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 - 30 of 50
Location Gear Catch Technique Bycatch species Type Results

South Australia

Traps
rock lobster
Trap guards (T-bars, otter guards)
Pinnipeds Field study in the wild
Summary:

Bycatch of Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea) in rock lobster (Jasus edwardsii) and shark gillnet fisheries is a key threat to the species. This report outlines and assesses methods for mitigating bycatch in these fisheries in South Australia. Gear modification was considered in the rock lobster fishery and spatial closures in the shark gillnet fishery. Spikes of different heights were tested to deter sea lions from entering rock lobster pots. Entry success significantly decreased with spikes extending high up into the collar (70 mm + from base) compared to other treatment and control pots. 

Effect on Bycatch: Reduced sea lion entrapment
Reference:
Goldsworthy, S.D., B. Page, P.D. Shaughnessy and A. Linnane, 2010 , Mitigating Seal Interactions in the SRLF and the Gillnet Sector SESSF in South Australia

Southwest England

Gillnets and Entangling Nets
None reported
Acoustic deterrent devices
Small Cetaceans (maximum length < 7.5 meters), Delphinus delphis (Short-beaked common dolphin), Phocoena phocoena (Harbor porpoise), Pinnipeds Field study in the wild
Summary:

Fisheries observers and skippers tested the effectiveness of the Dolphin Dissuasive Device (DDD) as a bycatch mitigation tool for porpoises and dolphins. This study was conducted aboard fishing vessels in the Cornish over-12m static net sector fishery in the waters of Southwest England. DDD's were placed at the end nets. The DDD's caught significantly fewer porpoises but no significant difference in dolphin bycatch was observed. When bycatch rates were separated between short (up to 4 km) fleets and long (larger than 4 km) fleets, there was no significant difference in porpoise bycatch in the long fleet but there was in the short fleet. 

Effect on Bycatch: DDD's caught significantly fewer porpoises but no significant difference in dolphin bycatch was observed
Reference:
Kingston, A. and Northridge, S., 2011 , Extension trial of an acoustic deterrent system to minimize dolphin and porpoise bycatch in gill and tangle net fisheries

Scotland

Traps
Salmon (Salmo spp.)
Acoustic deterrent devices
Pinnipeds, Halichoerus grypus atlantica (Gray seal), Phoca vitulina (Harbor seal) Field study in the wild
Summary:

An acoustic deterrent device (ADD) was tested at a Scottish salmon double bagnet to deter seals (grey (Halichoerus grypus) and harbor (Phoca vitulina)). 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 (Salmo spp.)
Acoustic deterrent devices
Pinnipeds, Halichoerus grypus atlantica (Gray seal), Phoca vitulina (Harbor seal) 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 (Halichoerus grypus and Phoca vitulina) 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
Pollack (Pollachius sp.), angler fish (Lophius sp.), cod (Gadus morhua), and turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) Pinnipeds, Halichoerus grypus atlantica (Gray seal), Phoca vitulina (Harbor seal) 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 (Salmo salar) to other fisheries. Pollack (Pollachius sp.), angler fish (Lophius sp.), cod (Gadus morhua), and turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) 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, United States

Gillnets and Entangling Nets
Swordfish and thresher shark
Acoustic deterrent devices
Small Cetaceans (maximum length < 7.5 meters), Delphinus delphis (Short-beaked common dolphin), Pinnipeds, Zalophus californianus (California sea lion) Field study in the wild
Summary:

The long-term effectiveness of acoustic pingers in reducing marine mammal bycatch was assessed in the California swordfish (Xiphias gladius) and thresher shark (Alopias sp.) 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 (Delphinus delphis). 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 (Zalophus californianus) 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 (Nototodarus sloanii)
Excluder devices
Pinnipeds, Phocarctos hookeri (New Zealand sea lion, pakake, whakahao) Summary study
Summary:

The authors conducted an extensive literature review to determine if Sea Lion Excluder Devices (SLEDs) allow sea lions (Phocarctos hookeri) to escape from trawl nets and if they subsequently survived. In addition, 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 addition, 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
NA
Visual deterrents
Large Cetaceans (maximum length > 7.5 meters), Small Cetaceans (maximum length < 7.5 meters), Pinnipeds, Seabirds, Sea Turtles, Bony Fishes Summary study
Summary:

This article reviewed bycatch mitigation methods that rely on sensory ecology to reduce interactions with seabirds, 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, except for cetaceans. Cetaceans require both visual cues and warning through echolocation.

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

South Georgia Island

Hooks and Lines
Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) Large Cetaceans (maximum length > 7.5 meters), Orcinus orca (Orca whale), Physeter macrocephalus (Sperm whale), Pinnipeds, Arctocephalus gazella (Antarctic fur seal) 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 Island. 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
Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua)
Excluder devices
Pinnipeds, Halichoerus grypus atlantica (Gray seal), Phoca vitulina (Harbor seal) 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

Pagination

  • First page « First
  • Previous page ‹ Previous
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Current page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • 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