Information briefs and risk analyses for species under consideration ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Risk analysis and evaluation STOCK: Large ostrich foot (Struthiolaria papulosa) Severity/likelihood risk analysis: Generic objective 1: Risk to maintaining the potential of the stock to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations. Analysis: The large ostrich foot code has never been used to report commercial catch; therefore any catch of this species would be recorded under the generic whelk code. Whelk has been largely taken as bycatch of established trawl and dredge (oyster and scallop) fisheries in recent years. Whelk was targeted in FMA 7 from 1988/89 to 1997/98, but only a small proportion of this whelk catch was likely to be large ostrich foot. In addition, due to the nature of catch-reporting obligations for non-QMS species, unless the bycatch species is estimated to be among the 5 most abundant species taken in a given dredge or bottom trawl, estimated catches do not have to be reported. The whelk data and consequently any ostrich foot data therefore are, at best, only indicative of annual catch and of year-to-year catch variability. Conclusions regarding risk drawn from such data are therefore likely to be highly uncertain. Table 4: Reported landings (kg) for the fishing years 2002/03 – 2006/07 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Whelk 1,092 5,078 676 243 829 Scallop 185,006 99,965 146,949 171,419 132,118 Oyster 451,335 270,100 267,711 386,014 237,221 Landed catches vary markedly over the five fishing years from as high as 5,078 kg in 2003/04 to as low as 243 kg in 2005/06 (Table 4). It is uncertain what led to these fluctuations in catch. Catch of whelk has not followed the same trends as scallop or oyster catch. Given the variable catch and lack of species-specific reporting, the level of risk to the large ostrich foot is difficult to assess. MFish should encourage the correct identification and reporting of whelk species and monitor whelk and large ostrich foot catch. Such administrative steps would provide a better basis for an assessment of future management interventions, and such action in itself would better meet the purpose of the Fisheries Act. Should reported catches continue to decline and/or if TACCs of associated target QMS species are adjusted to higher levels in the following one or two fishing years, MFish should reconsider management interventions. Severity of impact (low, medium or high): Low Likelihood of impact (low, medium or high): Low Risk score (1-9): 1 20
Generic objective 2: Risk to avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic environment. Analysis: The risk of adverse effects on the aquatic environment from catch of large ostrich foot is low due to the fact that there is no target fishery for the species. While there has been a targeted whelk catch in previous years, this has been by potting, which has a relatively low impact on the environment. Little is known of the habitat interactions or the ecosystem role of the large ostrich foot. The large ostrich foot feeds on detritus and micro organisms including diatoms and foraminifera. Whelks are known to be preyed upon by fish, sharks and seastars. Severity of impact (low, medium or high): Low Likelihood of impact (low, medium or high): Low Risk score (1-9): 1 Generic objective 3: Risk to providing for utilisation of the stock or species that enables social, cultural and economic well-being. Analysis: The Act prevents large ostrich foot from being targeted by commercial fisheries, though whelks have been targeted in the past. Whelks currently have little commercial value to fishers. The amount of targeted recreational or customary catch of the large ostrich foot is unknown. There are no known international obligations. Severity of impact (low, medium or high) :Low Likelihood of impact (low, medium or high) : Low Risk score (1-9) :1 Objective(s) returning highest score: All three Risk based on severity/likelihood (low, medium, high): Low 21
Page 1 and 2: Species under consideration for int
Page 3 and 4: OCTOPUS Common name: Octopus Specie
Page 5 and 6: charts is limited and therefore the
Page 7 and 8: Figure 1: Comparison of reported la
Page 9 and 10: Recreational fishery characteristic
Page 11 and 12: Risk analysis and evaluation STOCK:
Page 13 and 14: Immediacy and uncertainty risk anal
Page 15 and 16: Environmental effects and protected
Page 17 and 18: Table 2: Estimated catch of whelk (
Page 19: Recommendation 20 Regardless of whe
Page 23 and 24: CARPET SHARK Class: Chondrichthyes
Page 25 and 26: Growth, reproduction and recruitmen
Page 27 and 28: Figure 3: Commercially landed catch
Page 29 and 30: Table 2: Processed state percentage
Page 31 and 32: Sources of Information Data Sources
Page 33 and 34: Generic objective 3: Risk to provid
Page 35 and 36: Associated species (bycatch and tar
Page 37 and 38: Fishing Council record an average o
Page 39 and 40: Generic objective 3: Risk to provid
Page 41 and 42: also contributed nearly 9% to the t
Page 43 and 44: Treaty settlement obligations 20 MF
Page 45 and 46: Severity of impact (low, medium or
Page 47 and 48: from observer data in the squid tra
Page 51 and 52: RATTAILS Introduction 1 Rattails (o
Page 53 and 54: Biological information Morphology,
Page 55 and 56: WHX (white grenadier) Landed state
Page 59 and 60: Additional risk analysis not applic
Page 61 and 62: Redbait contributed 1% to the total
Page 65 and 66: Objective(s) returning highest scor
Page 67 and 68: Habitat interactions 6 No informati
Page 69 and 70: catches. The reported discards have
Page 71 and 72:
Severity of impact (low, medium or
Page 73 and 74:
Relationship with other QMS stocks
Page 75 and 76:
Protected species interactions 7 No
Page 77 and 78:
Risk analysis and evaluation STOCK:
show all

Information briefs and risk analyses for species under consideration ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?