Shark Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch in Pelagic Longline

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Shark Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch in Pelagic Longline Fisheries A3.7.3. Distribution of revenue from sharks Sokimi (Pers. comm., 1996) advised that in Fiji, as with most regional tune longline operations, dried shark fin is major supplement to the tuna longline fisherman’s earnings. According to Swamy (1999) and the interview results, the crew is at liberty to process shark fins and the proceeds from the sale of shark fins do not go to the vessel owners, but are shared among the crew. However, the two Managing Directors that were interviewed advised that the revenue goes to the “crew and company” and that they “do not encourage the crew to catch sharks”. They added that the proceeds go to both the crew and the company which is contradiction of the crews’ response. A3.7.4. Ex-vessel value of landed sharks There is a shark fin and meat industry operating in Fiji (Kailola, 1995). Most of the shark products are exported, a small portion of the landings are distributed locally (Swamy, 1999). Shark fins and tails are purchased by local shark fin traders. The value of the fin depends on the species, the type of fin, their completeness, and moisture content (a well-dried fin fetches a higher price). During 1997, prices paid to local fishermen ranged from FJ$20 to 140 per kilogramme, the average price paid was FJ$60 (Swamy, 1999). According to the fishermen interviewed for this study, the current market value for fins and tail is FJ$60 to 200 per kilogramme. One interviewee advised that Brown Sharks fetch the highest price (FJ$170/kg) followed by Blue Sharks (FJ$100/kg) followed by Mako Sharks (FJ$60/kg). Sokimi (pers. comm., 1996) reinforced that Brown followed by Blue sharks fetch the highest price for fins, he was of the opinion that Mako and Thresher Sharks have no value for fins. One shark fin trader, Wellbeing Enterprise Limited states on a webpage that they can provide a stable supply of 2 tonnes (2000 kg) per month of dried shark fin from “black/brown sharks sourced from Fiji waters”, its office is based in Korea (http://www.alibaba. com/catalog/11000557/Shark_Fin.html). It is interesting to note that Fiji is an appealing location for shark product export operations. There are tax incentives to offload shark products in Fiji for re-export to markets that give Fiji tax concessions. Moreover as shark fins are primarily an export product, shark fin exporters pay reduced taxes. Furthermore, there is no export duty on fishery products. Due to these favourable conditions for the operation of such agents it seems likely that the shark fin trade will continue to grow in Fiji (Swamy 1999). The export data presented in Table 7 is the result of a combination of shark products caught in Fiji’s waters and shark products offloaded by foreign vessels for re-export. A3.7.5. Revenue from catching sharks relative to economic costs from shark depredation and gear damage Sokimi (pers. comm., 1996) is of the opinion that as long as the shark fin trade is in operation in Fiji, shark finning will continue to be a part of fishermen’s activities. He added that even if legislation is put in pace to prohibit the capture of sharks for the fins, he is of the opinion that that this would simply lead to the creation of a black market. According to the interviews with fishermen, the general perception seems to be that sharks cost more due to depredation and the time that crew spends processing them than they earn in revenue. However, all interviewees stated that the cost in terms of gear da-mage (hook and line), lost bait and loss of target species due to shark by-catch and depredation is very low. A3.8. Current Response to Shark Depredation by Fiji Pelagic Longliners A3.8.1. Frequency and effects of shark depredation A 2001 study by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the SPC that used national observer programme data held by the SPC indicated that observed shark predation is at fairly low levels, ranging from 0.9 to 4.2% of observed caught tuna being discarded due to shark damage. In contrast levels of fish discarded due to whale damage were non-existent all years apart from a single fish being discarded in 1999 (Table A3.10). It is possible that the low percentages of whale-damaged tuna may be due to improper reporting by national observers. It is interesting to note that general fisherman perception seems to be that depredation due to whales is a much bigger issue (see Section A3.10 for more information). The perception of interviewees is that shark depredation levels and associated costs in terms of gear, bait and lost target species are very low. Both Company Directors that were interviewed stressed that they were more concerned about the loss of target species due to Whales. A number of crew/captain interviewees commented that they do not think that sharks cause depredation. A3.8.2. Practices employed to reduce shark depredation Sokimi (pers. comm., 1996) advised that not much has been done to reduce shark depredation other than avoiding infested areas. 