Advertisement

Shark bycatch and depredation in the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery

  • John W. MandelmanEmail author
  • Peter W. Cooper
  • Timothy B. Werner
  • Kerry M. Lagueux
Article

Abstract

The non-target bycatch of sharks in pelagic longline (PLL) fisheries represents a potential source of compromise to shark populations worldwide. Moreover, shark bycatch and depredation (damage inflicted on gear, bait, and catch) complicates management of sharks and other species, and can undermine the operations and financial interests of the pelagic longline industry. Thus, deducing means to reduce shark interactions is in the best interest of multiple stakeholder groups. Prior to doing so, however, the extent, cause and effect of these interactions must be better understood. In this review we address or conduct the following in relation to the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean PLL fishery: (1) U.S. management governing shark interactions in the Atlantic; (2) the primary species encountered and historical shark catch data associated with PLL fishing in the Atlantic; (3) a historical comparison of area-specific shark species catch records between the two primary sources of shark catch data in this fishery; (4) the conditions and dynamics that dictate shark interactions in this fishery, and potential means to reduce these interactions, and; (5) a synthesis of the estimated impacts of this fishery on shark populations relative to other fisheries in the Atlantic. As has been found in other PLL fisheries, the blue shark (Prionace glauca) is clearly the shark species most commonly encountered in this fishery in the Atlantic, and receives the majority of attention in this review. U.S. management areas with high relative shark species diversities had a greater divergence in historical shark species percent-compositions between data sources (Pelagic Observer Program versus mandatory pelagic Logbook databases); this complicates the ability to conclude which species are most impacted by PLL fishing in those areas. The current fishing effort by the U.S. PLL fleet is small compared to that of PLL fishing targeting sharks in the Atlantic by non-U.S. fleets, and therefore poses a comparatively lower threat to the stability of Atlantic shark populations. However, incidental shark encounters are inevitable in U.S. Atlantic PLL fishing operations. Thus, it is in the best interest of all stakeholders in the Atlantic to better understand the extent and conditions governing these interactions, and to explore methods to reduce both their occurrence and those aspects leading to higher rates of incidental shark mortality.

Keywords

Bycatch Depredation Shark Pelagic longline fishing Mitigation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

For detailed worldwide perspectives regarding topics covered herein, we refer readers to the multinational report by Gilman et al. (2007b): Shark Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch in Pelagic Longline Fisheries (http://www.wpcouncil.org/pelagic/Documents/Shark-Longline_Interactions_Report.pdf as of December 17, 2007); and the truncated version of that report published by Gilman et al. (2007a). We acknowledge our co-authors (and respective funding sources) on both publications, most notably lead-author E Gilman for initiating this effort, fostering our involvement, and consolidating the case studies from around the world. We thank L. Beerkircher and D. Kerstetter for providing constructive comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Funding for this work was provided by NOAA (via the Consortium for Wildlife Bycatch Reduction), and the New England Aquarium.

