Shark Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch in Pelagic Longline

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Shark Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch in Pelagic Longline Fisheries longline fishermen have reportedly adapted to finning regulations applicable in some areas by landing sharks in recently developed local markets rather than by attempting to avoid shark interactions. In waters without finning regulations, including Japanese waters and the North Pacific, sharks are either finned or landed whole, and in either case the ability to sell shark products has contributed to a lack of interest in reducing shark bycatch. A5.12. References Clarke, S.C.,M.K. McAllister, E.J. Milner-Gulland, G.P. Kirkwood, C.G.J. Michielsens, D.J. Agnew, E.K. Pikitch, H. Nakano and M.S. Shivji. 2006. Global Estimates of Shark Catches using Trade Records from Commercial Markets. Ecology Letters 9: 1115-1126. FAO. 2004. Implementation of the International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity (IPOA-Capacity): Review and Main Measures. Report of the Technical Consultation to Review Progress and Promote the Full Implementation of the IPOA to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing and the IPOA for the Management of Fishing Capacity (TC IUU-CAP/2004/4), 24-29 June 2004. Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/DOCUMENT/tc-iuu-cap/2004/default.htm FAO. 2006. FISHSTAT Plus (v. 2.30), Capture Production Database, 1970-2004, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy, available online at www.fao.org/fi/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS.asp. Government of Japan. 2001. National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/ IPOAS/national/japan/NPOA-sharks.pdf MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries). 2003. 漁業・養殖業生産統計年報 , 平成 15 年 (Capture Fisheries and Aquaculture Production Statistics Yearbook 2003), 農林水産省統計部 (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries), Tokyo, Japan. MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries). 2005. 漁業・養殖業生産統計年報 , 平成 17 年 (Capture Fisheries and Aquaculture Production Statistics Yearbook 2005), 農林水産省統計部 (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries), Tokyo, Japan. Japan Times. 2006. Oil-price spikes hit deep-sea tuna fishing industry. 3 April 2006. McCoy, M.A. and H. Ishihara. 1999. The Socio-economic Importance of Sharks in the U.S. Flag Areas of the Western and Central Pacific (Administrative Report 274 AR-SWR-99-01). National Marine Fisheries Service, Long Beach. Miyake, M.P., N. Miyabe, and H. Nakano. 2004. Historical trends in tuna catches in the world. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 467. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Miyamoto, Y., K. Uchida, R. Orii, Z. Wen, D. Shiode and T. Kakihara. (2006). Three-dimensional underwater shape measurement of tuna longline using ultrasonic positioning system and ORBCOMM buoy. Fisheries Science 72(1): 63-68. Myers, R.A. and B. Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities (Supplementary Figure 1). Nature 423: 280-283. Nakano, H. and S. Clarke. 2006. Filtering method for obtaining stock indices by shark species from species-combined logbook data in tuna longline fisheries. Fisheries Science 72: 322-332. Nakano, H. and M.P. Seki. 2003. Synopsis of biological data on the blue shark (Prionace glauca Linnaeus). Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Agency of Japan 6: 18-55. Nakano, H., H. Matsumoto, H. Okamoto, M. Okazaki. (2003). Acoustic tracking of the bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus) in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series 265: 255-261. Okamoto, H. 2004. Search for the Japanese tuna fishing data before and just after World War II. Bulletin of the [Japan] Fisheries Research Agency 13: 15-34. (in Japanese) Shiode, D., F. Hu, M. Shiga, K. Yokota and T. Tokai. (2005). Midwater float system for standardizing hook depths on tuna longlines to reduce sea turtle by-catch. Fisheries Science 72: 1182. Suisan Sougou Kenkyuu Center. (2006) 国際漁業資源の現況 ( 平成 17 年度 )。水産庁・水産総合研究センター(The current status of international fisheries resources – 2004 edition, Fisheries Agency/Fisheries Integration Research Center). Suzuki, Z., Y. Warashina and M. Kishida. 1977. The comparison of catches by regular and deep tuna longline gears in the Western and Central Equatorial Pacific. Bulletin of the Far Seas Research Laboratory 15: 51-89. Yokota, K., H. Minami and M. Kiyota. 2006. Measurement-points examination of circle hooks for pelagic longline fishery to evaluate effects of hook design. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Agency 17: 83-102. Yokota, K., M. Kiyota and H. Minami. 2006. Shark catch in a pelagic longline fishery: Comparison of circle and tuna hooks. Fisheries Research 81: 337-341. 100
