects of offshore renewable energy in Canada. Publication No. 102 of the Acadia Centre for Estuarine Research (ACER). Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada.
• Klimley, A. P. 1985. The areal distribution and autoecology of the white shark, Carcharodon carcharias, off the west coast of North America. Memoirs of the Southern California Academy of Sciences, 9: 15–40.
• Klimley, A.P. and D.G. Ainley (Eds). 1996. Great White Sharks: The Biology of Carcharodon carcharias. Academic Press, San Diego, 528 pp.
• Laroche, R.K., A.A. Kock, L.M. Dill, and W.H. Oosthuizen. 2007. Effects of provisioning ecotourism activity on the behaviour of white sharks Carcharodon carcharias. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 338: 199-209.
• Lowe, C.G., M.E. Blasius, E.T. Jarvis, T.J. Mason, G.D. Goodmanlowe, and J. O'Sullivan. 2012. Historic fishery interactions with white sharks in the Southern California Bight. Pp. 169-186 in Michael L. Domeier (ed) Global perspectives on the biology and life history of the white shark. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 
• Lucas, Z.N. and L.J. Natanson. 2010. Two shark species involved in predation on seals at Sable Island, Nova Scotia, Canada. Proceedings of the Nova Scotian Institute of Science, 45: 64-88.
• Lyons, K., A. Carlisle, A. Preti, C. Mull, M. Blasius, J. O'Sullivan, C. Winkler, and C.G. Lowe. 2013. Effects of trophic ecology and habitat use on maternal transfer of contaminants in four species of young of the year lamniform sharks. Marine Environmental Research, 90: 27-38.
• Martin, R. A. 2003. Sensory biology: hearing and vibration detection. Biology of Sharks and Rays. ReefQuest Centre for Shark Research. Website. [accessed December 18, 2013].
• McPherson, J.M. and R.A. Myers. 2009. How to infer population trends in sparse data: examples with opportunistic sighting records for great white sharks. Diversity and Distributions, 15(5): 880-890.
• Merly, L., L. Lange, M. Meÿer, A.M. Hewitt, P. Koen, C. Fischer, J. Muller, V. Schilack, M. Wentzel, and N. Hammerschlag. 2019. Blood plasma levels of heavy metals and trace elements in white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) and potential health consequences. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 142: 85-92.
• Moyes, C.D., N. Fragoso, M.K. Musyl, and R.W. Brill. 2006. Predicting postrelease survival in large pelagic fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 135(5): 1389-1397.
• Mull, C.G., M.E. Blasius, J.B. O’Sullivan, and C.G. Lowe. 2012. Heavy metals, trace elements, and organochlorine contaminants in muscle and liver tissue of juvenile White Sharks, Carcharodon carcharias, from the Southern California Bight. Pp. 59-75. in M.L. Domeier (ed). Global perspectives on the biology and life history of the White Shark, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
• NAFO (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization). 2005. NAFO Annual Report 2005 [PDF 1.4 MB]. Website. [accessed May 26, 2021].
• NAFO (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization). 2016. NAFO Annual Report 2016 [PDF 10 MB]. Website. [accessed May 26, 2021].
• Natanson, L. and G. Skomal. 2015. Age and growth of the white shark, Carcharodon carcharias, in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Marine and Freshwater Research, 66(5): 387-398.
• Normandeau, Exponent, T. Tricas, and A. Gill. 2011. Effects of EMFs from Undersea Power Cables on Elasmobranchs and Other Marine Species. US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Pacific OCS Region, Camarillo, CA. OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-09.
• Ocean Tracking Network. 2013. Desperately seeking sharks - and all sorts of ocean data: Ocean Tracking Network's newest Wave Glider charts its course. Dalhousie University media release. Website. [accessed August 7, 2013].
• OCEARCH. 2021. OCEARCH Shark Tracker. Website. [accessed July 5, 2021].
• O’Leary, S.J., K.A. Feldheim, A.T. Fields, L.J. Natanson, S. Wintner, N. Hussey, M.S. Shivji and Chapman, D.D. 2015. Genetic diversity of White Sharks, Carcharodon carcharias, in the Northwest Atlantic and Southern Africa. Journal of Heredity 106(3): 258-265.
• Pardini, AT., C.S. Jones, L.R. Noble, B. Kreiser, H. Malcolm, B.D. Bruce, J.D. Stevens, G. Cliff, M.C. Scholl, M. Francis, C.A.J. Duffy, and A.P. Martin. 2001. Sex-biased dispersal of great white sharks. Nature, 412(6843): 139-40.
• Pepperell, J. 1992. Trends in the distribution, species composition and size of sharks caught by Gamefish Anglers off South-eastern Australia, 1961-90. Marine and Freshwater Research, 43(1): 213.
• Pikitch, E.K., M.D. Camhi, and E.A. Babcock. 2008. Introduction to sharks of the open ocean. Pp 1-13. in M.D. Camhi, E.K. Pikitch and E.A. Babcock (eds). Sharks of the open ocean: biology, fisheries and conservation, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.
• Pratt, H.L., Jr. 1996. Reproduction in the male white shark. Pp. 131-138. in A.P. Klimley and D.G. Ainley (eds.). Great White Sharks: the Biology of Carcharodon carcharias, Academic Press, San Diego.
• Province of Nova Scotia. 2012. Nova Scotia Marine Renewable Energy Strategy [PDF 924 KB]. Website. [accessed January 16, 2017].
• Reid, D. and M. Krogh. 1992. Assessment of catches from protective shark meshing off NSW beaches between 1950 and 1990. Marine and Freshwater Research, 43(1): 283.
• Reid D.D., W.D Robbins, and V.M. Peddemors. 2011. Decadal trends in shark catches and effort from the New South Wales, Australia, Shark Meshing Program 1950–2010. Marine and Freshwater Research 62: 676–693.
• Santana-Morales, O., O. Sosa-Nishizaki, M. Escobedo-Olvera, E. Onate-Gonzalez, J. O'Sullivan, and D. Cartamil. 2012. Incidental catch and ecological observations of juvenile white sharks, Carcharodon carcharias, in western Baja California, Mexico: conservation implications. Pp. 187-198. in Michael L. Domeier (ed) Global perspectives on the biology and life history of the white shark, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 
• Schlenk, D., Y. Sapozhnikova, and G. Cliff. 2005. Incidence of organochlorine pesticides in muscle and liver tissues of South African great white sharks Carcharodon carcharias. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50(2): 208-211.
• Shark Identification Network. 2013. White shark sightings. Website. [accessed March 7, 2018].
• Shark League. 2017. Shark fishing decisions at Atlantic tuna meeting fall short [PDF 346 KB]. Website. [accessed March 8, 2018].
• Shaw, R.L., Curtis, T.H., Metzger, G., McCallister, M.P., Newton, A., Fischer, G.C. and M.J. Ajemian. 2021. Three-Dimensional Movements and Habitat Selection of Young White Sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) Across a Temperate Continental Shelf Ecosystem. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8: 151.
• Shivji, M.S., D.D. Chapman, E.K. Pikitch, and P.W. Raymond. 2005. Genetic profiling reveals illegal international trade in fins of the great white shark, Carcharodon carcharias. Conservation Genetics, 6(6): 1035-1039.
• Skomal, G.B. 2007. Shark Nursery Areas in the Coastal Waters. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 50: 17-33.
• Skomal, G.B., J. Chisholm, and S.J. Correia. 2012. Implications of increasing pinniped populations on the diet and abundance of white sharks off the coast of Massachusetts. Pp. 405-418. in M. Domeier (ed.). Global perspectives on the biology and life history of the Great White Shark. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, US.
• Skomal, G.B., C.D. Braun, J.H. Chisholm, and S.R. Thorrold. 2017. Movements of the white shark Carcharodon carcharias in the North Atlantic Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 580: 1-16.
• Smith, S.E., D.W. Au, and C. Show. 1998. Intrinsic rebound potentials of 26 species of Pacific sharks. Marine and Freshwater Research, 49: 663-678.
• Soldo, A. and I. Jardas. 2002. Occurrence of great white shark, Carcharodon carcharias (Linnaeus, 1758) and basking shark, Cetorhinus maximus (Gunnerus, 1765) in the Eastern Adriatic and their protection. Periodicum Biologorum, 104: 195-201.
• Tanaka, S., T. Kitamura, T. Mochizuki, and K. Kofuji. 2011. Age, growth and genetic status of the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) from Kashima-nada, Japan. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62(6): 548-556.
• Thomsen, F., A. Gill, M. Kosecka, M. Andersson, M. Andre, S. Degraer, T. Folegot, J. Gabriel, A. Judd, T. Neumann, A. Norro, D. Risch, P. Sigray, D. Wood, and B. Wilson. 2015. MaRVEN – Environmental impacts of noise, vibrations and electromagnetic emissions from marine renewable energy. Final Study Report. Prepared for the European Commission, Directorate General for Research and Innovation. 81 pp.
• WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). 2011. Top priorities for conservation and management of sharks in Atlantic Canada [PDF 1.7 MB]. Results from the Atlantic Shark Forum held in Halifax, Nova Scotia on March31 stand April1st, 2011. Website. [accessed July 5, 2021].
• WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). 2012. Identification Guide to Sharks, Skates, Rays and Chimaeras of Atlantic Canada [PDF 40 MB]. Website. [accessed June 20, 2021].
• WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). n.d. Shark fishing: best catch, handle and release practices [PDF 1.5 MB]. Brochure.
• Zitko, V., O. Huntzinger, and P.M.K. Choi. 1972. Contamination of the Bay of Fundy-Gulf of Maine area with polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated terphenyls, chlorinated dibenzodioxins, and dibenzofurans. Environmental Health Perspectives, 4: 47-50.

