Use catch and hook protection devices on fishing gear

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    43%
  • Certainty
    42%
  • Harms
    10%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Five studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using catch and hook protection devices on fishing gear. Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean (Chile, Australia and Fiji), two were in the Indian Ocean (Seychelles, Madagascar) and one was in the Southwest Atlantic Ocean.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (5 STUDIES)

  • Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (1 study): One study in the South Pacific Ocean found that using cage or chain devices on fishing hooks resulted in fewer unwanted catches of toothed whales.
  • Human-wildlife conflict (5 studies): Two of four studies (including three controlled and one before-and-after study) in the South Pacific Ocean, the Southwest Atlantic Ocean and the Indian Ocean found that net sleeves or cage and chain devices on fishing hooks reduced damage to fish catches by sperm whales, killer whales and toothed whales. The two other studies found that attaching ‘umbrella’ or ‘spider’ devices on fishing hooks did not reduce predation and/or damage to fish catches by sperm whales or toothed whales. One controlled study in the Indian Ocean found that attaching catch protection devices made from streamers to fishing lines reduced Indo-Pacific bottlenose and spinner dolphin predation on fish bait, but only during the first two trials.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A before-and-after study in 2002 and 2006 of a pelagic area in the South Pacific Ocean, Chile (Moreno et al. 2008) reported that using net sleeves on fishing hooks resulted in less sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus and killer whale Orcinus orca damage to catches of Patagonian toothfish Dissostichus eleginoides. Results are not based on assessments of statistical significance. The average percentage of fish damaged/haul by sperm or killer whales was lower when net sleeves were used on fishing hooks (0.4%) than when conventional fishing gear without net sleeves were used (3%). Eleven industrial vessels targeting Patagonian toothfish each deployed 99–120 ‘long line’ fishing lines. Each deployment consisted of a main line with vertical branch lines (15–20 m long) and hooks at 40 m intervals. A cone-shaped net sleeve (1–1.2 m long) on each branch line covered caught fish during hauling. Fish damaged by whales were recorded by fishers and onboard observers as each line was hauled in September–December 2006. Data for 2002 were taken from a previous study in which the same area was fished with conventional ‘long line’ fishing gear without net sleeves (see original paper for details).

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled study in 2007–2008 of two pelagic areas in the Southwest Atlantic Ocean (Goetz et al. 2011) found that using ‘umbrella’ devices on fishing hooks did not reduce sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus predation or damage to catches of Patagonian toothfish Dissostichus eleginoides. The proportion of hauls in which toothfish were taken or damaged by sperm whales did not differ significantly between fishing lines with all hooks covered by ‘umbrella’ devices (0–17% of hauls) and fishing lines with two-thirds or half of the hooks covered (0% and 8–16% respectively). Fewer toothfish were caught on hooks with ‘umbrella’ devices than on those without (data not reported). A total of 297 ‘long line’ fishing lines (each with 900–3,000 hooks) were deployed across two fishing areas with different proportions of hooks (all, two-thirds or half) covered by ‘umbrella’ devices. ‘Umbrella’ devices were cone-shaped net sleeves (1.5–2 m long) that covered caught fish during hauling. An observer on board the fishing vessel recorded catches and whale-damaged fish or hooks during each of the 297 hauls in November–April 2007/2008.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A controlled study in 2007 of a pelagic area in the Indian Ocean off the Seychelles (Rabearisoa et al. 2012) reported that using ‘spider’ devices on fishing hooks did not reduce toothed whale (Odontoceti) predation and damage to fish catches. Results are not based on assessments of statistical significance. The proportion of fish damaged by toothed whales was higher on hooks protected with ‘spider’ devices (4 of 6 fish, 67%) than on unprotected hooks (8 of 15 fish, 53%). Fishing trials were carried out by a ‘long line’ fishery targeting tuna Thunnus spp. and swordfish Xiphias gladius. On each of 13 days, two fishing line sections were deployed, each with 480 hooks and 27–126 ‘spider’ devices (one device on every 2–4 hooks). Devices (8 x 120 cm polyester strands attached to a plastic disc on the branch line) were designed to automatically trigger and cover hooked fish. Fish damage by toothed whales (ragged wounds, torn flesh, conical tooth marks) were recorded during each of the 26 hauls in November–December 2007.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A controlled study in 2010–2013 of two pelagic areas in the South Pacific Ocean, Australia, and Fiji (Hamer et al. 2015) reported that using cage or chain devices on fishing hooks resulted in fewer catches of toothed whales (Odontoceti) and fewer whale-damaged fish. Results are not based on assessments of statistical significance. Overall, fewer whales were caught on hooks with cage or chain devices (0 whales) than on hooks without devices (4 whales). Whale-damaged fish were recorded on fewer hooks with cage or chain devices (3 hooks) than on those without (24 hooks). Catch rates of the five most abundant target fish species did not differ significantly between hooks with or without the devices (see original paper for data). Seven fishing vessels deployed a total of 94 ‘long line’ fishing lines (34–42 km long) across two areas during eight trips. Each fishing line consisted of a treatment section (<1,000 branch lines with cage or chain devices attached to alternate hooks, each separated by a hook without a device) and a control section (<1,000 branch lines without devices). Devices were set to automatically trigger and cover caught fish with two steel chains or a cone-shaped nylon and aluminium cage. An observer on board each fishing vessel recorded catches and entangled whales during each of 94 hauls in 2010–2013.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A controlled study in 2011 in coastal waters in the Indian Ocean, off Reunion Island, near Madagascar (Rabearisoa et al. 2015) found that attaching catch protection devices made from streamers to fishing lines reduced Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin Tursiops aduncus and spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris predation on fish bait, but only during the first two hauls. Fishing lines with streamers attached had a lower proportion of fish partly or fully removed by bottlenose dolphins (15–26%) or spinner dolphins (3–15%) than lines without streamers (bottlenose dolphins: 50–68%; spinner dolphins: 24–65%) during the first two hauls. The proportion of partly or fully removed fish on lines with and without streamers did not differ significantly for four subsequent hauls with bottlenose dolphins present (with: 8–40%; without: 10–24%) and one subsequent haul with spinner dolphins present (with: 3%; without: 18%). Twenty ‘long line’ fishing lines (500 m long) baited with small fish were deployed in coastal waters. Each had 40 branch lines with streamers attached and 40 without. Streamers were 8 x 1 m lengths of tarpaulin (four of which were weighted) attached to the branch line above the fish. Fish status (intact, partly, or fully removed) on each branch line was recorded during six hauls with bottlenose dolphins present and three hauls with spinner dolphins present in March–June 2011.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Berthinussen, A., Smith, R.K. and Sutherland, W.J. (2021) Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Conservation Evidence Series Synopses. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation
Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation - Published 2021

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Synopsis

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust