```

[Senate Report 114-388]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                      Calendar No. 692
114th Congress     }                                    {       Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session        }                                    {      114-388
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                  ACCESS FOR SPORTFISHING ACT OF 2016

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

           COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                                   on

                                S. 3099

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               November 28, 2016.--Ordered to be printed

                                   ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

69-010                         WASHINGTON : 2016 

       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                    one hundred fourteenth congress
                             second session

                   JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
 ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         BILL NELSON, Florida
 ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
 MARCO RUBIO, Florida                 CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
 KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire          AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
 TED CRUZ, Texas                      RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
 DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
 JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  ED MARKEY, Massachusetts
 DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
 RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
 DEAN HELLER, Nevada                  JOE MANCHIN, West Virginia
 CORY GARDNER, Colorado               GARY PETERS, Michigan
 STEVE DAINES, Montana
                       Nick Rossi, Staff Director
                 Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
                    Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
           Christopher Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                 Clint Odom, Democratic General Counsel
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                                                      Calendar No. 692
114th Congress     }                                    {       Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session        }                                    {      114-388

======================================================================

 
                  ACCESS FOR SPORTFISHING ACT OF 2016
                                _______
                                

               November 28, 2016.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Thune, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 3099]

    The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 
which was referred the bill (S. 3099) to preserve and enhance 
saltwater fishing opportunities for recreational anglers, and 
for other purposes, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the 
bill do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of S. 3099 is to preserve and enhance saltwater 
fishing opportunities for recreational anglers. The bill would 
prohibit implementation and enforcement of restrictions on 
recreational fishing in Biscayne National Park (BNP), Florida, 
that were not developed with the Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Commission of Florida (FWC). It also would prohibit shark 
feeding, except for harvesting purposes in the exclusive 
economic zone (EEZ). Lastly, it would require the Secretary of 
Commerce to issue a final rule to implement the Billfish 
Conservation Act of 2012 (16 U.S.C. 1827a).

                          Background and Needs

Biscayne National Park

    Located adjacent to Miami in Biscayne Bay, the BNP is the 
largest marine park in the National Park system.\1\ In June 
2015, BNP officials finalized an update of the BNP's General 
Management Plan (GMP), which was last updated in 1983. BNP 
officials approved a no-fishing marine reserve in more than 
10,000 acres of the BNP's most popular and productive fishing 
area, despite commitments made by BNP officials to work with 
stakeholders and the State of Florida to explore less 
restrictive options. This decision ran counter to the 
recommendations from stakeholders, the BNP's own working group, 
and the FWC.\2\ In particular, the FWC stated that the GMP was 
not consistent with the memorandum of understanding (MOU) 
between the FWC and the BNP,\3\ which states that, ``FWC and 
the [BNP] agree to seek the least restrictive management 
actions necessary to fully achieve mutual management goals for 
the fishery resources of the Park and adjoining areas. 
Furthermore, both parties recognize the FWC's belief that 
marine reserves (no-take areas) are overly restrictive and that 
less-restrictive management measures should be implemented 
during the duration of this MOU.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\National Park Service, ``Ocean Parks,'' at http://www.nps.gov/
subjects/oceans/ocean-parks.html.
    \2\National Park Service, Biscayne National Park Final General 
Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 2, Appendices F 
and G, April, 2015, at http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/
document.cfm?parkID=353&projectID=11168d&ocumentID=65801.
    \3\Letter from Nick Wiley, Executive Director, Florida Fish and 
Wildlife Commission to Lauren Milligan, Office of Intergovernmental 
Programs, Department of Environmental Protection, July 14, 2015.
    \4\Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Florida, Fish 
and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the National Park Service, 
Biscayne National Park. FWC Agreement No. 12179 and NPS Agreement 
number G525000001, October 5, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite these facts, the BNP states in its GMP that no-take 
zones are more effective for managing coral reef fisheries 
populations than other less restrictive options, and further 
states that less restrictive options would be difficult to 
enforce. It is troubling that such statements are patently 
focused on fisheries management and directly conflict with 
provisions in the MOU under which no-take areas are not to be 
considered for fisheries management unless other less 
restrictive measures have been tried and have failed.
