Shark Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch in Pelagic Longline

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Shark Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch in Pelagic Longline Fisheries Table A3.3. Weight (mt) of Tuna, Shark and “other” species catch for Fiji Pelagic longline tuna fishery catch, for all fish caught in 2004 regardless of whether retained or discarded (licenced and provisionally licensed Fiji-based flagged longline vessels). Source: Fiji Fisheries Department Annual Report 2004. Year Tuna (mt) 1 % of Total Catch Shark (mt) % of Total Catch Other (mt) % of Total Catch 2002 - - 1,277 - 4,290 - 2003 - - 453 - 1,500 - 2004 16,708 85 1,189 6 1,720 9 1 Albacore, Yellow Fin and Bigeye Tuna Table A3.4. Observed response to shark by-catch 1999 and 2002 to 2005, Fiji Pelagic Longline Tuna Fishery (SPC Observer Programme Data). Year Number sharks observed caught % Discarded % Finned Number dead catch Number alive catch Number discarded dead Number discarded alive 1999 434 82 86 1 28 2 5 2002 75 83 78 7 68 35 9 2003 277 93 89 29 248 110 10 2004 451 95 90 62 389 133 55 2005 892 94 89 172 720 587 144 Table A3.5. Blue shark, observed CPUE, number caught, number and proportion dead when hauled to vessel, 2002 to 2005, Fiji pelagic longline tuna fishery (SPC Observer Programme Data). Year CPUE (number caught per 100 hooks) Number caught % alive when hauled to the vessel % discarded alive 2002 0.0349 29 100 23 2003 0.0425 145 95 2 2004 0.0896 277 95 27 2005 0.044 372 93 15 Table A3.6. Oceanic whitetip shark observed CPUE, number caught, number and proportion dead when hauled to vessel, 2002 to 2005, Fiji pelagic longline tuna fishery (SPC Observer Programme Data). Year CPUE (number caught per 100 hooks) Number caught % alive when hauled to the vessel % discarded alive 2002 0.0186 16 88 0 2003 0.0169 57 81 0 2004 0.0164 50 82 13 2005 0.0288 245 65 11 Table A3.7. Silky shark observed CPUE, number caught, number and proportion dead when hauled to vessel, 2002 to 2005, Fiji pelagic longline tuna fishery (SPC Observer Programme Data). Year CPUE (number caught per 100 hooks) Number caught % alive when hauled to the vessel % discarded alive 2002 0.0058 5 80 20 2003 0.007 23 70 0 2004 0.0071 22 68 7 2005 0.0161 131 81 6 70
Fiji Pelagic Longline Tuna Fishery A3.6. Management Framework Relevant to Shark Interactions and its Effect on Fishermen Within Fiji’s EEZ, the fishery property rights belong to the State and are administered by the Fisheries Department. As shark is not managed as a separate fishery in Fiji there are currently no regulations on its exploitation including no restrictions relating to catch, processing and handling of sharks and shark fins (Swamy, 1999, Raiwalui Pers. comm., 2006). However, there has been a recent legal precedent whereby a vessel licensed to fish for tuna in Fiji waters was charged for illegally targeting shark rather than harvesting shark as by-catch. The vessel was licensed to fish for tuna in the offshore area of Fiji’s Exclusive Economic Zone (beyond 12 nautical miles from the coast out to the border of the EEZ) but was targeting sharks in Archipelagic Waters (within 12 nautical miles from the coast), its hold held a large quantity of shark fillets and fins but no tuna. The charterer was charged FJ$30,000. The vessel and cargo were also forfeited to the State. The cargo of shark product was sold for FJD 42,643.92 (Nakeke, 2006). Sharks or shark products that have been caught outside of Fiji waters that are to be off-loaded at a Fiji port for processing or exported require a permit (Raiwaliu Pers. comm., 2006). In 2004, a total of 652 permits were issued involving 70.7 MT of shark fin and 79.95 MT of shark meat. No permits are required for vessels that off-load shark by-catch that has been caught in Fiji waters (Fisheries Department, 2004). The National Fisheries Observer Programme collects catch logs, scientific and unloading data and real time data on fishing vessels during fishing operations. In 2004, the observer programme is reported as having covered 1,143 of the 1,203 vessels operating (Fisheries Dept. Annual Report, 2004). The time period over which each vessel was covered is unclear. However, according to the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, in 1999 and from 2002 to 2005 observer coverage in Fiji Waters ranged from 4.51% to 0.34% of hooks observed out of the total fishing effort per year. All vessels licensed to fish in Fiji Waters must operate an Automatic Location Communicator (ALC) which is monitored by Fiji’s Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) which is managed by the Fiji Navy. The Fiji Navy also conducts sea and aerial patrols to detect and investigate suspicious vessel activity (Raiwalui Pers. comm., 2006). In addition, random dockside vessel inspections are carried out by the Fisheries and Customs Departments to detect Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported Fishing (IUU). These inspections focus on vessels that have entered from outside of Fiji Waters but do include a proportion of domestic vessels (Fisheries Department, 2004, Raiwalui Pers. comm., 2006). 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. A3.7. Current Response to Shark By-Catch by Fiji Pelagic Longliners A3.7.1. Methods for onboard processing and discarding of sharks As the data in Section 5 indicates, Shark seems to form a significant portion of the by-catch for pelagic tuna longline fisheries in Fiji waters. Sharks are usually finned and the carcasses discarded back into the ocean. This was reinforced in the interviews, interviewees advised that the shark is hauled into the boat, killed if necessary, the hook is removed, the 3 fins and tail are cut and the remaining carcass is thrown back into the sea. The fins and tail are then sun-dried. The shark carcasses are generally discarded because there is relatively poor demand and market value for shark meat (Sokimi pers. comm. 1996, Swamy, 1999). One contradiction between the SPC Observer data (Section 5) and the interviews was that while the observer data indicated that sharks are usually alive when they are hauled into the boat, interviewees stated sharks are normally dead by the time they are hauled in. Interviewees stated that as a result, dehooker type devices are not needed to release sharks. The two Managing Directors were the only interviewees that were of the opinion that the sharks tend to be alive when hauled into the boat. All interviewees commented that they never discard a shark that has been caught on the line without first finning it. A3.7.2. Practices employed to reduce shark capture A Fisheries Development Officer from the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the SPC who works closely with boat owners and crew in the region and has worked as a longline skipper in Fiji Waters advised that most in the industry have accepted shark by-catch as inevitable. Not much has been done to reduce shark interaction other than avoiding infested areas to some extent. He added that due to the economic hardship of crews and fishing operations, time and energy is not available for experimenting with practices to reduce shark interaction (Sokimi, Pers. comm., 1996). Two interviewees commented that it is not possible to avoid catching sharks. Other interviewees listed the following measures that are used in some cases to avoid catching sharks: • Avoid setting the lines/hooks in shallow water or near reefs or seamounts; • Ensuring that the branch line is not near floats or buoys; • Not using a small float; and • Not allowing the crew to use a steel wire trace on hooks (steel wire causes more sharks to be caught as sharks can break the alternative nylon trace). Interviewees perceived that there are no extra costs associated with using these methods and recommended them as effective methods to reduce shark catch. They added that they have not used other methods in the past nor did they recommend any additional methods as potentially useful. 71
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:
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?