Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Ambio ; 51(3): 638-651, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34145559

ABSTRACT

Online evidence suggests that there has been an increase in interest of using unmanned aerial vehicles or drones during land-based marine recreational fishing. In the absence of reliable monitoring programs, this study used unconventional publicly available online monitoring methodologies to estimate the growing interest, global extent, catch composition and governance of this practice. Results indicated a 357% spike in interest during 2016 primarily in New Zealand, South Africa and Australia. From an ecological perspective, many species targeted by drone fishers are vulnerable to overexploitation, while released fishes may experience heightened stress and mortality. From a social perspective, the ethics of drone fishing are being increasingly questioned by many recreational anglers and we forecast the potential for increased conflict with other beach users. In terms of governance, no resource use legislation specifically directed at recreational drone fishing was found. These findings suggest that drone fishing warrants prioritised research and management consideration.


Subject(s)
Fisheries , Recreation , Conservation of Natural Resources , Hunting , Unmanned Aerial Devices
2.
Nat Commun ; 4: 2347, 2013.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23962973

ABSTRACT

Potential fishery benefits of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are widely acknowledged, yet seldom demonstrated, as fishery data series that straddle MPA establishment are seldom available. Here we postulate, based on a 15-year time series of nation-wide, spatially referenced catch and effort data, that the establishment of the Goukamma MPA (18 km alongshore; 40 km²) benefited the adjacent fishery for roman (Chrysoblephus laticeps), a South African endemic seabream. Roman-directed catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) in the vicinity of the new MPA immediately increased, contradicting trends across this species' distribution. The increase continued after 5 years, the time lag expected for larval export, effectively doubling the pre-MPA CPUE after 10 years. We find no indication that establishing the MPA caused a systematic drop in total catch or increased travel distances for the fleet. Our results provide rare empirical evidence of rapidly increasing catch rates after MPA implementation without measurable disadvantages for fishers.


Subject(s)
Conservation of Natural Resources/methods , Fisheries/methods , Animals , Population Dynamics , Sea Bream
3.
Conserv Biol ; 23(3): 653-61, 2009 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19183207

ABSTRACT

The application of no-take areas in fisheries remains controversial. Critics argue that many targeted species are too mobile to benefit from area protection and that no-take areas are only appropriate for resident species. The degree of protection does not depend on the size of the no-take area but rather on the time fish reside inside its boundaries during key life-history events (i.e., spawning) and during periods of peak fishing activity. We evaluated the potential of a small no-take marine protected area (MPA) inside a coastal embayment as a harvest refuge for a mobile, possibly migratory, long-lived fish species. We used acoustic telemetry to track movements of 30 transmitter-tagged white stumpnose (Rhabdosargus globiceps) across and on both sides of the boundary of a small (34 km(2)) no-take area over a full year. Being landlocked on 3 sides, the location of the MPA inside the lagoon made it practical to detect all boundary crossings and to calculate the time individual fish used the MPA. We detected frequent movements across the boundary, with strong seasonal and individual variations. There were significant differences in MPA use patterns between fish from different release areas. The time spent in the MPA by individual fish during summer (mean 50%; max 98%) was out of proportion with the size of that area (4% of total habitat). Summer coincided with peak recreational fishing activity and with the spawning season of this species. The small MPA provided a refuge for a part of the spawning stock of white stumpnose. Our findings suggest that if strategically placed, a small no-take area can be effective in protecting mobile species and that models of spillover from no-take areas should account for seasonal and individual variation in area use and the spatiotemporal distribution of fish and fishers.


Subject(s)
Animal Migration/physiology , Conservation of Natural Resources/methods , Ecosystem , Fisheries , Perciformes/physiology , Animals , Demography , Female , Male , Marine Biology , Models, Theoretical , Reproduction/physiology , Seasons , South Africa , Telemetry
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...