    The Committee believes the GMP will unnecessarily prohibit 
all recreational and commercial fishing in the 10,522 acre 
Marine Reserve Zone. While the GMP notes that the Marine 
Reserve Zone represents only 7 percent of the entire water area 
of the BNP, it fails to consider that it also encompasses some 
of the most popular and productive fishing grounds in the 
Biscayne Bay. There is insufficient scientific basis to support 
fisheries closures in the GMP. The GMP cites scientific studies 
relative to restoration of coral reef systems, but the validity 
of these studies appears to be tenuous at best, and the broad 
assumptions and conclusions in the GMP regarding the 
effectiveness of no fishing zones are unaccompanied by serious 
analysis, metrics, or other quantifiable measures to support 
them.
    The Committee also is concerned that the input and 
interests of the State of Florida, the FWC, and numerous 
boaters and anglers provided during the GMP planning process 
and prior to the selection of the preferred alternative were 
not given any meaningful consideration by the BNP. To select 
the preferred alternative as the BNP did, with little if any 
meaningful engagement with the State of Florida, is completely 
inconsistent with the manner in which the State and the BNP 
historically have managed fishing activity in the Biscayne Bay. 
Since 1970, the State of Florida has conveyed a significant 
amount of acreage to the BNP to be incorporated into the BNP, 
and the BNP has, through its MOU with the FWC, agreed to share 
responsibilities and authorities regarding fisheries management 
and enforcement.
    The Committee also notes that implementation of the Marine 
Reserve Zone by the BNP would be inconsistent with Florida's 
federally approved Coastal Zone Management Program under the 
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.). 
Had the BNP adhered to the cooperative process established 
under its MOU with the FWC, it would likely have avoided such 
inconsistencies with the Florida Coastal Zone Management 
Program.
    For all these reasons, the Committee believes that the BNP 
and FWC need to revisit the proposed Marine Reserve Zone to 
ensure that any fishing restrictions imposed upon recreational, 
charter, and commercial fishermen in the Biscayne Bay are the 
least restrictive measures necessary to achieve conservation 
and management goals.

Shark Feeding

    Some dive charters introduce food (chum) to attract sharks 
to their clients so they can see and photograph the sharks. 
This is extremely dangerous because the divers may or may not 
be in a cage and are at risk of attacks. Sharks also may learn 
to associate divers with food since divers are feeding the 
sharks directly from their hands. Marine biologists and other 
interested parties agree that sharks attack humans because they 
mistake humans for marine life.\5\ Concerns about the increased 
likelihood of shark attacks apply both to the divers 
participating in feeding trips and to other divers who 
encounter previously fed sharks during non-feeding trips. These 
concerns have led to State bans on the feeding of sharks for 
all purposes (excluding feeding sharks for the purpose of 
harvesting).\6\ Other than in the case of Federal waters off 
Hawaii, no similar bans exist in Federal waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ``NOAA 
Fisheries Fact Sheet - Frequently Asked Questions About Sharks,'' at 
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sharks/FS_faq.html.
    \6\Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, ``Regulations 
for Feeding Fish, Shark, or other Marine Species,'' at http://
myfwc.com/fishing/saltwater/recreational/feeding-fish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Billfish Conservation Act of 2012

    More than two decades ago, the United States banned the 
commercial sale and harvest of Atlantic-caught billfish 
(marlin, sailfish, and spearfish), in order to maximize 
recreational opportunities for these relatively rare fish. 
Catch-and-release recreational angling for billfish generates 
many millions of dollars in economic benefits to the U.S. 
economy each year.\7\ On October 5, 2012, President Obama 
signed into law the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012, 
effectively banning the importation of all billfish into the 
continental United States.\8\ This legislation was in response 
to declining billfish populations due to overfishing by non-
U.S. commercial fishing fleets. In an effort to conserve 
billfish, the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 prohibits the 
sale of nearly all billfish. The sale of swordfish is still 
allowed and billfish may be caught if landed and retained in 
Hawaii. The Hawaii exemption was for the purpose of protecting 
traditional fisheries and markets in that State.\9\ The 
rulemaking to implement that Act has not been completed, 
however, thus its passage has not yet yielded any conservation 
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation ``Billfish Conservation Act 
of 2012 Passes the House of Representatives,'' press release, September 
12, 2012, at http://sportsmenslink.org/the-media-room/news/billfish-
conservation-act-of-2012-passes-the-house-of-representatives.
