Latest news with #bycatch
Forbes
17-07-2025
- Science
- Forbes
To Save Sharks, We Need Smarter Fishing Rules
A recent global study reviewed over 160 scientific papers covering 147 shark species, focusing on ... More what happens after their release. Sleek and powerful, a single dorsal fin slices through deep blue waves before diving into deeper waters in search of its next meal. An evolutionary machine honed for millions of years, this young shark doesn't know that hundreds of meters above, a longline bristling with baited hooks dangles in the current. An invisible wall between it and survival. For many sharks, this is how the story ends. Even if they're not the intended target of a fishing trip, they still get hooked, hauled in, and tangled in nets. In the past, that meant a death sentence. But today, in many parts of the world, rules known as 'retention bans' say these sharks must be released back into the sea. It's a hopeful idea: catch, release, and let them swim free. But here's the catch — literally and figuratively. A growing body of research shows that being released doesn't always mean being saved. Sharks are some of the most threatened marine animals on Earth, facing steep population declines due to overfishing and bycatch. While some sharks are caught intentionally, more than half are caught incidentally and then discarded. This often happens in longline and gillnet fisheries that target other species like tuna. In many places, fishers are required to release certain shark species rather than keeping them; these retention bans aim to protect vulnerable sharks by reducing the number that are landed and sold. But some die before even reaching the boat (called at-vessel mortality or AVM) while others die after being released, known as post-release mortality (PRM). These deaths are often due to stress, injury, or exhaustion. A recent study, led by PhD candidate Leonardo Feitosa at UC Santa Barbara Bren - Bren School of Environment, looked at 160 previous studies across 147 shark species to understand how often this happens and to model the effects of retention bans on shark mortality. Using this data, the team built predictive models to estimate how many sharks die after being caught and released, especially from longline and gillnet fishing. They then applied these findings to simulate what would happen under two scenarios: keeping all caught sharks or releasing them under a retention ban. The results were mixed. On average, retention bans led to a three-fold decrease in fishing mortality for most shark species. But not all species benefited equally. Sharks that live in shallow coastal areas and tend to be smaller often died at higher rates before they could be released. On the other hand, larger sharks that live in deeper waters were more likely to survive until release but still faced significant risk of dying afterward. Even with retention bans, 18% of the species studied would still experience overfishing, especially those that reproduce slowly or are already heavily fished. Species like oceanic whitetip, threshers, hammerheads, and sand tiger sharks — all considered threatened by the IUCN — are particularly vulnerable. Their populations grow slowly, so even low levels of fishing mortality can be dangerous, and the data showed that for these species, simply banning their retention won't be enough to protect them. Some will continue to decline unless more is done to prevent their capture in the first place. That includes modifying fishing gear, changing where and when fishing happens, and improving how sharks are handled on board to increase their chance of survival after release. The researchers ran detailed simulations using their data, comparing two scenarios: one where all ... More sharks caught are kept, and one where they're released. They found that retention bans do help. On average, they cut shark deaths by about two-thirds. That's good news. But not all species benefit equally. There's also a big data gap. Most studies focus on industrial longline fisheries in deep ocean waters, where monitoring is more common. But in small-scale or nearshore fisheries, many vulnerable species like sawfish, guitarfish, and rays are caught and even more threatened than sharks. Yet they are rarely studied, and without better data on their survival after capture, it's hard to say whether current policies are doing much to help them. One issue is that most retention bans assume fishers will fully comply. But that's not always realistic. Retention bans only work if fishers follow them, and in places where shark meat is an important food source or source of income, fishers may be reluctant to release catch, especially if there's little oversight. In fact, some countries have less than 5% observer coverage on fishing vessels, making it difficult to monitor what's actually happening at sea. There are also challenges in enforcing bans in small-scale fisheries that supply local markets and coastal communities. In these settings, compliance may only happen for shark species with little commercial value. But even when the rules are followed to the letter, there's a problem: retention bans don't stop sharks from being caught in the first place. They don't address how or why sharks are getting caught in the first place, meaning they don't reduce how often sharks are hooked. That's why experts, like the team behind this new paper, argue that retention bans should be combined with other management tools like time-area fishing closures, shark-friendly gear modifications, and clear bycatch limits. For example, using circle hooks instead of J hooks can reduce the chances of a shark swallowing the hook and suffering internal injuries. Shorter soak times for fishing lines can also reduce both AVM and PRM. Training fishing crews to handle and release sharks safely can also make a big difference in whether the animals survive. Sharks have been swimming in Earth's oceans for over 400 million years. But in just a few decades, industrial fishing has pushed many species to the brink. Retention bans were a meaningful start, but they're not the finish line. Without additional efforts to reduce the actual capture of sharks and better monitor what happens after release, many threatened species will continue to decline. Protecting a species that plays a crucial role in our marine ecosystem will require a smarter, more coordinated approach that goes beyond just throwing them back. To make sure sharks are still swimming centuries from now, we need to rethink how we fish, where we fish, and who we're trying to protect. And that means designing fisheries with shark conservation in mind from the start.
