24.10.2013 Views

An assessment of local fisheries in Diego-Suarez Bay, Madagascar

An assessment of local fisheries in Diego-Suarez Bay, Madagascar

An assessment of local fisheries in Diego-Suarez Bay, Madagascar

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

ut the majority <strong>of</strong> fishermen do not have a specific day, fish<strong>in</strong>g on any day <strong>of</strong> the week (44%). The<br />

number <strong>of</strong> hours spent fish<strong>in</strong>g ranged from one to twelve hours per day, with a mean <strong>of</strong> five hours.<br />

The months around the turn <strong>of</strong> the year (November, December, January and February) were the most<br />

favourable months <strong>in</strong> which to fish with December be<strong>in</strong>g the most popular (11%).<br />

The most common types <strong>of</strong> fish<strong>in</strong>g gear used were the fish<strong>in</strong>g net and a hook and l<strong>in</strong>e (figure 5). There<br />

was a significant difference <strong>in</strong> the types <strong>of</strong> gear used by fishermen <strong>in</strong> Ramena and those <strong>in</strong>terviewed from<br />

<strong>An</strong>tsisikala. Chi-square cont<strong>in</strong>gency tests us<strong>in</strong>g the total frequency counts for each fishermen us<strong>in</strong>g each<br />

gear from Ramena or from <strong>An</strong>tsisikala showed there is an association between gear use and where the<br />

fishermen came from. (χ 2 = 14.97, df = 5, p < 0.010). Se<strong>in</strong>e nett<strong>in</strong>g was used by 56% <strong>of</strong> the fishermen <strong>in</strong><br />

Ramena, compared to none <strong>of</strong> fishermen from <strong>An</strong>tsisikala. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to 92% <strong>of</strong> fishermen, fish<strong>in</strong>g<br />

techniques had not changed <strong>in</strong> the years that they had been fish<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

Percentage <strong>of</strong> fishermen<br />

100<br />

90<br />

80<br />

70<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

0<br />

yes when fish<br />

too small<br />

yes when fish<br />

is non-target<br />

yes when its<br />

not a valuable<br />

species<br />

not good to<br />

eat<br />

Reason for throw<strong>in</strong>g fish back<br />

Figure 6. Reason for throw<strong>in</strong>g fish back (n=36)<br />

do not throw<br />

anyth<strong>in</strong>g back<br />

Seventy-two percent <strong>of</strong> the fishermen would throw fish back while 28% would not. Of the 72% that said<br />

yes, 67% <strong>of</strong> fishermen throw fish back if they are too small, 31% if they are non-target species, 14% if<br />

they not valuable and 0% throw fish back if they are not good to eat.<br />

The majority <strong>of</strong> fishermen reported a mean daily catch weight between 1-25kg (77%). With<strong>in</strong> this size<br />

class the weights varied from 2kg to 25kg. Weight classes 25-49kg and 50-75kg had a lower frequency<br />

(both 10%). However, there was a significantly higher frequency <strong>of</strong> catches from the weight classes 25-<br />

49kg and 50-75kg by fishermen from Ramena, than from <strong>An</strong>tsisikala (χ 2 = 8.53, df = 3, p < 0.036).<br />

8

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!