Skip to main content
Home

 

Register/Add a study

Menu

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Search The Database

Search The Database

Search Database Menu

  • View All Articles
  • Techniques Glossary
  • Fishing Gear Types
  • Add a Study
Displaying 1 - 10 of 56
Location Gear Catch Technique Bycatch species Type Results

Costa Rica

Hooks and Lines
Swordfish and tuna
Dyed bait
Sea Turtles Field study in the wild
Summary:

Although effective with captive loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and Kemp˙s ridley (Lepiochelys kempii) sea turtles, blue dyed bait is not effective in reducing olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) and green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) bycatch in longline fisheries in Costa Rica.

Effect on Bycatch: Did not reduce bycatch
Reference:
Swimmer, Y., R. Arauz, B. Higgins, L. McNaughton, M. McCracken, J. Ballestero, and R. Brill., 2005 , Food color and marine turtle feeding behavior: Can blue bait reduce turtle bycatch in commercial fisheries?

Hawaii, United States

Hooks and Lines
Swordfish, tuna
Dyed bait

Gear modification: Other
Sea Turtles, Caretta caretta (Loggerhead turtle), Demochelys coriacea (Leatherback sea turtle) Field study in the wild
Summary:

Fishing experiments were designed to test various gear modifications for the pelagic longline fishery in Hawaii, United States, to reduce sea turtle interactions. The experiments tested (1) daytime "stealth gear" (2) deep daytime setting, and (3) circle hooks combined with hook timers. Stealth gear and deep setting both caught significantly fewer swordfish compared to the control, although overall catch was reduced by 39% using stealth gear and was approximately similar to the control using deep setting. Neither gear configuration resulted in the take of any sea turtles (compared to one turtle in the control). Initial testing of hook timers with circle hooks resulted in the catch of two sea turtles. Circle hooks were also 40% as effective as J hooks at catching swordfish, and 94% as effective at catching tuna (by weight and value). 

Effect on Bycatch: Low capture rates in both control and treatment
Reference:
Boggs, C.H., 2003 , Annual Report on the Hawaii Longline Fishing Experiments to Reduce Sea Turtle Bycatch under ESA Section 10 Permit 1303

Gulf of Maine

Dredge
Scallop
Excluder devices
Sea Turtles Field study in the wild
Summary: A chain mat placed on Northwest Atlantic dredge gear eliminated bycatch of sea turtles: loggerhead (Caretta caretta), leatherback (Dermocheles coriacea), and green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas). The chain mat reduced catch by 6.71%.
Effect on Bycatch: Eliminated bycatch
Reference:
DuPaul, W.D., D.B. Rudders, and R.J. Smolowitz, 2004 , Industry trials of a modified sea scallop dredge to minimize the catch of sea turtles

Gulf of Mexico, United States

Trawls
Shrimp
Excluder devices
Sea Turtles, Caretta caretta (Loggerhead turtle) Field study in the wild
Summary:

Turtle excluder devices (TEDs) reduce sea turtle and non-target finfish (Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulateus), spot (Leiostomus exanthurus), sea catfish (Arius felis), and weakfish (Cynoscion regalis)) bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico prawn trawl fishery. Catch of targeted shrimp varied by location and TED configuration, but there was no significant difference in shrimp catch rates in 3 of the 4 TEDs when compared with a control net. One experimental TED in Texas exhibited a decrease in shrimp catch.

Effect on Bycatch: Reduced bycatch
Reference:
Christian, P. and Harrington, D, 1987 , Loggerhead turtle, finfish and shrimp retention studies on four excluder devices (TEDs)

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico

Trawls
shrimp
Excluder devices
Sea Turtles Field study in the wild
Summary: Turtle Excluder Devices reduce sea turtle bycatch in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery.
Effect on Bycatch: Reduced bycatch
Reference:
Renaud, M., J. Nance, E. Scott-Denton, and G.R. Gitschlag, 1997 , Incidental capture of sea turtles in shrimp trawls with and without TEDs in U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Waters

Azores, Portugal

Hooks and Lines
Swordfish and blue shark
Circle hooks
Sea Turtles, Caretta caretta (Loggerhead turtle) Field study in the wild
Summary:

Circle hooks (non-offset 16/0 and 18/0) did not significantly reduce the number of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) caught in the Azores longline swordfish and blue shark fishery when compared with non-offset and offset 9/0 J hooks. Use of circle hooks decreased the rate of throat hooking in loggerhead sea turtles. Circle hooks (non-offset 16/0 and 18/0) caught significantly more blue sharks than J hooks in the Azores longline swordfish and blue shark fisheries. 

