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 21 - 29 of 29
Location Gear Catch Technique Bycatch species Type Results

Scotland

Traps
Salmon
Acoustic deterrent devices
Pinnipeds Field study in the wild
Summary:

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.   

Effect on Bycatch: Significantly reduced seal presence
Reference:
Harris, R.N., Harris, C.M., Duck, C.D., Boyd, I.L., 2014 , The effectiveness of a seal scarer at a wild salmon net fishery

Scotland

Hooks and Lines
Salmon
Acoustic deterrent devices
Pinnipeds Field study in the wild
Summary:

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.  

Effect on Bycatch: Reduced movement upstream significantly (~50%)
Reference:
Graham, I.M., Harris, R.N., Denny, B., Fowden, D., and Pullan, D., 2009 , Testing the effectiveness of an acoustic deterrent device for excluding seals from Atlantic salmon rivers in Scotland

Ireland

Gillnets and Entangling Nets
pollock, angler fish, cod, turbot Pinnipeds Field study in the wild
Summary:

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.

 

Effect on Bycatch: n/a
Reference:
Cronin, M., Jessopp, M., Houle, J., Reid, D., 2014 , Fishery-seal interactions in Irish waters: current perspectives and future research priorities

California

Gillnets and Entangling Nets
Swordfish and thresher shark
Acoustic deterrent devices
Phocoena phocoena (Harbor porpoise), Pinnipeds Field study in the wild
Summary:

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.   

Effect on Bycatch: Decreased cetacean bycatch and no habituation. Pinniped bycatch was not significantly different
Reference:
Carretta, JV and Barlow, J, 2011 , Long-term effectiveness, failure rates, and "dinner-bell" properties of acoustic pingers in a gillnet fishery

Auckland, New Zealand

Trawls
Squid
Excluder devices
Pinnipeds Summary study
Summary:

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. 

Effect on Bycatch: SLEDs reduce the incidental capture of sea lions and do not contribute to increased head trauma
Reference:
Hamilton, S., Baker, G.B., 2015 , Review of research and assessments on the efficacy of sea lion exclusion devices in reducing the incidental mortality of New Zealand sea lions Phocarctos hookeri in the Auckland Islands squid trawl fishery

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
Summary:

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.

Reference:
Martin, G.R. and Crawford, R. , 2015 , Reducing bycatch in gillnets: A sensory ecology perspective

South Georgia

Hooks and Lines
Patagonian toothfish Large Cetaceans (maximum length > 7.5 meters), Physeter macrocephalus (Sperm whale), Pinnipeds Field study in the wild
Summary:

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. 

Effect on Bycatch: 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
Reference:
Soffker, M., Trathan, P., Clark, J., Collins, M.A., Belchier, M. and Scott, R. , 2015 , The impact of predation by marine mammals on Patagonian toothfish longline fisheries

Swedish coast

Traps
Cod
Excluder devices
Pinnipeds Field study in the wild
Summary:

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.

Effect on Bycatch: Reduced sea bycatch to zero
Reference:
Konigson, S., Lovgren, J., Hjelm, J., Ovegard, M., Ljunghager, F., Lunneryd, S. , 2015 , Seal exclusion devices in cod pots prevent seal bycatch and affect their catchability of cod

Falkland Islands

Trawls
Patagonian squid (Doryteuthis gahi)
Excluder devices
Pinnipeds Field study in the wild
Summary:

Seal exclusion devices (SEDs) are effective in reducing pinniped bycatch in the Patagonian squid fishery, however, drowning may still occur during trawl hauling. 

Effect on Bycatch: 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.
Reference:
Iriarte, V. and A. Winter , 2025 , Disentangling pinniped incidental mortality in a bottom-trawl fishery with seal exclusion devices

Pagination

  • First page « First
  • Previous page ‹ Previous
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Current page 3

©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