    \8\P.L. 112-183
    \9\Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation ``Billfish Conservation Act 
of 2012 Becomes Law,'' press release, October 16, 2012, at http://
sportsmenslink.org/the-media-room/news/billfish-conservation-act-of-
2012-passes-the-house-of-representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Summary of Provisions

    If enacted, S. 3099 would do the following:
     Prohibit implementation or enforcement of 
restrictions on recreational fishing activities in the BNP that 
were not developed in coordination and consultation with the 
FWC.
     Prohibit any person from engaging in shark 
feeding, with the exception of harvest purposes, in the EEZ.
     Require the Secretary of Commerce to issue a final 
rule implementing the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 not 
later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

                          Legislative History

    S. 3099 was introduced on June 23, 2016, by Senator Nelson 
and is cosponsored by Senator Rubio. Related bills have been 
introduced by Senators Cassidy and Rubio (S. 2807) and 
Representative Ros-Lehtinen (H.R. 3310). S. 2807 and H.R. 3310 
would have required the National Park Service to have approval 
from State fish and wildlife agencies before closing State 
marine or Great Lakes waters to recreational or commercial 
fishing.
    On June 29, 2016, the Committee met in open Executive 
Session and, by voice vote, ordered S. 3099 to be reported 
favorably without amendment.

                            Estimated Costs

    In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the 
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office:

S. 3099--Access for Sportfishing Act of 2016

    S. 3099 would prohibit the National Park Service (NPS) from 
implementing or enforcing restrictions on fishing in Biscayne 
National Park in Florida, unless the restrictions are developed 
in coordination with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Commission (FWC) and are the least restrictive measures 
necessary for effective management of the fishery. The bill 
also would require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) to issue a final regulation implementing 
the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012, which prohibits the sale 
of billfish, within 45 days of enactment of the bill. Finally, 
S. 3099 would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act to prohibit people from feeding sharks in 
federal waters.
    Based on information from the NPS and the FWC about the 
agencies' positions on fishing restrictions within the park, 
CBO expects that the NPS would probably not choose to enter 
into an agreement with the FWC to develop new fishing 
regulations. As a result, CBO estimates that implementing the 
legislation would not affect federal spending with respect to 
management of Biscayne National Park.
    Based on information from NOAA, CBO estimates that 
implementing S. 3099 would cost less than $500,000 annually to 
issue rules on the sale of billfish and to implement the 
prohibition on feeding sharks. Any such spending would be 
subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting the 
legislation could increase revenues and associated direct 
spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.
    S. 3099 would create new civil and criminal penalties for 
feeding sharks; such penalties are recorded as revenues. 
Because criminal penalties are deposited into the Crime Victims 
Fund and later spent without further appropriations action, the 
bill also could increase direct spending. However, CBO expects 
that any additional revenues and subsequent direct spending 
would not be significant in any year because the number of 
civil and criminal violations would probably be small.
    CBO estimates that enacting S. 3099 would not increase net 
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027.
    S. 3099 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect 
the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
    The bill contains private-sector mandates as defined in 
UMRA. Specifically, the bill would prohibit anyone from feeding 
sharks in U.S. waters for any purpose other than to harvest 
sharks. It also would prohibit anyone from operating a vessel 
for the purpose of carrying passengers to engage in or observe 
shark feeding. The cost of the mandates would be the net income 
forgone as a result of the prohibitions. Some diving operators 
use bait to attract sharks so that their customers can get a 
closer look. Feeding sharks is already banned in some state 
waters, including California and Florida. However, some dive 
operators have gotten around state bans by taking their 
customers out of state waters and into adjacent federal waters. 