Effect on Bycatch: Did not reduce bycatch; reduced rate of throat hooking
Reference:
Bolten, A. and K. Bjorndal, 2003 , Experiment to Evaluate Gear Modification on Rates of Sea Turtle Bycatch in the Swordfish Longline Fishery in the Azores Phase 2

Azores, Portugal

Hooks and Lines
Swordfish and blue shark
Circle hooks
Sea Turtles, Caretta caretta (Loggerhead turtle) Field study in the wild
Summary:

There was no significant difference in the number of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) caught in the Azores longline swordfish and blue shark fishery between straight 16/0, offset 16/0, and offset 18/0 circle hooks. Circle hooks decreased the rate of throat hooking in loggerhead sea turtles caught in the Azores longline swordfish and blue shark fishery. Straight 16/0 circle hooks caught the most blue sharks in the Azores longline swordfish and blue shark fishery, followed by offset 18/0 circle hooks. Offset 16/0 circle hooks caught the fewest blue sharks.

Effect on Bycatch: Decreased throat hooking
Reference:
Bolten, A. and K. Bjorndal, 2004 , Experiment to Evaluate Gear Modification on Rates of Sea Turtle Bycatch in the Swordfish Longline Fishery in the Azores Phase 3

Azores, Portugal

Hooks and Lines
Swordfish and blue shark
Circle hooks
Sea Turtles, Caretta caretta (Loggerhead turtle) Field study in the wild
Summary:

Japanese tuna hook 3.6mm S/S caught significantly more loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) than non-offset 16/0 and 18/0 circle hooks and caught more turtles in the throat than the circle hooks in the Azores longline swordfish and blue shark fishery. Non-offset 18/0 circle hooks caught fewer loggerhead sea turtles than non-offset 16/0 circle hooks in the Azores longline swordfish and blue shark fishery. There was no significant difference in the number of blue sharks caught on non-offset 16/0 and 18/0 circle hooks in the Azores longline swordfish and blue shark fishery.

Effect on Bycatch: Non-offset 16/0 and 18/0 circle hooks caught fewer turtles than Japanese tuna hook. Non-offset 18/0 circle hooks caught fewer turtles than non-offset 16/0
Reference:
Bolten, A. and K. Bjorndal, 2005 , Experiment to Evaluate Gear Modification on Rates of Sea Turtle Bycatch in the Swordfish Longline Fishery in the Azores Phase 4

Azores, Portugal

Hooks and Lines
Swordfish and blue shark (Prionace glauca)
Circle hooks
Sea Turtles, Caretta caretta (Loggerhead turtle) Field study in the wild
Summary:

Circle hooks (non-offset 16/0 and 18/0) caught significantly more target blue sharks (Prionace glauca) than J hooks in the Azores longline swordfish fishery. There was no significant difference among the hook types tested in the number of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) caught, although J hooks had a significantly higher rate of throat capture compared with circle hooks. 

Effect on Bycatch: No significant difference in capture rate
Reference:
Bolten, A. and K. Bjorndal, 2002 , Experiment to Evaluate Gear Modification on Rates of Sea Turtle Bycatch in the Swordfish Longline Fishery in the Azores

Chesapeake Bay

Traps
Crab
Trap guards (T-bars, otter guards)
Sea Turtles Field study in the wild
Summary: A trap modification reduced bycatch of diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin) in a blue crab (Callinectes sepidus) pot fishery in the Patuxent River, a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. Three wire modifications were tested and found that terrapin bycatch can be reduced without decreasing the number or size of captured crabs.
Effect on Bycatch: Reduced turtle bycatch
Reference:
Roosenburg, W.M. and J.P. Green, 2000 , Impact of a bycatch reduction device on diamondback terrapin and blue crab capture in crab pots

Pagination

  • Current page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • Page 6
  • Next page Next ›
  • Last page Last »

©2026 Consortium for Wildlife Bycatch Reduction  |  All rights reserved

  • Home
  • About Us
  • What's Bycatch?
    • Species List
  • Database of Publications
    • Bycatch Reduction Techniques Fact Sheets
  • Research Programs
    • Consortium Publications
  • Our Donors and Partners
  • Funding Opportunities
  • Join the Exchange
  • News
  • Events
  • Log in