Search The Database
| Location | Gear | Catch | Technique | Bycatch species | Type | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scotland |
Traps
|
Salmon |
Acoustic deterrent devices
|
Pinnipeds | Field study in the wild | An acoustic deterrent device (ADD) was tested at a Scottish salmon double bagnet to deter seals (grey and harbor). The ADD was randomly assigned to be on or off during observations, which were carried out from shore. When the ADD was on, there were significantly fewer seals observed and 1/3 more fish were landed per hour than when the ADD was off. Seal damaged fish were only found when the ADD was off. Significantly reduced seal presence |
Scotland |
Hooks and Lines
|
Salmon |
Acoustic deterrent devices
|
Pinnipeds | Field study in the wild | Trials of acoustic deterrent devices (ADD) were carried out on the River North Esk and River Conon in Scotland to test the effectiveness of deterring seals from a specific area of the river and as a barrier to upstream movement of the seals. The ADD was switched on and off alternatively for periods of several days and surveys were carried out to estimate the number of seals present within each river. The ADD had no significant effect on the abundance of seals in the survey area, but it did reduce seal movement upstream significantly. The reduction in movement was constant over the four month period of the trial. Reduced movement upstream significantly (~50%) |
Ireland |
Gillnets and Entangling Nets
|
pollock, angler fish, cod, turbot | Pinnipeds | Field study in the wild | This study reviews existing data and information from key stakeholders on interactions between the fishing industry and seals. The data suggests that seal interactions with commercial fisheries in Ireland are most significant inshore (<12 nautical miles from shore), involves static-net (passive) fisheries (e.g. gill/tangle nets) and have increased following the driftnet ban in 2006, suggesting displacement of seal interaction from salmon to other fisheries. Pollack, angler fish, cod, and turbot fisheries were the main inshore fisheries impacted by operational damage to gear and catch by seals. The extent to which changes in fishing practices and gear has reduced damage levels is unknown.
|
|
California |
Gillnets and Entangling Nets
|
Swordfish and thresher shark |
Acoustic deterrent devices
|
Phocoena phocoena (Harbor porpoise), Pinnipeds | Field study in the wild | The long-term effectiveness of acoustic pingers in reducing marine mammal bycatch was assessed in the California swordfish and thresher shark drift gillnet fishery. Bycatch was observed at sea between 1990 and 2009, with acoustic pingers being present from 1996 to 2009. Bycatch rates of cetaceans decreased by around 50% when pingers were present; the decrease was mostly driven by common dolphins. Beaked whales have not been incidentally caught since 1995. Pinger failure occurred in less than 4% of observed sets. Cetacean bycatch was 10 times higher in sets where more than one pinger failed. There was no evidence of habituation to pingers by cetaceans. Bycatch rates of California sea lions was almost double in sets with pingers than without, leading the authors to examine the "dinner bell" effect of pingers. Depredation of swordfish by sea lions was not linked to pinger use, instead the best predictors were total swordfish catch, month and area fished, and nighttime light use. Decreased cetacean bycatch and no habituation. Pinniped bycatch was not significantly different |
Auckland, New Zealand |
Trawls
|
Squid |
Excluder devices
|
Pinnipeds | Summary study | The authors conducted an extensive literature review to determine if Sea Lion Excluder Devices (SLEDs) allow sea lions to escape from trawl nets and if they subsequently survived. In addtion, the literature was reviewed to determine if head trauma was likely when sea lions come into contact with stainless steel SLED grids. According to the literature, SLEDs are effective in reducing sea lion bycatch in trawl nets and resulted in a reduction of observed sea lion mortalities. In addtion, the literature indicates that increased head trauma, due to contact with the SLED grids, is unlikely. SLEDs reduce the incidental capture of sea lions and do not contribute to increased head trauma |
Review |
Gillnets and Entangling Nets
|
Low profile gillnet
|
Large Cetaceans (maximum length > 7.5 meters), Small Cetaceans (maximum length < 7.5 meters), Pinnipeds, Seabirds, Sea Turtles | Summary study | This article reviewed bycatch mitigation methods that rely on sensory ecology to reduce interactions with sea birds, sea turtles, pinnipeds and blue-water fish. Panels containing patterns of low spatial frequency and high internal contrast can be used for all of these species. These panels are not likely to reduce catches of target species and are easy and inexpensive to apply. The authors suggest that sound signals on gillnets are not recommended for most bycatch species, excpet for cetaceans. Cetaceans require both visual cues and warning through echolocation. |
|
South Georgia |
Hooks and Lines
|
Patagonian toothfish | Large Cetaceans (maximum length > 7.5 meters), Physeter macrocephalus (Sperm whale), Pinnipeds | Field study in the wild | Depredation by antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella), sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) and orcas (Orcinus orca) were studied in a Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) fishery operating around South Georgia. While sperm whales come in contact with about one third of longlines (averaged over 1997 and 2012), depredation events from this species were considered insignificant. Orcas interacted with only 5% (averaged over 1997 and 2012) of longlines, but can remove over half the catch during an interaction. Interactions with orcas are spatially limited to migration routes; however, fishing is concentrated in these areas during migrations times. Interactions with fur seals were the most frequent until 2009, averaging just under 9% from 1997-2012. The catch-per-unit-effort of toothfish was higher when no mammals were observed near longlines. Sperm whales interacted with longlines 25% of the time; orcas interacted only 5% of the time could remove half of the catch; fur seal interactions have declined since 2009 |
|
Swedish coast |
Traps
|
Cod |
Excluder devices
|
Pinnipeds | Field study in the wild | Experiments were conducted along the Swedish coast to investigate the impact of seal exclusion devices (SEDs) on seal bycatch. Pot entrances were fitted with SEDs of different shapes and sizes. The pots were a two-chambered single entrance floating cod pot. Pots were equipped with a 45 mm escape window. Experimental pots had vertically mounted metal frames that were secured with nylon line. Five different types of SEDs were used. They had different metal frames, different shapes, thickness of material or inner circumference. Bycatch of seals was reduced to zero when SEDs were used and the pots' catchability was not negatively affected. The symmetrical oval shaped entrance and larger rectangle shaped entrance (two smaller openings) increased the pots' catchability. |
Falkland Islands |
Trawls
|
Patagonian squid (Doryteuthis gahi) |
Excluder devices
|
Pinnipeds | Field study in the wild | Seal exclusion devices (SEDs) are effective in reducing pinniped bycatch in the Patagonian squid fishery, however, drowning may still occur during trawl hauling. 0.91% of seals over 12 fishing seasons were caught in trawls with SEDs, with a survival rate of 89.5%. SED mortalities were attributed to drowning from blockages in the SED or entanglement in the trawl. Faster hauling speeds may also increase bycatch. |