<strong>Shark</strong> <strong>Depredation</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Unwanted</strong> <strong>Bycatch</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Pelagic</strong> Longl<strong>in</strong>e Fisheries Fig. A5.3. Japanese tuna longl<strong>in</strong>e effort by ocean, 1952-2004. (Suisan Sougou Kenkyuu Center, 2006). Fig. A5.4. Components of Japanese longl<strong>in</strong>e gear <strong>and</strong> various configurations used historically <strong>and</strong> currently (see text). 88
Japan <strong>Pelagic</strong> Longl<strong>in</strong>e Fisheries more <strong>and</strong> more branch l<strong>in</strong>es off the strong but light monofilament. However, at the same time, it appeared that the schools of bigeye began to disaggregate <strong>and</strong> fishermen returned to a system of plac<strong>in</strong>g the hooks at a range of depths by vary<strong>in</strong>g the length of the branch l<strong>in</strong>e rather than chang<strong>in</strong>g the high shorten<strong>in</strong>g ratio. In recent years, some Japanese longl<strong>in</strong>e fishermen have begun revert<strong>in</strong>g to heavier <strong>and</strong> stiffer ma<strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>es with lower (i.e. deeper) shorten<strong>in</strong>g ratios. The reason for this is unclear but may be connected to a desire to target larger <strong>and</strong> deeper-swimm<strong>in</strong>g bigeye, to avoid tangl<strong>in</strong>g of the ma<strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e, or to vary the fish<strong>in</strong>g strategy from other longl<strong>in</strong>e fleets who have learned from the Japanese longl<strong>in</strong>e fisheries’ past example. Today’s longl<strong>in</strong>e operations consist of a variety of configurations based on different numbers of hpb, shorten<strong>in</strong>g ratios, branch <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e lengths <strong>and</strong> materials. It is thus difficult to characterize the different gear types <strong>in</strong>to generic categories. As an example of materials used, longl<strong>in</strong>e leaders used to target tuna or billfish may consist of a buran of rope or cord, followed by a nakatsugi of 3mm nylon monofilament, <strong>and</strong> an upper tsurimoto of stiff cord with another length of nylon monofilament connect<strong>in</strong>g the cord to the hook (Fig. A5.4). If the fishermen wish to m<strong>in</strong>imize sharks bit<strong>in</strong>g off the hook, they may cover the lower length of nylon monofilament with a steel sheath but this may cause the bait to move <strong>in</strong> the water column <strong>in</strong> an unnatural manner <strong>and</strong> thus may result <strong>in</strong> a lower catch rate for tuna. Fishermen who are even more focused on catch<strong>in</strong>g sharks may use a cord buran, followed by a 2mm monofilament nakatsugi, <strong>and</strong> a tsurimoto of 1mm braided steel wire. Such types of gear are favored by shark fishermen because they attract sharks yet are resilient to shark bite-offs. They have the added advantage of manpower sav<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> that, unlike monofilament tsurimoto, they do not need to be checked for damage between each deployment. Ma<strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>es may be made of rope (e.g. Kesennuma) or nylon monofilament (e.g. Kii-Katsuura). A5.3. Current Fleet Characteristics <strong>and</strong> <strong>Shark</strong> Catches As described <strong>in</strong> the previous section, the Japanese longl<strong>in</strong>e fishery has a long history <strong>and</strong> has undergone a number of major <strong>in</strong>novations. Despite these general trends, longl<strong>in</strong>e operations rema<strong>in</strong> highly diverse <strong>and</strong> vary considerably by region <strong>and</strong> fish<strong>in</strong>g master. The follow<strong>in</strong>g sections attempt to characterize the current state of the Japanese longl<strong>in</strong>e fishery <strong>in</strong> terms of vessel numbers, effort <strong>and</strong> catch, highlight<strong>in</strong>g important dist<strong>in</strong>ctions where relevant. A5.3.1. Number of vessels by size class The number of vessels registered <strong>in</strong> each size class is shown <strong>in</strong> Table A5.2. By 2003, the enyo fleet had contracted to 66% of its size <strong>in</strong> 1993. This reduction is partially attributable to a Japanese government buy-back program implemented <strong>in</strong> 1999 <strong>in</strong> response to the FAO International Plan of Action for the