4.3 Article

Implications of recreational fishing for elasmobranch conservation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/aqc.1056

关键词

elasmobranch conservation; Great Barrier Reef; recreational fishing; shark; ray

资金

  1. James Cook University through the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences
  2. Fishing and Fisheries Research Centre
  3. Australian Government's Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. 309 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park recreational fishers were surveyed to examine recreational catch and harvest of elasmobranchs and to explore recreational fishers' handling behaviour and attitudes. 2. Elasmobranchs represented 6% of fishers' total catch of all fish (including released individuals), and 0.8% of fishers' total harvest (i.e. retained individuals) across all survey days. The majority of elasmobranchs caught by fishers were released, primarily because they were perceived as being inedible. 3. Recreational fishers' self-reported handling and release behaviour for elasmobranchs is largely consistent with 'best practice' guidelines except that fishers had low use of circle hooks and barbless hooks, and a significant proportion (33%) reported using stainless steel hooks. 4. Most fishers had positive attitudes towards elasmobranchs, placing high importance on releasing sharks and rays in good condition (86%), high value on their existence (84%), and low value on catching them (63%). 5. Results indicate that post-release mortality is probably the largest source of recreational fishing mortality of elasmobranchs in the Great Barrier Reef. Future research should be targeted at obtaining better estimates of species-specific post-release mortality levels, understanding how post-release survival can be increased by changing fishing techniques or fisher behaviour, and developing more effective methods of engaging fishers in elasmobranch conservation. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据