References

  1. Abercrombie DL, Balchowsky HA, Paine AL (2005) 2002 and 2003 annual summary: large pelagic species. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS SEFSC-529, 33 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacheler NM, Buchel JA (2004) Does hook type influence the catch rate, size, and injury of grouper in a North Carolina commercial fishery? Fish Res 69:303–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker MJ, Schluessel V (2004) Managing global shark fisheries: suggestions for prioritizing management strategies. Aquat Conserv 15:325–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum JK, Myers RA (2004) Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecol Lett 7:135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum JK, Myers RA, Kehler D et al (2003) Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the northwest Atlantic. Science 299:389–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beerkircher LR, Cortés E, Shivji M (2002) Characteristics of shark bycatch observed on pelagic longlines off the southeastern United States, 1992–2000. Mar Fish Rev 64:40–49Google Scholar
  7. Beerkircher LR, Brown CJ, Abercrombie DL et al (2004) SEFSC Pelagic Observer Program Data Summary for 1992–2002. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-SEFSC-522, 25 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Berkeley SA, Campos WL (1988) Relative abundance and fishery potential of pelagic sharks along Florida’s east coast. Mar Fish Rev 50:9–16Google Scholar
  9. Berkeley SA, Irby EW Jr, Jolley JW Jr (1981) Florida’s commercial swordfish fishery: longline gear and methods. Florida Sea Grant Cooperative Extension Service MAP-14. Miami, FL, USA, 23 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonfil R (1994) Overview of world elasmobranch fisheries. Technical report, FAO, Rome, 341 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Borucinska J, Martin J, Skomal G (2001) Peritonitis and pericarditis associated with gastric perforation by a retained fishing hook in a blue shark. J Aquat Anim Health 13:347–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borucinska J, Kohler N, Natanson L et al (2002) Pathology associated with retained fishing hooks in blue sharks, Prionace glauca (L.), with implications for their conservation. J Fish Dis 25:515–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Branstetter S, Musick JA (1993) Comparisons of shark catch rates on longlines using rope/steel (Yankee) and monofilament gangions. Mar Fish Rev 55:4–9Google Scholar
  14. Brooks EN, Ortiz M, Beerkircher LK et al (2005) Standardized catch rates for blue shark and shortfin mako shark from the U.S. pelagic logbook and U.S. pelagic observer program, and US weighout landings. Col Vol Sci Pap ICCAT 58:1054–1072Google Scholar
  15. Campana SE, Marks L, Joyce W et al (2005) Catch, by-catch and indices of population status of blue shark (Prionace glauca) in the Canadian Atlantic. Col Vol Sci Pap ICCAT 58:891–934Google Scholar
  16. Campana SE, Marks L, Joyce W et al (2006) Effects of recreational and commercial fishing on blue sharks (Prionace glauca) in Atlantic Canada, with inferences on the North Atlantic population. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:670–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cooke JG, Beddington JR (1984) The relationship between catch rates and abundance in fisheries. IMA J Math Appl Med Biol 1:391–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cooke SJ, Barthel BL, Suski CD et al (2005) Influence of circle 540 hook size on hooking efficiency, injury, and size selectivity of bluegill with comments on circle hook conservation benefits in recreational fisheries. N Am J Fish Mgt 25:211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cortés E (2002) Catches and catch rates of pelagic sharks from the Northwestern Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. Col Vol Sci Pap ICCAT 54:1164–1181Google Scholar
  20. Cramer J (1997) By-catch of blue sharks (Prionace glauca) reported by U.S. pelagic longline vessels from 1987–1995. Col Vol Sci Pap ICCAT 46:456–464Google Scholar
  21. Cramer J (2000) Large pelagic logbook catch rates for sharks. Col Vol Sci Pap ICCAT 5:1842–1848Google Scholar
  22. Crowder LB, Myers RA (2001) Report to Pew Charitable Trusts: a comprehensive study of the ecological impacts of the worldwide pelagic longline industry. http://moray.ml.duke.edu/faculty/crowder/research/crowder_and_myers_Mar_2002.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2007
  23. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) (2002) Catch, bycatch and landings of blue shark in the Canadian Atlantic. In: DFO Science fisheries status report 2002/02E. http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/rap/internet/FSR(2002)2E.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2007
  24. Diaz GA (2006) Estimation of large coastal sharks dead discards for the U.S. pelagic longline fishing fleet. ICCAT document LCS05/06-DW-18Google Scholar
  25. Diaz GA, Serafy JE (2005) Longline-caught blue shark (Prionace glauca): factors affecting the numbers available for live release. Fish Bull 103:720–724Google Scholar
  26. Domeier ML, Dewar H, Nasby-Lucas N (2003) Mortality rate of striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax) caught with recreational tackle. Mar Freshw Res 54:435–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1999) International plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Document FI:CSS/98/3, Rome, 26 ppGoogle Scholar
  28. Garrison LP (2003) Estimated bycatch of marine mammals and turtles in the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fleet during 2001–2002. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-SEFSC-515, 60 ppGoogle Scholar
  29. Gilman E, Clarke S, Brothers N et al (2007a) Shark interactions in pelagic longline fisheries. Mar Pol 32:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gilman E, Clarke S, Brothers N et al (2007b) Shark depredation and unwanted bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries: industry practices and attitudes, and shark avoidance strategies. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu, USA. ISBN: 1-934061-06-9Google Scholar
  31. Harrington JM, Myers RA, Rosenberg AA (2005) Wasted resources: bycatch and discards in U.S. Fisheries. In: U.S. Fisheries Atlas of Bycatch. Prepared by MRAG Americas, Inc. for Oceana, 286 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoey JJ, Moore N (1999) Captain’s report: multi-species characteristics for the U.S. pelagic longline fishery. National Fisheries Institute Report to NOAA, NMFS, Silver Spring, MD, USA. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/seaturtlecontractreports.jsp. Accessed 19 Dec 2007