RNZ News
17-06-2025
- General
- RNZ News
'Unacceptable': Forest & Bird demands action after hundreds of native seabirds killed in trawler catch
The native tītī or sooty shearwater is native to New Zealand and classified as at risk/declining. Photo: Wiki Commons More than 200 seabirds were accidentally caught and killed by a fishing trawler in Te Waewae Bay in Southland earlier this year. Forest & Bird is demanding more information from the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) about the 207 deaths, published in MPI's quarterly bycatch report for January to March. The birds were adult tītī sooty shearwaters, which are native to New Zealand and classified as at risk/declining. Forest & Bird's regional conservation manager for Otago and Southland Chelsea McGaw said the birds were likely to have been foraging at sea to feed their chicks, which likely starved to death. "The scale of bycatch is unacceptable and right now, it's failing our wildlife," she said. "It is a sobering thought that catches like this are not illegal, as long as they are reported." Forest & Bird said it wanted to know what the ministry and commercial trawl fisheries were doing to prevent a repeat of similar deaths in future. McGaw said it should be considered a warning sign. "A trawler that can kill this many tītī in one go could easily wipe out other threatened or at-risk seabirds, like the toroa Antipodean albatross. We need mandatory, enforceable rules that include effective bird scaring devices and fish waste management," she said. MPI's bycatch quarterly report showed 1083 seabirds and protected marine species accidentally were captured by fishing vessels between January to March. Of those, 771 died. In other instances, 18 leatherback turtles were killed by a vessel off the coast of Auckland, 17 fur seals were killed by a boat in the Southeast region, and 45 "unidentified" petrels, prions or shearwaters were killed in one instance off the coast of Auckland. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
BBC News
06-06-2025
- Business
- BBC News
Plymouth Fish Finger made from bycatch to be served in schools
A new fish finger made from bycatch, which would normally go to waste, has been created for Plymouth school University of Plymouth said the project was part of the national FoodSEqual programme and had been co-led by Sole of Discretion CIC, Plymouth Fishing & Seafood Association and CATERed, which provides the majority of the city's school said the the food item, known as the Plymouth Fish Finger, was made following a workshop to encourage people to eat more whiting, pouting and dogfish have been used to create the fish finger, and small scale coastal fishers are paid for the goods which are normally low in value and underutilised. Active food system justice researcher, Dr Clare Pettinger, held workshops with the Whitleigh community, where it was identified better access to fish would encourage people to eat more of Pettinger worked with multiple organisations and identified the use of bycatch to the World Wide Fund for Nature, (WWF), bycatch is the incidental capture of non-target species. The university said pupils at Sir John Hunt Community College held a series of taste sessions for the fish and breadcrumbs to design and make the new said 36,000 fish fingers needed to be produced to fulfil the city's school meals, which it said needed Pettinger said: "Our amazing local partners have a shared vision for the Plymouth Fish Finger because it belongs to the community, promotes Plymouth seafood brand and provides true pride and identity in the product."We don't just have to accept that things won't change when it comes to accessing healthy food at a reasonable cost – together we can achieve so much."
Forbes
19-05-2025
- Science
- Forbes
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Passes New Shark Rules — With One Big Exception
At the recent 29th session of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission held in La Réunion, countries finally adopted a suite of shark conservation measures after years of lobbying by environmental groups. These new rules, which aim to cut down on shark bycatch and regulate harmful fishing practices, represent a significant step forward. But for some species… it may not be enough. The IOTC regulates fisheries for tuna and other highly migratory species like swordfish across the Indian Ocean. Tuna and sharks often swim in the same waters, so fishing fleets frequently haul in sharks as bycatch (animals fishers do not want, cannot sell, or are not allowed to keep). In some cases, like with blue sharks (Prionace glauca), they are caught in such high numbers that conservationists argue they should be managed as target species instead; blue sharks make up over 60% of swordfish fishery catches in the region. Many of these sharks species are also intentionally caught for their fins, which are used in delicacies and traditional medicine in parts of Asia. The newly passed resolution now requires that all sharks be landed with their fins still naturally attached, closing a major loophole that allowed for shark finning at sea. Cutting off a shark's fins and discarding the rest of the body not only kills the shark, but makes it nearly impossible to track which species are being caught. The new rule allows some flexibility, such as tagging fins and carcasses and storing them separately, but starting in 2028, any party wanting to use an alternative method will need to justify it with evidence. This change, IOTC argues, is a win for both enforcement and science. Also adopted were stricter retention bans that prevent fishers from keeping certain shark species if they are caught. Oceanic whitetips (Carcharhinus longimanus) and thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) were already protected under such bans. Whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) will be added to that list starting in 2026, assuming the IOTC's scientific committee gives it the green light. Meanwhile, blue sharks will soon be managed under a formal system that includes catch limits and quotas, a first for the species in the Indian Ocean. With updated data showing they're not currently overfished, this preemptive approach aims to keep it that way. But the shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus), already overfished and in danger of collapse, didn't receive the full protection that many hoped for. While there is now a partial retention ban, it applies only under specific conditions: if a mako is still alive when brought aboard, it must be released, but if it's dead (and if an observer or electronic monitoring system is on board) the vessel is allowed to keep it. Given that many makos are caught on wire traces, which virtually guarantee the shark won't survive the fight to the surface, critics say this rule is too weak to make a real difference. These wire traces are often made of steel and are used in longline fishing to prevent toothier fish (like sharks) from biting through the line. They also increase shark catchability (and at times, mortality). The IOTC has now restricted their use, but only in the area north of 20 degrees south latitude. That leaves much of the southern Indian Ocean, including key fishing zones for Spain and other EU countries, unaffected. Since EU fleets tend to fish in those southern waters and use electronic monitoring, they're allowed to keep dead makos while others are not. That discrepancy has drawn sharp criticism from conservation groups, who argue it undermines the intent of the ban and could keep mortality levels far too high for mako populations to recover. Scientific advice suggests mako mortality needs to drop by 60% to give the species a fighting chance. The current resolution likely won't achieve that, and some observers fear it could be too late already. Still, the IOTC considers the adoption of even a partial ban a success, though one unevenly shared. EU officials defended their position by pointing out that many developing coastal nations lack the resources to monitor their fleets as rigorously, leading to gaps in reporting. Without stronger commitments and better data, the path to true recovery for sharks like the shortfin mako remains uncertain.
