At Loggerheads: Gear Damage in the Blue Crab Fishery Attributed to Loggerhead Sea Turtles

Gillnets and traps often are considered to have fewer holistic environmental impacts than active fishing gears. However, in addition to the targeted catches, gillnets and traps still cause unwanted mortalities due to (i) discarding, (ii) ghost fishing of derelict gear, (iii) depredation, (iv) escaping or dropping out of gear, (v) habitat damage, and potentially (vi) avoiding gear and predation and (vii) infection of injuries sustained from most of the above. Population‐level concerns associated with such ‘unaccounted fishing mortalities’ from gillnets and traps have been sufficient to warrant numerous attempts at mitigation. In this article, we reviewed relevant research efforts, locating 130 studies in the primary literature that concomitantly quantified mortalities and their resolution through technical modifications, with the division of effort indicating ongoing concerns. Most studies (85) have focused on discard mortality, followed by ghost‐fishing (24), depredation (10) and escape (8) mortalities. The remaining components have been poorly studied (3). All problematic mortality components are affected by key biological (e.g. species), technical (e.g. fishing mechanisms) and/or environmental (e.g. temperature) factors. We propose that these key factors should be considered as part of a strategy to reduce impacts of these gears by first assessing modifications within and then beyond conventional configurations, followed by changes to operational and handling practices. Justification for this three‐tiered approach is based not only on the potential for cumulative reduction benefits, but also on the likely ease of adoption, legislation and compliance.

show abstract

“…; Avissar et al . ,b). Some of these rates were compared between times when predators were present or absent (Rosas‐Ribeiro et al .…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…), loggerhead sea turtle (Avissar et al . ,b), great cormorant ( Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis, Phalacrocoracidae; Cornelisse and Christensen ), bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncates, Delphinidae; Noke and Odell ; Brotons et al . ; Gazo et al .…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigating unaccounted fishing mortality from gillnets and traps

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Mitigating by‐catch of diamondback terrapins in crab pots

Hart

Crowder

2011

J Wildl Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chronic by-catch of diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin) in blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) pots is a concern for terrapin conservation along the United States Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. Despite the availability of by-catch reduction devices (BRDs) for crab pots, adoption of BRDs has not been mandated and by-catch of terrapins continues. We conducted experimental fishing studies in North Carolina's year-round blue crab fishery from 2000 to 2004 to evaluate the ability of various BRDs to reduce terrapin by-catch without a concomitant reduction in the catch of blue crabs. In 4,822 crab pot days fished, we recorded only 21 terrapin captures. Estimated capture rates were 0.003 terrapins/pot per day in hard crab experimental fishing and 0.008 terrapins/pot per day in peeler experimental fishing. All terrapin captures occurred from April to mid-May within 321.4 m of the shoreline. Longer soak times produced more dead terrapins, with 4 live and 4 dead during hard crab experimental fishing and 11 live and 2 dead during peeler experimental fishing. The 4.0-cm BRDs in fall and 4.5-cm and 5.0-cm BRDs in spring reduced the catch of legal-sized male hard crabs by 26.6%, 21.2%, and 5.7%, respectively. Only the 5.0-cm BRDs did not significantly affect the catch of legal-sized hard male crabs. However, BRDs had no measurable effect on catch of target crabs in the peeler crab fishery. Our results identify 3 complementary and economically feasible tools for blue crab fishery managers to exclude terrapins from commercially fished crab pots in North Carolina: 1) gear modifications (e.g., BRDs); 2) distance-to-shore restrictions; and 3) time-of-year regulations. These measures combined could provide a reduction in terrapin by-catch of up to 95% without a significant reduction in target crab catch. ß 2011 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract