查看文章

Conservation Letters. 2021; e12828. wileyonlinelibrary. com/journal/conl 1 of 3 https://doi. org/10.1111/conl. 12828

2 of 3 MALPICA-CRUZ et a. and could jeopardize white shark research and conservation in Mexico. Additionally, the paper does not reference mandatory permits required under Mexican regulations for working with protected wildlife–regardless of whether handling of samples or derivatives was direct or indirect, especially when local scientists are not involved (LGVS arts. 97 & 98: http://www. diputados. gob. mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/146_190118. pdf, accessed April 13, 2021). Madigan et al.(2021) compiled white shark captures from online media outlets and interviewed an unknown number of local fishers allegedly partaking in this activity. Despite acknowledging that the activity is rare and opportunistic, the authors incorrectly refer to it as a targeted fishery. Labeling these infrequent captures as a targeted fishery is incorrect because it lacks essential structural elements such as: 1) sufficient spatio-temporal biological availability, 2) a fishing fleet purposely designed to catch white sharks, 3) processing and marketing infrastructure for their catch, integrated into a fishing system with a clear social, economic and cultural impact (Charles, 2000). Most fisheries in the region are multispecific, and incidental white shark catches are considered rare (Galván-Magaña et al., 2010). The authors do not report following generally accepted guidelines for conducting interviews and obtaining informed consent. This nontechnically supported collecting of anecdotal information would disqualify its interpretation given its lack of technical rigor (see Vanclay et …