Management of Fish<strong>in</strong>g Capacity (IPOA-Capacity) which scrapped 132 tuna longl<strong>in</strong>e vessels (FAO 2004). Further reductions <strong>in</strong> the number of longl<strong>in</strong>e vessels are expected <strong>in</strong> 2006 due to adverse economic conditions result<strong>in</strong>g from high oil prices, decl<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g catches, competition from farmed tuna <strong>and</strong> the elim<strong>in</strong>ation of government-sponsored f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g services (Japan Times 2006). It should be noted that vessel statistics for 2002-2003 show an apparent <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> small-class k<strong>in</strong>kai vessels but upon closer <strong>in</strong>spection this <strong>in</strong>crease results merely from a reclassification of largeclass engan vessels <strong>and</strong> does not halt the overall trend of decl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> vessel numbers (Table A5.2, Total column). This trend is also reflected <strong>in</strong> the f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g by Miyake et al. (2004) that Japan’s share of the global tuna catch relative to other countries has decl<strong>in</strong>ed over time. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>in</strong>terview <strong>in</strong>formation, all of the enyo longl<strong>in</strong>ers are equipped with ultra-low temperature (ULT) freezers. Refrigeration <strong>in</strong> the k<strong>in</strong>kai fleet is sometimes <strong>in</strong> the form of freezers; <strong>in</strong> other vessels ice is used. Some of the engan fleet use a well of chilled water rather than ice. When asked to compare the level of freezer technology <strong>in</strong> the Japanese enyo fleet to that of other fish<strong>in</strong>g entities, a knowledgeable source stated that rapid development of other fleets is quickly clos<strong>in</strong>g any rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g technology gap. A5.3.2. Catch <strong>and</strong> effort by vessel class <strong>and</strong> operational behavior Longl<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g operations represent Japan’s primary fisheries for tuna <strong>and</strong> billfishes. In addition, <strong>in</strong> the period between 1993 <strong>and</strong> 2003, longl<strong>in</strong>e gear has consistently been responsible for 70-80% of Japan’s annual reported shark catch (MAFF, 2005). In contrast to shark catches which are generally higher <strong>in</strong> the latter half of this time period for all vessel classes (Fig. A5.4a), total longl<strong>in</strong>e catches of all species show a gradually decl<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g trend (Fig. A5.4b). In terms of sharks, k<strong>in</strong>kai vessels contribute the largest portion of the catch, followed closely by enyo vessels (Fig. A5.4a). In terms of total catch, however, k<strong>in</strong>kai catches comprise only 20 to 40% of the catch volume of enyo vessels (Fig. A5.4b). Therefore, k<strong>in</strong>kai vessels are either hook<strong>in</strong>g a disproportionately large share of sharks due to some aspect of their operational behavior, or merely reta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a greater proportion of hooked sharks. One possibly important factor <strong>in</strong>fluenc<strong>in</strong>g shark catch rates is hook depth. An early study compar<strong>in</strong>g catch rates between shallow <strong>and</strong> deep sets observed higher catch rates <strong>in</strong> the deep sets for bigeye tuna but did not <strong>in</strong>vestigate differences <strong>in</strong> shark catch rates (Suzuki et al. 1977). With the some notable exceptions, e.g. bigeye thresher sharks (Alopias superciliosus, Nakano et al. 2003), the depth preferences of most shark species are not well understood, <strong>and</strong> thus it is difficult to predict the potential effect of deeper hook sett<strong>in</strong>g on shark species. In particular, for species such as blue shark (Prionace glauca), which are believed to be widely distributed <strong>in</strong> the water column (Nakano <strong>and</strong> Seki 2003), hook depth may not have a major effect on catch rates. Despite this theory, analysis of shark catch rates between longl<strong>in</strong>e sets <strong>in</strong> the North Pacific characterized as shallow (4-6 hpb) <strong>and</strong> 2 There are many reasons (e.g. current speed, l<strong>in</strong>e sett<strong>in</strong>g method, etc.) why the <strong>in</strong>tended fish<strong>in</strong>g depth of the hook is not realized. Please see Shiode et al. (2005) <strong>and</strong> Miyamoto et al. (2006) for more <strong>in</strong>formation 89