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. Most interviewees advised that they do not do anything to avoid depredation nor have they done so in the past, some said that this is because nothing can be done, some said that this was because they do not think that sharks cause depredation. The only exception to this result was the two Managing Directors that were interviewed who commented that the same methods used to avoid by-catch also apply to avoiding depredation. 72
Fiji Pelagic Longline Tuna Fishery Table A3.8. Quantity and value of tuna and shark products exported from Fiji in 2003 (Fisheries Department Annual Report, 2004). Species Quantity (kg) Revenue (FJD) Tuna Products 15,941,747.23 56,578,349.00 Shark Products 180,567.80 1,762,267.00 Table A3.9. Total number of tuna observed and discards due to shark and whale damage in Fiji’s EEZ, 1995-1997 and 1999 (Lawson, 2001). Total no. Tuna observed Shark Damage Whale Damage Year Number % Number % 1995 1,303 24 1.8 0 0 1996 429 4 0.9 0 0 1997 658 11 1.7 0 0 1998 - - - - - 1999 165 7 4.2 1 0.6 Table A3.10. Percentage of tuna catch discarded from observed catch 1999 and 2002 to 2005, Fiji pelagic longline tuna fishery (SPC Observer Programme Data). Year Albacore Big Eye Tuna Yellowfin Tuna 1999 2.41 12.65 24.31 2002 0.69 4.9 6.52 2003 1.04 6.59 5.09 2004 0.47 13.06 5.71 2005 1.10 9.17 4.53 A3.9. Perceptions on Efficacy and Commercial Viability of Strategies to Reduce Shark Interactions Interviewee perception Method Work well Cost effective (i) Avoiding peak areas and times of shark abundance (ii) Reducing the detection of baited hooks by sharks, such as by refraining from chumming during the set and not discarding offal and spent bait during the haul (iii) Limiting shark access to baited hooks, such as altering fishing practices to consider deployment depth of hooks and timing of the soak and haul to avoid problematic shark species (iv) Deterring sharks such as with chemical shark deterrents such as soap and shampoo derivatives (pardaxin, sodium and lithium lauryl sulfate, and sodium dodecyl sulfate), and electrical deterrents such as the Shark Protective Ocean Device used by SCUBA divers (v) Reducing the attractiveness of baited hooks to sharks, such as by using artificial baits, using or not using light sticks, or avoiding a bait type known to result in high shark catch rates (vi) Reducing injury to hooked sharks that you will discard, such as by using dehookers, which may change the degree of risk of injury to crew from current practices (vii) Reducing shark retention by avoiding a specific size or type of hook, or by not using wire leaders on branch lines (viii) What is the most important factor that affects shark CPUE - altering fishing position in relation to certain water temperature, topographic features, or oceanographic features; changing the time of day or month of setting or hauling; changing the depth of hooks, or a combination of these factors? Yes – 6 Interviewees “Chang[ing] fishing grounds to less infested waters is the only effective way to keep [sharks] away” (Sokimi pers. comm., 1996). Yes – 2 Interviewees No – 4 Interviewees Yes – 6 Interviewees No - 3 Interviewee No comment/Don’t know – 3 Interviewees No - 3 Interviewee No comment/Don’t know – 3 Interviewees No - 2 Interviewees No comment/Don’t know – 4 Interviewees Yes – 2 Interviewees No - 1 Interviewee No comment/Don’t know – 3 Interviewees Yes – 4 Interviewees No - 1 Interviewee No comment/Don’t know – 1 Interviewee No – 2 Interviewees No – 2 Interviewees No comment/Don’t know – 4 Interviewees No comment/Don’t know – 6 Interviewees Interviewees were not sure about whether this would work and how much it would cost. Sokimi (pers. comm., 1996) – more experimentation is needed of efficacy of sound devices. Interviewees were not sure about whether this would work and how much it would cost. Sokimi (pers. comm., 1996) – more experimentation is needed of efficacy of light attachments to gear. Interviewees were not sure about whether this would work and how much it would cost. No - 1 Interviewee No comment/Don’t know – 5 Interviewees Altering fishing position in relation to: • topographic features (6 interviewees agreed); • depth of hooks (5 interviewees agreed); • certain water temperature (4 interviewees agreed); Oceanographic features, e.g. currents, fronts (1 interviewee agreed); Time of day and month (1 interviewee felt that this may make a difference, 2 stated that this would not make a difference). 73
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?