LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for FISH-SCI Archives


FISH-SCI Archives

FISH-SCI Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave FISH-SCI
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject: Re: Impact of a bycatch reduction device
From: The Courtney's <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:The Courtney's <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:02:12 +1000
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (59 lines)


Kate,
You may need to clarify a few points.  Does your question refer to the catch 
rates (i.e. CPUE) of sharks or are you referring to BRD-imposed change on 
incidental fishing mortality of sharks?  Because your question refers to 
populations of sharks I assume you are really interested in incidental 
mortality.  Incidental CPUE of sharks may not equal incidental fishing 
mortality, unless you have such supportive data (i.e., 100 incidentally 
caught sharks equals 100 incidentally killed).

Are logbook data available for this fishery?  One way that you can 
demonstrate benefits from BRDs is to extrapolate upwards using fishing 
effort, if you have access to the particular fishery's catch and effort 
database. For example, if you know that before this particular BRD was 
developed and tested, that the incidental catch rate of sharks in this 
fishery in question was 10 sharks per day of effort (you provided no details 
about the effort for this fishing, so it may be in per meter net set per 
day, or perhaps per boat-day), and that there were, on average 1000 
effort-days in the fishery annually, then the before-BRD annual catch rate 
was (10 x 1000) 10,000 sharks.  If the BRD has lowered the catch rate by say 
20%, then the mean daily catch rate is now 8 sharks per day of effort and 
presuming that effort remains the same, then the annual catch rate for the 
fishery becomes 8000 sharks.  You should also include standard errors (SEs) 
for both the mean incidental catch rate (or mortality rate) and the annual 
effort levels.  There are formulae for multiplying two means with SEs in 
order to derive final total SEs.  If you don't want to use effort in the 
calculation of final incidental catch/mortality, you can use catch of the 
targeted species instead.  So for example, if you know that 10 sharks are 
caught incidentally for every 1 tonne of targeted catch reported and that 
logbook data indicate the mean annual catch is 1000 tonnes, then your 
estimate of incidental shark catch is (10 sharks x 1000) 10,000.

Hope this helps.
Tony Courtney
Queensland, Australia


 Aew you
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kate LeFeaux" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:53 AM
Subject: Impact of a bycatch reduction device


> I have a question and would value your thoughts to how best address this. 
> What do you think would be the best way to demonstrate the positive impact 
> of a bycatch reduction device on local populations (of sharks). Have CPUE 
> and length data. BRD significantly reduces CPUE for some species but 
> wonder if there is a way to show the benefit (if any) to the population in 
> a numerical sence.
>
> I have some ideas and would value any of your opinions.
> Thankyou
> K. LeFeaux
>
>
>
>
> 

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main FISH-SCI Page

Permalink



LISTSRV.NORDU.NET

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager