Shark protection bill awaits Hawaii Gov. David Ige's signature

May 8—Conservationists and Native Hawaiian leaders are praising a landmark bill passed by the state Legislature that lays out criminal and civil penalties for knowingly capturing or killing sharks within state waters.

House Bill 553, which is awaiting Gov. David Ige's signature, culminates prior attempts in recent legislative sessions to establish protections for the 40 or so shark species in Hawaii, such as the scalloped hammerhead shark, which is listed as endangered, and 11 others categorized as vulnerable.

It would make it a misdemeanor offense to "knowingly capture or entangle any shark, whether alive or dead, or kill any shark, " and sets fines of $500 for a first offense, $2, 000 for a second offense and $10, 000 for subsequent offenses. Offenders also would be subject to administrative fines of up to $10, 000 for each shark captured or killed, and the forfeiture of commercial marine licenses, vessels and fishing equipment.

The state Department of Land and Natural Resources would be charged with enforcing the new law, if signed by Ige.

HB 553 would be the first legislation of its kind in the country, according to Inga Gibson, a consultant for the nonprofit For the Fishes who has worked over several legislative sessions to get the bill passed. All other coastal states in the U.S. allow the fishing of sharks in some form.

"Over the next six months it'll be outreach to the community and letting people know about this new law, and celebrating, " Gibson said. "It's essentially the first state sanctuary for sharks. ... No other state has a total prohibition on the intentional killing, capturing of sharks."

Other proponents of HB 553 include the Center for Biological Diversity, the Humane Society and Native Hawaiian practitioners and advocates.

"Hawaii's mano (shark ) species hold great cultural significance for Native Hawaiians. ... Indeed, their symbolism and survival are key to explaining and informing Hawaiian perspectives of the natural environment and kinship, " the Office of Hawaiian Affairs said in testimony supporting HB 553.

"It's another form of advocacy for the sharks to at least send the message that sharks shouldn't be messed with, " said testimony from cultural practitioner Mike Nakachi.

HB 553 was a revival of a similar House bill introduced in 2019 that also covered rays. That bill was eventually signed into law after sharks were removed from its provisions during the final stages of the legislative session.

Rep. Ryan Yamane (D, Mililani-Waipio-Waikele ), who at the time chaired the Water, Land, and Hawaiian Affairs Committee, said sharks were deleted from the 2019 bill at the last minute because of concerns by University of Hawaii researchers about its possible effects on permitting, enforcement and scientific studies.

Some of the same opposition was leveled at HB 553 by shark researchers and fishers who argued it would be harmful to both research and fishing activities, is unenforceable and won't provide meaningful protections to sharks. Robust laws and protections are already in place, they said, making HB 553 pointless at best.

Hawaii in 2010 became the first state to ban the possession, sale and distribution of shark fins, and commercial fishing is banned in the vast Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

"Beyond rare subsistence harvesting, there is no demand for coastal shark meat in Hawaii, and shark finning is already banned, " Carl Meyer, a researcher at the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology's Shark Research Lab, said via email. "The lack of evidence of targeted fishing for sharks is on display every single day in Hawaii. You never see coastal sharks for sale at the fish auction or in local fish markets, supermarkets, restaurants, or by the side of the road."

Meyer also noted that DLNR, which supported HB 553, admitted in testimony opposing Senate Bill 578, which would have regulated shark tours, that it does not have the resources necessary for a "marine patrol " that would have been required for enforcement.

Rep. Nicole Lowen (D, Holualoa-Kailua-Kona-Honokohau ) introduced a similar shark protection bill in 2014. She said lack of enforcement resources is not reason enough to reject HB 553.

"Enforcement's always an issue, but ... the existence of a law is a deterrent in and of itself, " she said.

Those who favored the measure cited research showing shark and ray populations have collapsed by some 70 % over the past 50 years. But Kim Holland, founder of the Shark Research Group, said in testimony that "global declines in shark populations are mainly due to industrial high seas fishing or coastal fisheries where there is a coastal fishery targeting sharks—neither applies to Hawaii."

Shark abundance is difficult to estimate, and there isn't a consensus on how well or poorly they are doing in or near Hawaii waters.

A study published in 2012 found that shark density at reefs near human-populated areas in Hawaii was less than 10 % of the density of "untouched " reefs like those found in the Northwestern Hawaiian islands.

Meyer said it's not yet fully understood what's driving the disparity. "The only thing that we can say with any degree of confidence is that targeted fishing for coastal sharks ... is not the mechanism behind these differences, " he said.

Meyer and other researchers believe shark bycatch—sharks accidentally caught by fishers targeting other species—is a more important issue and is the "only area where real conservation gains are to be made with coastal sharks in Hawaii."

Whatever the impacts end up being, Nakachi said the passing of HB 553 is an important acknowledgement of Hawaiian culture.

"We've protected other forms of Kanaloa (a major deity associated with the ocean ), and it's long overdue that sharks get the protections and reverence they deserve, especially for Hawaii and especially for the indigenous voice, " he said.

If signed by Ige, the bill would go into effect Jan. 1.