Shark Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch in Pelagic Longline

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Shark Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch in Pelagic Longline Fisheries A3.10. Incentives and Attitudes on Reducing Shark Bycatch and Depredation Sokimi (pers. comm., 1996) is of the opinion that currently Pacific Island fishermen think that it is to their benefit to reduce the size of shark populations. He explained that fishermen perceive sharks as a nuisance due to depredation and the danger sharks pose to them if they ever have to abandon ship. He adds that sharks that are caught by longliners are perceived by crew as an economic opportunity. He warns that, unless it can be clearly demonstrated to fishermen that there is an economic advantage to avoiding catching sharks, they will not cooperate with avoidance measures. He advised that the industry is likely to be willing to cooperate with trials if they are subsidised to do so. The interview results contradicted Sokimi’s comments. All interviewees, apart from one captain, stated that captains and crew were interested in reducing shark by-catch and depredation. The general opinion of the interviewees was that while they provide good income for the crew, not enough are caught for the return to be worthwhile. The general opinion is that the time lost in processing the sharks and the lost bait and target species is not worth the income generated. Both Managing Directors clearly stated that their companies do not encourage the catching of sharks as this takes time away from fishing for the target species and that the shark fishery should be sustainably managed. All interviewees categorically stated that they would avoid shark capture if they could as long as this did not lower their catch of target species. Somewhat contrarily, the interviewees estimated the opinion that the cost of shark interaction in terms of gear, bait and lost target species catch is low. All the interviewees that work as captains or crew commented that it would be good if a special hold was allocated on boats for shark meat and a market identified so that the meat does not go to waste (i.e. currently discarded overboard) and additional income is generated for the crew. In contradiction one interviewee, a company Managing Director, commented that if regulations were put in place that required the entire shark to be retained on the vessel and/or taxed shark fin trading, crews would be deterred from catching sharks. A3.11. References Anon (1999) Case Studies of the Management of Elasmobranch Fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, no. 378, pt. 1, FAO, Rome. Bailey, K., Williams, P., Itano, D. (1996) By-catch and Discards in Western Pacific Tuna Fisheries: A Review of SPC Data Holdings and Literature. Technical Report of the Oceanic Fisheries Programme, South Pacific Commission, no. 34, pp. 148. Noumea, New Caledonia. Bonfil, Ramon (1994) Overview of the World Elasmobranch Fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, no. 341, FAO, Rome. Catarci, C (2004) World markets and industry of selected commerciallyexploited aquatic species with an international conservation profile. FAO Fisheries Circular no. 990, pp. 186, FAO, Rome. Fiji Department of Fisheries (2004) Annual Report 2004, Ministry of Fisheries and Forests, Government Printer, Fiji. Kailoloa, J.P. (1995) Review of Policies and Initiatives to Enhance Fisheries Management and Development in Fiji. A report prepared for the Government of Fiji. FAO Technical Report 3, pp.105. Lawson, T. (2001) Predation of Tuna by Whales and Sharks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. 14 Meeting of the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish, Working Paper SWG-6. Nakeke, A. 2006. Judge Orders Sale of Illegal Catch, Impounds Ship. Fiji Sun Newspaper, 27 February 2006. Swamy, K. (1999) Shark Fisheries in Fiji: their management and issues for future concern. In: In: FAO. Case Studies of the Management of Elasmobranch Fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper,No. 378, part 1, FAO, Rome. Williams, P.G. (1999) Shark and Related Species Catch in Tuna Fisheries of the Tropical Western and Central Pacific Ocean. In: FAO. Case Studies of the Management of Elasmobranch Fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 378, part 1, FAO, Rome. Brogan (pers. comm., 1996) advised that in working alongside the Fiji tuna longlining industry for a number of years, she is not aware of any strong negative reactions by industry to shark depredation, rather her perception is of a “stoic acceptance”. She added that this contrasted strongly with the problem of whale depredation which fishers regularly voice concern about. When working on a project relating to whale depredation a number of years ago, she found that even when she pointed out that shark depredation levels were higher (based on observer data at the time) fishers remained focussed on the problem of whale depredation . Three interviewees advised that the best way to share information about how to avoid shark by-catch and depredation would be through picture posters supplied to companies to put up in crew workplaces. 74