The bill would make such practices illegal. Based on 
information from the academic literature about the size of the 
industry in the United States and in other countries, the rates 
charged for charter trips, and the customer base for such 
trips, CBO estimates that revenues generated by the industry 
amount to about $10 million annually. Therefore, CBO estimates 
that the cost of the mandate would fall well below the annual 
threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($154 
million in 2016, adjusted annually for inflation).
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Robert Reese 
and Jon Sperl (for federal costs) and Logan Smith (for private-
sector mandates). The estimate was approved by H. Samuel 
Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                           Regulatory Impact

    In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the 
legislation, as reported:

                       number of persons covered

    S. 3099, as reported, would require the Secretary of 
Commerce to issue a final rule implementing the Bill 
Conservation Act of 2012. This would result in a prohibition of 
the sale of billfish, except in very limited circumstances. 
Very few people would be covered by this since there is no 
commercial billfish fishery.

                            economic impact

    The legislation is not expected to have a negative impact 
on the Nation's economy.

                                privacy

    The reported bill is not expected to impact the personal 
privacy of individuals.

                               paperwork

    S. 3099 would require the Secretary of Commerce to issue a 
final rule implementing the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 
not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

                   Congressionally Directed Spending

    In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no 
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the 
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the 
rule.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Short title.

    This section would provide the short title of the bill, the 
``Access for Sportfishing Act of 2016.''

Section 2. Fishery management measures in Biscayne National Park.

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior 
from implementing or enforcing any restrictions on recreational 
fishing, charter fishing, or commercial fishing in the BNP 
developed as part of a management plan adopted after December 
31, 2014. In order for the Secretary of the Interior to 
implement restrictions, they would need to be based on best 
available science, developed in coordination with the FWC, and 
be the least restrictive measures necessary for effective fish 
conservation and management. ``Fish'', ``fishery resource'', 
``fishing'', ``charter fishing'', ``commercial fishing'', 
``conservation and management'', and ``recreational fishing'' 
would have the definitions given those terms in section 3 of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(MSA) (16 U.S.C 1802).

Section 3. Shark Conservation Act of 2010.

    This section would amend the Act to amend the High Seas 
Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to improve the 
conservation of sharks (Public Law 111-348; 124 Stat. 3668) to 
prohibit any person from engaging in shark feeding or operating 
a vessel for the purpose of carrying a passenger for hire to a 
site to engage in shark feeding, with the exceptions of 
regulations in the MSA that allow for feeding to attract sharks 
for harvest within the EEZ. The amendment made by this section 
would prohibit the refusal of an authorized officer to board a 
fishing vessel for the purpose of enforcing this law. It would 
prohibit any assault, resistance, or interference of such 
authorized officers. The amendment made by this section would 
outline the civil and criminal penalties associated with 
violation of that Act. Nothing in that Act would supersede more 
restrictive State laws or regulations regarding shark feeding 
in State waters.

Section 4. Billfish Conservation Act of 2012.

    This section would require the Secretary of Commerce to 
issue a final rule implementing the Billfish Conservation Act 
of 2012 not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act and clarify that an exemption provided for certain 
traditional fisheries and markets applies to billfish landed 
and retained locally.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

  AN ACT TO AMEND THE HIGH SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING MORATORIUM PROTECTION 
ACT AND THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT TO 
                   IMPROVE THE CONSERVATION OF SHARKS

                  [Public Law 111-348; 124 Stat. 3668]

[SEC. 104. OFFSET OF IMPLEMENTATION COST.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 104. PROHIBITION ON SHARK FEEDING.

  (a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in section 317 of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 
U.S.C. 1866), it is unlawful for any person--
          (1) to engage in shark feeding; or
          (2) to operate a vessel for the purpose of carrying a 
        passenger for hire to any site to engage in shark 
        feeding or to observe shark feeding.
