AbstractDepredation (the partial or complete removal of a hooked species by a non‐target species) is a human–wildlife conflict as old as humans and the sea. In some ways, depredation is no different today than it was a century ago. But in many ways, this conflict has become more complicated. Following three decades of successful management, some US shark populations have begun to rebuild. However, many anglers attribute perceived increases in shark depredation to management measures, claiming they have led to ‘overpopulation’ of sharks and/or learned behaviour by sharks. We investigated whether these factors could explain the reported increases in depredation. Based on fishery‐independent surveys, neither shark population increases nor learned behaviour by sharks is evident. However, increases in angler effort provide an alternative explanation that is not often considered. While far from a smoking gun, at least four themes emerge from this thought exercise. First, it is important to understand historical predator baselines. Second, it is important to acknowledge lifting baselines, that is, instances where previously depleted populations are recovering. Third, it is important to remember that there are many instances when stakeholder observations were initially misaligned with traditional scientific observations but were ultimately recognized as pivotal for filling data gaps. Finally, and perhaps most important, is the acknowledgement that perceived conflict is as potent as real conflict. Arguably, it may not matter if depredation has increased or decreased; the overwhelming perception from stakeholders is an increase in depredation, and this is the perceived (or real) conflict that must be addressed.