Appendix 4 Italy Mediterranean Industrial Pelagic Longline Swordfish Fishery: Industry Practices and Attitudes towards Shark Depredation and Bycatch Susanna Piovano, Deptartment of Animal Biology, University of Torino, susanna.piovano@unito.it A4.1. Introduction A literature review on the industrial drifting (pelagic) longline in Italy raises several issues. First, it is necessary to distinguish between the artisanal and industrial fisheries. In Italy, there is a legal distinction between small and large scale fishing. The small scale fishing is defined by Ministerial Decree 14 September 1999 as: artisanal fishing done with vessels shorter than 12 m, lower than 10 TSL and 15 GT of tonnage, practised with specific gear (longline included), within 12 miles off the coast. According to this definition, drifting longline for large pelagic species is ‘large scale’ fishing. However, Italian drifting longline vessels are mainly fishermen owned, with small financial investments, usually without gear mechanization, and with relatively short trips of nearly a week. Despite the legal definition, these characteristics are commonly associated with artisanal fishing. Interviews with fishermen working on big, “nearly industrial” longline vessels were conducted to determine the exact type of fishing activity. This study focuses on the Italian pelagic longline fleet that targets swordfish in the Mediterranean, excluding small coastal vessels (MAGP Segments, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2091/98 of 30 September 1998). A second issue that requires addressing is the distinction between gear types in official statistics. In Italy fishing licenses are regulated by a Ministerial Decree of 26 July 1995. The Decree groups permitted fishing gear according to homogeneous classes, defined as “fishing systems”. Permission to fish with a system means permission to fish with any gear included in that system. Unfortunately, the longline fishing system includes both drifting and set (demersal) longline gears. Thus, official statistics (compiled by ISTAT - Italian Institute of Statistics, in 2004 and 2006, and by IREPA - Institute for Economic Research for Fishing and Acquacolture, 2006) group data on both demersal and pelagic longline gear; data are not available just for pelagic longline gear. Some local studies are available with data for drifting longline by-catches only: these studies are based on interviews and on-board or at landing surveys. Information from the literature was complemented with information from interviews with fishermen of Sicily. Interviews, carried out through the cooperation of AGCI Pesca, were conducted between August and December 2006, and a total of 15 large-scale longline fishing vessels were involved. All the interviewed fishermen are owner or co-owner operators. The 17 fishermen have been pelagic longlining between 6 and 50 years with a mean of 29.7 years, during which they never change their port-based. We selected fishermen that operated with longline vessels with a TSL bigger then 10 and a LFT bigger than 12 m. The type of fishing license range from “coastal fishing” 20 or 40 nm, and the Mediterranean one. A4.2. Fleet Characteristics The last available statistics calculated with data from the Italian Fishing Licence Register date back to 2004 and combine small-scale and large-scale longline fisheries. The Register includes a total of 14,873 vessels. Of these, 569 vessels are identified as using longline gear (Tables A4.1 and A4.2) as their main fishing gear (the fishing gear considered to be the most frequently used on board for a fishing period of a year – Commission Regulation (EC) 26/2004). As mentioned in the introduction, no official data are available just for drifting pelagic longline gear. Tables A4.1 and A4.2 show that the Sicilian longline fleet is the largest and most efficient (56% of vessels, 73% of catches). Mean values per vessel are high (153 days/vessel, 20 tons of fish/vessel). Drifting longline catching for swordfish in Sicily has been known for 75
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: 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 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 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 139 and 140:
USA Hawaii-based Pelagic Longline S
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
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:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
show all

Shark Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch in Pelagic Longline

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?