Search

White (Carcharodon carcharias L.), bull (Carcharhinus leucas, Müller & Henle) and tiger (Galeocerdocuvier, Péron & Lesueur) sharks are the primary species responsible for unprovoked shark bites. Historically, management practices were based on culling "target" shark species (i.e. white, bull and tiger sharks), which resulted in high levels of bycatch and mortality. Shark‐Management‐Alert‐in‐Real‐Time (SMART) drumlines were trialled in New South Wales, Australia, aiming to optimise the capture of target shark species while minimising bycatch and mortality. Target shark species accounted for 70% of the total catch, with white sharks contributing 298 of the 350 sharks that were caught. Four animals died, and bycatch consisted of 13 species including two threatened species. Generalised linear mixed models (GLMMs) revealed a significant spatial, temporal, environmental and gear influence on white shark catch rates. SMART drumlines are a useful tool for catching target shark species with low bycatch and mortality relative to historical bather protection methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Technological advancement has allowed for consideration of electronic monitoring (EM) as a tool for improving the accuracy of logbook data and/or increasing the quantity of fishery-dependent data collected. In Australia, an integrated EM system was implemented in several managed fisheries, including the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (ETBF) and the Gillnet Hook and Trap (GHAT) sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) from 1 July 2015. We compare logbook data from the first two years of EM operation to the previous six years, to measure changes in reported nominal catch and discard per unit effort (CPUE and DPUE) and interactions with protected species per-unit-effort (IPUE). We observed no significant increase in CPUE between non-EM (2009–2014) and EM (2015 and 2016) years for any species group in both the ETBF and GHAT. In contrast, DPUE increased significantly during the EM years for target, byproduct and bycatch species in the ETBF and for target species in the GHAT sector. There was a significant increase in the IPUE for seabirds, marine mammals and turtles in the ETBF and for dolphins and pinnipeds in the GHAT sector. While not discounting possible environmentally-driven shifts in availability and abundance, as well as individual vessel effects, the weight of evidence suggests the use of an integrated EM system has led to significant changes in logbook reporting of discarded catch and protected species interactions, particularly in the ETBF. Assuming this supposition is valid, we identify fishery-specific factors that might have influenced reporting behaviour. Highlights • EM introduced in several Australian Commonwealth fisheries on 1 July 2015. • Logbook data compared for the first two years of EM implementation to previous six years. • Discards per unit effort significantly increased in EM years for some species groups. • Interactions per unit effort significantly increased in EM years for some species groups. • The weight of evidence suggests EM has led to changes in logbook reporting behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Formal listing of species for protection is a responsible action in conferring conservation priority, and must be undertaken as objectively as possible, and redundant entries that distract from priority need be removed. Diverse groups, such as invertebrates, pose problems for listing because criteria of ‘rarity’ and ‘threat’ are often confounded. Species de-listed as a result of recovery action are a special category, in which conservation investment has been made; the principle of recognising these as ‘rehabilitated species’ with a formal duty of aftercare is discussed. Although the paper focuses on invertebrates in Australia, the principles have wider relevance in species-level conservation focus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]