- Page 3 and 4:
Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 5:
Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 9 and 10:
Contents Summary and Conclusions 1
- Page 11 and 12:
Contents Appendix 3. Fiji Pelagic L
- Page 13:
Contents Appendix 8. USA Hawaii Lon
- Page 16 and 17:
Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 19 and 20:
Chapter 1 Introduction and Methods
- Page 21 and 22:
Introduction and Methods 1.2. Metho
- Page 23 and 24:
Fishing Gear and Operational Charac
- Page 25 and 26:
Fishing Gear and Operational Charac
- Page 27 and 28:
Shark Catch Rates and Disposition T
- Page 29 and 30:
Chapter 4 National and Internationa
- Page 31 and 32:
National and International Measures
- Page 33 and 34:
Economic, Practical, Ecological and
- Page 35 and 36:
Economic, Practical, Ecological and
- Page 37 and 38:
Chapter 6 Industry Attitudes and Pr
- Page 39 and 40:
Industry Attitudes and Practices Lo
- Page 41 and 42:
Industry Attitudes and Practices Fi
- Page 43 and 44:
Chapter 7 Potential of Deterrents,
- Page 45 and 46:
Potential of Deterrents, Hotspot Av
- Page 47 and 48:
References Campana, S.E., L. Marks,
- Page 49:
References Neves dos Santos, M., Ga
- Page 52 and 53: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 54 and 55: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 56 and 57: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 58 and 59: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 60 and 61: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 62 and 63: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 64 and 65: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 66 and 67: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 68 and 69: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 70 and 71: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 72 and 73: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 74 and 75: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 76 and 77: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 78 and 79: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 80 and 81: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 82 and 83: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 84 and 85: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 86 and 87: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 88 and 89: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 90 and 91: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 92 and 93: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 94 and 95: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 96 and 97: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
- Page 99 and 100: Appendix 5 Japan Pelagic Longline F
- Page 101: Japan Pelagic Longline Fisheries Fi
- Page 105 and 106: Japan Pelagic Longline Fisheries Ta
- Page 107 and 108: Japan Pelagic Longline Fisheries is
- Page 109 and 110: Japan Pelagic Longline Fisheries ta
- Page 111 and 112: Japan Pelagic Longline Fisheries In
- Page 113 and 114: Japan Pelagic Longline Fisheries A5
- Page 115 and 116: Appendix 6 Peru Artisanal Mahimahi
- Page 117 and 118: Peru Artisanal Mahimahi And Shark L
- Page 119 and 120: Peru Artisanal Mahimahi And Shark L
- Page 121 and 122: Peru Artisanal Mahimahi And Shark L
- Page 123 and 124: Peru Artisanal Mahimahi And Shark L
- Page 125 and 126: Peru Artisanal Mahimahi And Shark L
- Page 127 and 128: Appendix 7 South Africa Pelagic Lon
- Page 129 and 130: South Africa Pelagic Longline Tuna
- Page 131 and 132: South Africa Pelagic Longline Tuna
- Page 133 and 134: South Africa Pelagic Longline Tuna
- Page 135 and 136: Appendix 8 USA Hawaii-based Pelagic
- Page 137 and 138: USA Hawaii-based Pelagic Longline S
- Page 139 and 140: USA Hawaii-based Pelagic Longline S
- Page 141 and 142: USA Hawaii-based Pelagic Longline S
- Page 143 and 144: USA Hawaii-based Pelagic Longline S
- Page 145 and 146: USA Hawaii-based Pelagic Longline S
- Page 147 and 148: Appendix 9 USA Atlantic, Gulf of Me
- Page 149 and 150: USA Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Ca
- Page 151 and 152: USA Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Ca
- Page 153 and 154:
USA Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Ca
- Page 155 and 156:
USA Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Ca
- Page 157 and 158:
USA Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Ca
- Page 159 and 160:
USA Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Ca
- Page 161 and 162:
USA Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Ca