  (b) Additional Prohibited Acts.--It is unlawful for any 
person--
          (1) to violate this section or any regulation 
        promulgated under this section;
          (2) to refuse to permit any officer authorized to 
        enforce the provisions of this section to board a 
        fishing vessel subject to such person's control for 
        purposes of conducting any search or inspection in 
        connection with the enforcement of this section or any 
        regulation promulgated under the section;
          (3) to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, 
        intimidate, or interfere with any such authorized 
        officer in the conduct of any search or inspection 
        described in paragraph (2);
          (4) to resist a lawful arrest for any act prohibited 
        by this section; or
          (5) to interfere with, delay, or prevent, by any 
        means, the apprehension or arrest of another person, 
        knowing that such other person has committed any act 
        prohibited by this section.
  (c) Limitation.--Any incidental feeding or attracting of a 
shark in the course of educational or scientific research 
conducted under a permit issued by the Secretary of Commerce or 
lawful fishing under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) shall not be 
considered a violation of this section.
  (d) Civil Penalty.--Any person who commits any act that is 
unlawful under subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this section 
shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty under 
section 308 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1858).
  (e) Criminal Penalty.--Any person who commits an act that is 
unlawful under paragraph (2), (3), (4), or (5) of subsection 
(b) of this section is deemed to be guilty of an offense 
punishable under section 309(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1859(b)).
  (f) Enforcement.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce and the 
        Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
        operating shall prevent any person from violating this 
        section in the same manner, by the same means, and with 
        the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though 
        sections 308 through 311 of the Magnuson-Stevens 
        Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
        1858, 1859, 1860, 1861) were incorporated into and made 
        a part of this Act.
          (2) Penalties and privileges.--Any person who 
        violates this section is subject to the penalties and 
        entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in 
        the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
        Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) in the same 
        manner and by the same means as though sections 308 
        through 311 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
        Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1858, 1859, 
        1860, 1861) were incorporated into and made a part of 
        this Act.
  (g) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) Passenger for hire.--The term ``passenger for 
        hire'' has the meaning given that term in section 
        2101(21a) of title 46, United States Code.
          (2) Shark feeding.--The term ``shark feeding'' means 
        the introduction of food or any other substance into 
        the water to feed or attract sharks for any purpose 
        other than to harvest sharks.

SEC. 105. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

  Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall 
be construed as affecting, altering, or diminishing in any way 
the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to establish such 
conservation and management measures as the Secretary considers 
appropriate under sections 302(a)(3) and 304(g) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 
U.S.C. 1852(a)(3) and 1854(g)).

                   BILLFISH CONSERVATION ACT OF 2012

                  [Public Law 112-183; 126 Stat. 1422]

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON SALE OF BILLFISH.

                           [16 U.S.C. 1827a]

  (a) Prohibition.--No person shall offer for sale, sell, or 
have custody, control, or possession of for purposes of 
offering for sale or selling billfish or products containing 
billfish.
  (b) Penalty.--For purposes of section 308(a) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
1858(a)), a violation of this section shall be treated as an 
act prohibited by section 307 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 1857).
  (c) Exemptions for Traditional Fisheries and Markets.--
          (1) Subsection (a) does not apply to billfish caught 
        by US fishing vessels and landed and retained in the 
        State of Hawaii or Pacific Insular Areas as defined in 
        section 3(35) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
        Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802(35)).
          (2) Subsection (a) does not apply to billfish landed 
        by foreign fishing vessels in the Pacific Insular Areas 
        when the foreign caught billfish is exported to non-US 
        markets or retained within Hawaii and the Pacific 
        Insular Areas for local consumption.
  (d) Billfish Defined.--In this section the term 
``billfish''--
          (1) means any fish of the species--
                  (A) Makaira nigricans (blue marlin);
                  (B) Kajikia audax (striped marlin);
                  (C) Istiompax indica (black marlin);
                  (D) Istiophorus platypterus (sailfish);
                  (E) Tetrapturus angustirostris (shortbill 
                spearfish);
                  (F) Kajikia albida (white marlin);
                  (G) Tetrapturus georgii (roundscale 
                spearfish);
                  (H) Tetrapturus belone (Mediterranean 
                spearfish); and
                  (I) Tetrapturus pfluegeri (longbill 
                spearfish); and
          (2) does not include the species Xiphias gladius 
        (swordfish).

                                  [all]
```