  33. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) (2007) Report for biennial period, 2006–07, part 1, vol 2, 295 ppGoogle Scholar
  34. Kerstetter DW, Graves JE (2006a) Survival of white marlin (Tetrapturus albidus) released from commercial pelagic longline gear in the western North Atlantic. Fish Bull 104:434–444Google Scholar
  35. Kerstetter DW, Graves JE (2006b) Effects of circle versus J-style hooks on target and non target species in a pelagic longline fishery. Fish Res 80:239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kerstetter DW, Pacheco JC, Hazin FH et al (2006) Preliminary results of circle and J-style hook comparisons in the Brazilian pelagic longline fishery. ICCAT document SCRS/2006/150Google Scholar
  37. Mejuto J, García-Cortés B, De la Serna JM et al (2005) Scientific estimations of bycatch landed by the Spanish surface longline fleet targeting swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in the Atlantic Ocean: 2000–2004 Period. Col Vol Sci Pap ICCAT 59:1014–1024Google Scholar
  38. Morgan A, Burgess GH (2007) At-vessel fishing mortality for six species of sharks caught in the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Caribb Res 19:123–129Google Scholar
  39. Moyes CD, Fragoso N, Musyl MK et al (2006) Predicting postrelease survival in large pelagic fish. Trans Am Fish Soc 135:1389–1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Musick JA, Burgess GH, Cailliet G et al (2000). Management of sharks and their relatives (Elasmobranchii). Fisheries 25:9–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (1993) Fishery management plan for sharks of the Atlantic Ocean, 167 ppGoogle Scholar
  42. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (1999) Final fishery management plan for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and sharks, vol 1, 321 ppGoogle Scholar
  43. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (2001) U.S. Plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks, 26 ppGoogle Scholar
  44. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (2003) Final Amendment 1 to the fishery management plan for Atlantic tunas, swordfish and sharks. NMFS, Highly Migratory Species Management Division. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/Amendment1/Final_EIS_Chapters/Chapter01.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2007
  45. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (2006a) Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan. NOAA, NMFS, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, 1600 ppGoogle Scholar
  46. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (2006b) Annual report of United States of America. ICCAT document, ANN/2005/038Google Scholar
  47. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (2007a) Draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan. NOAA, NMFS, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division 470 ppGoogle Scholar
  48. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (2007b) Animal log instructions. In: The Southeast Fisheries Science Center Animal log instructions for the Pelagic Observer Program. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/PDFdocs/Animlog.inst_07.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2007
  49. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Team (PLTRT) (2006) Draft Atlantic Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan, submitted to NMFS. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/interactions/pltrp_draft_8June06.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2007
  50. Rogan E, Mackey M (2007) Megafauna by-catch in drift nets for albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) in the NE Atlantic. Fish Res 86:6–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Senba Y, Nakano H (2005) Summary of species composition and nominal CPUE of pelagic sharks based on observer data from the Japanese longline fishery in the Atlantic Ocean from 1995 to 2003. Col Vol Sci Pap ICCAT 58:1106–1117Google Scholar
  52. Shark Defense (2007) Longline research; blue shark studies. In: Shark Defense’s chemical repellants page. http://www.sharkdefense.com/Fisheries/fisheries.html. Accessed 19 Dec 2007
  53. Simpfendorfer CA, Hueter RE, Bergman U et al (2002) Results of a fishery-independent survey for pelagic sharks in the western North Atlantic, 1977–1994. Fish Res 55:175–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sisneros JA, Nelson DR (2001) Surfactants as chemical repellants: past, present, and future. Environ Biol Fishes 60:117–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Skomal G (2007) Evaluating the physiological and physical consequences of capture on post-release survivorship in large pelagic fishes. Fish Manag Ecol 14:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stevens JD (1976) First results of shark tagging in the northeast Atlantic, 1972–1975. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 56:929–937Google Scholar
  57. Stevens JD (1990) Further results from a tagging study of pelagic sharks in the Northeast Atlantic. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 70:707–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stone HH, Dixon LK (2001) A comparison of catches of swordfish, Xiphias gladius, and other pelagic species from Canadian longline gear configured with alternating monofilament and multifilament nylon gangions. Fish Bull 99:210–216Google Scholar
  59. Ward P, Myers RA, Blanchard W (2004) Fish lost at sea: the effect of soak time on pelagic longline catches. Fish Bull 102:179–195Google Scholar
  60. Watson JW, Epperly SP, Shah AK et al (2005) Fishing methods to reduce sea turtle mortality associated with pelagic longlines. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:965–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yokota K, Kiyota M, Minami H (2006) Shark catch in a pelagic longline fishery: comparison of circle and tuna hooks. Fish Res 81:337–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • John W. Mandelman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter W. Cooper
    • 1
  • Timothy B. Werner
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kerry M. Lagueux
    • 1
  1. 1.New England Aquarium CorporationBostonUSA
  2. 2.Boston University Marine ProgramBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations