Knowing the fishery to know the bycatch: bias-corrected estimates of harbour porpoise bycatch in gillnet fisheries.

Incidental captures (bycatch) remain a key global conservation threat for cetaceans. Bycatch of harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena in set gillnets is routinely monitored in European Union fisheries, but generally relies on data collected at low spatio-temporal resolution or over short periods. In Denmark, a long-term monitoring programme started in 2010 using electronic monitoring to collect data on porpoise bycatch and gillnet fishing effort at a fine spatial and temporal scale, including time and position of each fishing operation, together with every associated bycatch event. We used these observations to model bycatch rates, given the operational and ecological characteristics of each haul observed in Danish waters. Data on fishing effort from the Danish and Swedish gillnet fleets were collected to predict fleet-wide porpoise bycatch in gillnets at regional level. Between 2010 and 2020, yearly total bycatch averaged 2088 animals (95% Cl: 667-6798). For the Western Baltic assessment unit, bycatch levels were above sustainability thresholds. These results demonstrate that fishing characteristics are key determinants of porpoise bycatch and that classical approaches ignoring these features would produce biased estimates. It emphasizes the need for efficient and informative monitoring methods to understand possible conservation impacts of marine mammal bycatch and to implement tailored mitigation techniques.

Pontoon trap for salmon and trout equipped with a seal exclusion device catches larger salmons.

The growing seal populations of the Baltic have led to more frequent interactions with coastal fisheries. The motivation for seals to interact with fishing gear is high. It provides high densities of fish. A successful means of mitigating the conflict is the pontoon trap. Seal visits here have been frequent. Seals have access to most parts of the trap system including the middle chamber, which is an overhead environment. Concerns have been raised about seals possible entanglement in this specific part of the trap. As a means of keeping seals from entering the middle chamber, two different Seal Exclusion Devices (SEDs) were tested. A diamond mesh SED and a square mesh SED, which was rotated 45°. The aim was to compare the functionality of the different SEDs with respect to seal deterrent abilities and catch composition. The hypothesis tested were (i) that seals would not be able to enter the middle chamber, (ii) that the catch would increase and (iii) that the SED would deter larger fish from swimming into the middle chamber. Catch data and underwater film were collected. Larger salmons were caught in traps equipped with SEDs. The SEDs did not affect the number of caught fish or the total catch per soak day.