Appendix 6 Peru Artisanal Mahimahi and Shark Longline Fishery: Industry Practices and Attitudes towards Shark Depredation and Bycatch Jeff Mangel and Joanna Alfaro-Shigueto, Pro Delphinus, prodelphinus@prodelphinus.org Forty-two interviews with artisanal longline fishermen for mahi mahi were conducted in three fishing ports in Peru from February to May 2006. Of these, five interviews were with vessel owners who had been actively fishing from 2 to 28 years. Sixteen respondents were vessel captains and the remainder was crew. The average number of years fishing by owners, captains and crew were 18.6, 9.7, 7.3, respectively. Information on the artisanal longline fishery was obtained from Instituto del Mar del Peru (IMARPE) reports on artisanal fisheries, from Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) publications that make reference to Peruvian fisheries, and from the Fishstat computer program produced by FAO. Data on Peru’s export market were obtained from PROMPEX Peru (government commission for export promotion), and were downloaded from their website (www.prompex.gob.pe). The purpose of this study is to identify possible strategies to reduce shark bycatch and depredation in pelagic longline fisheries. This study was conducted during the mahi mahi season of the Peru artisanal longline fishery, when sharks are taken as incidental catch. During other seasons sharks are a primary target species. it is the third largest in the Americas (Bonfil, 1996). Elasmobranch landings in Peru have been dominated by smoothhounds (‘tollos’) of the genus Mustelus, guitar rays Rhinobatos planiceps and angel sharks Squatina spp. (Fig. A6.1, Table A6.1) (Bonfil, 1996; FAO 2006). These species are caught mainly with gillnets (Reyes, 1993). Since the mid to late 1980s the production of smoothhounds and rays has declined. With the reintroduction and extension of longline fishing for sharks in the 1990’s (Reyes, 1993), landings of shark species, such as blues and makos, have increased (Estrella and Guevara-Carrasco, 1998a and 1998b; Estrella et al., 1998, 1999a, 1999b and 2000). Shark fisheries in Peru are regulated by the Ministry of Fishery through the establishment of minimum capture sizes for some elasmobranch species (Diario Oficial El Peruano, 2001). Enforcement of these regulations, however, has not been fully implemented and awareness of these regulations among fishermen is still limited (Alfaro and Mangel, 2005). A6.1. Elamobranch Fishery Chondrichthyans constitute an important fishery resource for developing countries (Cattarci, 2004). With the shortage of traditional bony fish landings, the need for a protein source and the increase in the demand for shark fins, the take of sharks has expanded significantly in the last few years (Bonfil, 1996; Cattarci, 2004). In developing countries such landings have increased by 600.5% from 1950 to 2000 (Cattarci, 2004). Peru is one of the world’s leading fishing nations and has been for many years (Vanuccini, 1999). However, the elasmobranch fishery represents a minor component of Peru’s total landings even though Fig. A6.1. Total elasmobranch production in Peru, by species groups, 1950-2004 (data are taken from FAO 2006). 101
Page 3 and 4:
Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
Page 5:
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:
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:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65: Shark Depredation and Unwanted Byca
Page 99 and 100: Appendix 5 Japan Pelagic Longline F
Page 101 and 102: Japan Pelagic Longline Fisheries Fi
Page 103 and 104: Japan Pelagic Longline Fisheries mo
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: Japan Pelagic Longline Fisheries A5
Page 117 and 118: 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 135 and 136: Appendix 8 USA Hawaii-based Pelagic
Page 137 and 138: 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
show all

Shark Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch in Pelagic Longline

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?