Madigan et al. (2021) recently reported a supposedly illegal fishery targeting white sharks in the Gulf of California (GC), Mexico. While we are strongly against illegal fishing and recognize the need to enhance enforcement to protect white sharks, the evidence presented does not support the authors’ argument and likely failed to abide by ethical and professional guidelines. Claiming the existence of a targeted fishery is weakly supported and irresponsible, 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 non-technically supported collecting of anecdotal information would disqualify its interpretation given its lack of technical rigor (see Vanclay et al., 2013) which is inferred from the lack of evidence of informed consent. This is particularly concerning given the potential consequences of criminalizing a marginalized sector of society based on unsubstantiated information.

The authors present a population model that forecasts a high and negative population-level impact. However, the author's interpretation is based on several assumptions without enough evidence and an uncertain sample size, even assuming that the teeth analyzed were obtained from 14 individuals all captured in a single year. However, independent verification to eliminate the possibility that some samples belong to the same individual - a fact that even the authors acknowledge - or were caught in a different area or year is not presented. Therefore, their uncertain sample size would lead to larger error in their size estimates based on jaw tooth position, thus skewing reported size distribution to the left or to the right (younger or adult sizes, respectively), with drastically different interpretation and management implications. While local ecological knowledge should not be disregarded, it should be verified and contrasted against additional evidence. However, the authors only contrast their findings with online media outlets that are prone to overemphasize facts or be unreliable (see West & Bergstrom, 2021). For these reasons, the model, although mathematically sound, is likely not valid for estimating the infrequent catch of white sharks in the GC.

We regret that this paper failed to incorporate the expertise and perspective of local researchers and fishery managers, which could have increased their sample size reducing model uncertainty and error, as well as improved the context of the findings and their implications based on the current understanding of the white shark's population and its interactions with local fisheries. Local collaborators would have also prevented wrongly presenting Mexican state names, which has management implications and suggests lack of knowledge of the study area. Mexican science has been critical for informing co-management enhancing conservation efforts of white sharks and their habitat, and for implementing legislation that forbids targeted fishing (e.g. https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5330831&fecha=27/01/2014, accessed April 20, 2021). Collaborating with local experts would avoid the pitfalls of scientific colonialism (see Trisos et al., 2021).

Alleging the existence of an illegal targeted fishery without solid evidence will likely lead to mistrust between fishers and researchers, and reprisals from local authorities against fishers, thus thwarting the assessment of white shark bycatch in the GC. Fisheries management is about managing natural populations while actively engaging users. Therefore, the solution to illicit fishing practices of white sharks and other species requires working collaboratively with fishers and empowering them to replace unsustainable fishing practices with a true commitment to conservation and marine stewardship (e.g. Karr et al., 2017).

马迪根等人。( 2021) 最近报道了墨西哥加利福尼亚湾 (GC) 的一项据称是针对白鲨的非法捕捞活动。虽然我们强烈反对非法捕捞，并认识到需要加强执法以保护大白鲨，但所提供的证据并不支持作者的论点，并且可能没有遵守道德和专业准则。声称存在有针对性的渔业是缺乏支持和不负责任的，可能会危及墨西哥的白鲨研究和保护。此外，该论文没有提到墨西哥法规要求的与受保护野生动物合作的强制性许可——无论样本或衍生物的处理是直接还是间接，尤其是在当地科学家不参与的情况下（LGVS 第 97 和 98 条：http：/ /www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/146_190118。

马迪根等人。（2021 年）从在线媒体中汇编了捕获的白鲨，并采访了据称参与此活动的数量不详的当地渔民。尽管承认这种活动是罕见的和机会主义的，但作者错误地将其称为有针对性的渔业。将这些不频繁的捕捞标记为目标渔业是不正确的，因为它缺乏必要的结构要素，例如：1) 足够的时空生物可用性，2) 专门设计用于捕获白鲨的捕捞船队，3) 其捕获物的加工和营销基础设施，融入具有明显社会、经济和文化影响的渔业系统（Charles, 2000）。该地区的大多数渔业是多品种的，偶然捕获的白鲨被认为是罕见的（Galván-Magaña 等人，2010 年）。作者没有报告遵循普遍接受的采访和获得知情同意的指导方针。鉴于缺乏技术严谨性（见 Vanclay 等人，2013 年），这是从缺乏知情同意的证据中推断出来的，这种非技术支持的轶事信息收集将取消其解释的资格。考虑到根据未经证实的信息将社会边缘化部门定为犯罪的潜在后果，这一点尤其令人担忧。

作者提出了一个人口模型，可以预测人口水平的高和负面影响。然而，作者的解释是基于几个没有足够证据和不确定样本量的假设，即使假设所分析的牙齿是从一年内捕获的 14 个个体中获得的。然而，没有提供独立验证以消除某些样本属于同一个人的可能性——这一事实甚至作者也承认——或者在不同的地区或年份被捕获。因此，他们不确定的样本量会导致基于下颌牙齿位置的大小估计误差更大，从而使报告的大小分布向左或向右（分别为年轻或成人大小）倾斜，具有截然不同的解释和管理含义。当地生态知识不应被忽视，但应与其他证据进行核实和对比。然而，作者仅将他们的发现与容易过分强调事实或不可靠的在线媒体进行对比（参见 West & Bergstrom，2021 年）。由于这些原因，该模型虽然在数学上是合理的，但对于估计 GC 中白鲨的罕见捕获量可能无效。

我们感到遗憾的是，本文未能结合当地研究人员和渔业管理人员的专业知识和观点，这本可以增加他们的样本量，减少模型的不确定性和错误，并根据目前对白鲨的种群及其与当地渔业的相互作用。当地合作者还可以防止错误地呈现墨西哥州名，这会影响管理并表明缺乏对研究领域的了解。墨西哥科学对于告知共同管理加强白鲨及其栖息地的保护工作以及实施禁止有针对性的捕鱼的立法至关重要（例如 https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5330831&fecha= 27/01/2014，2021 年 4 月 20 日访问）。2021 年）。

在没有确凿证据的情况下声称存在非法目标渔业可能会导致渔民和研究人员之间的不信任，以及地方当局对渔民的报复，从而阻碍 GC 对白鲨兼捕的评估。渔业管理是在积极吸引用户的同时管理自然种群。因此，解决白鲨和其他物种的非法捕捞行为需要与渔民合作，并赋予他们权力，以真正致力于保护和海洋管理来取代不可持续的捕捞行为（例如 Karr 等人，2017 年）。