Appendix A: effects on the environment and other species

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals (2010), Species at Risk Act (SARA) recovery planning documents incorporate strategic environmental assessments (SEA) considerations throughout the document. The purpose of a SEA is to incorporate environmental considerations into the development of public policies, plans and program proposals to support environmentally sound decision-making and to evaluate whether the outcomes of a recovery planning document could affect any component of the environment or any of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy's (FSDS) goals and targets.

Recovery planning is intended to benefit species at risk and biodiversity in general. However, it is recognized that strategies may also inadvertently lead to environmental effects beyond the intended benefits. The planning process based on national guidelines directly incorporates consideration of all environmental effects, with a particular focus on possible impacts upon non-target species or habitats. The results of the SEA are incorporated directly into the strategy itself, but are also summarized below in this statement.

This recovery strategy will clearly benefit the environment by promoting the recovery of the White Shark in Atlantic Canadian waters. Implementation of this recovery strategy is also expected to benefit other species that share similar threats and habitat, including Shortfin Mako and Porbeagle, assessed as threatened and endangered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), respectively. Conserving biodiversity within Canadian waters helps to encourage the resiliency of various North Atlantic Ocean ecosystems.

The potential for this strategy to inadvertently lead to adverse effects on other species was considered; however, because the recovery objectives recommend research, education, outreach, and stewardship initiatives, the SEA concluded that this strategy will clearly benefit the environment and will not entail any significant adverse effects. In the event that new fishing gear configurations are adopted to further minimize interactions with White Shark, it is possible that the bycatch of other species could also be affected. Bycatch will be monitored to determine whether the rates of incidental capture of another species increase as a result of measures taken to benefit the White Shark.

This recovery strategy is also expected to contribute to achieving the following 2019 to 2022 FSDS goals:

Healthy Coasts and Oceans: Coasts and oceans support healthy, resilient and productive ecosystems

Healthy Wildlife Populations: All species have healthy and viable populations

Connecting Canadians With Nature: Canadians are informed about the value of nature, experience nature first hand, and actively engage in its stewardship

Appendix B: record of cooperation and consultation

The draft recovery strategy was circulated to First Nations and Indigenous organizations in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Quebec.

The draft recovery strategy was shared with commercial fishing industry interests, seafood producers, recreational charter boat tour operators and shark tournament organizers, and relevant stakeholders in non-governmental organizations and academia.

The draft recovery strategy was circulated to relevant provincial government departments, including but not limited to, the Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fisheries.

All comments received during these reviews were considered and addressed to the extent possible.

Additional Indigenous, stakeholder, and public input will be sought through the publication of the proposed document on the Species at Risk Public Registry for a 60-day public comment period. Comments received will inform the final document.

Appendix C: threat categories

Level of concern: Indicates that managing the threat is of high, medium, or low concern for the conservation of the species. Level of concern rankings are relative to each other, and reflect management priority based on the currently limited knowledge of the White Shark and its threats. 

Extent: Refers to whether the threat is localized, meaning it relates to a specific site or a narrow portion of the species’ range, or widespread, meaning it relates to the species’ whole distribution or a large portion of its range.

Occurrence: Indicates whether the threat is historical, that is, it contributed to a decline but no longer affects the species; current, that is, it is affecting the species now; imminent, that is, it is expected to affect the species very soon; anticipated, that is, it may affect the species in the future; or unknown, that is, it may or may not be occurring currently, but it is a viable threat.

Frequency: Describes the temporal extent of the threat. The threat may be a One(1)-time occurrence, that is, it occurred, or will occur, just once; seasonal, that is, it occurs at certain times of the year only, or else the species has a seasonal presence; recurrent, that is, it occurs on an irregular basis; continuous, that is, it occurs on an ongoing basis.

Severity: Describes the degree of impact (that is, high, moderate, low, or unknown) the threat may have, or is having on the population.

Causal certainty: Reflects the degree of evidence that is known for the threat and how it affects the population. High causal certainty indicates that there is substantial scientific evidence of a causal link between the threat and stresses on the population. Medium causal certainty indicates that there is scientific evidence linking the threat to stresses on the population. Low causal certainty indicates that there is a plausible link with limited evidence that the threat has stressed the population.

Appendix D: reporting White Shark sightings

Everyone who encounters a shark is encouraged to document and report the sighting to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). If you see a shark, remain a safe distance away and record as many details of the encounter as possible, such as:

• a photo or video, if possible
• date and time of day
• location (as specific as possible, for example, GPS data)
• other information:
  • length estimate (if possible to determine)
  • sex (if possible to identify; males have visible claspers on the abdomen and females do not)

This information can be reported to DFO through the following mechanisms:

• by email:
  • Shark.MAR@dfo-mpo.gc.ca (Maritimes)
  • dfo.nl.sharksightings-observationsderequins.nl.mpo@dfo-mpo.gc.ca (Newfoundland and Labrador); or
• online: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/sharks/report-mar-eng.html

DFO provides Information on identifying shark species in Atlantic Canada