Reducing -trawl Bycatch in : An Overview and an Example from Queensland

J. B. ROBINS, M. J. CAMPBELL, and J. G. MCGILVRAY

Introduction sharks, and sea turtles. Bycatch varies zation of the impact of trawling on the spatially and seasonally in Australian ecosystem (Anonymous, 1998). Australian prawn-trawl fi sheries em- prawn-trawl fi sheries, with the ratio of The drowning of sea turtles in trawl ploy small-scale industrial fl eets rang- bycatch to generally being low nets of northern Australia has been sug- ing from owner-operator vessels of 10 (3.5:1) in temperate-water fi sheries and gested to be the cause of the decline m in length to large company-based high (15:1) in tropical-water fi sheries of the nesting population of logger- fl eets with vessels up to 40 m in length. (Dredge, 1988; Harris and Poiner, 1990; head turtles, Caretta caretta, in eastern Fleet composition varies between fi sh- Andrew and Pepperell, 1992; Pender et Australia (Limpus and Reimer, 1994). eries. Otterboard trawling for prawns al., 1992; Carrick, 1997). Many bycatch It is estimated that a combined total and scallops occurs in the coastal waters could be of commercial value, of about 11,000 sea turtles are caught of most states of Australia (Fig. 1). but the remoteness of the fi sheries, the annually in the northern prawn fi shery In Australia, bycatch is that part high cost of freezing and storing the and the Queensland east coast trawl of the catch that is not kept for mar- catch onboard, and the lack of orga- fi shery (Poiner et al., 1990; Robins, keting but is returned to the sea for nized markets for these species has led 1995; Poiner and Harris, 1996). Mor- economic, legal, or personal reasons. to high value-per-unit species becom- tality rates of trawl caught turtles are It may include fi sh, , mol- ing the retained catch. estimated to be between 1% and 14%, lusks, echinoderms, sponges, stingrays, depending on the duration of the tows Australian Overview associated with particular locations The authors are with the Queensland Department Prawn-trawl fi sheries within Austra- within these fi sheries (Robins, 1995; of Primary Industries, Southern Fisheries Centre, lian waters are highly regulated com- Poiner and Harris, 1996). The main P.O. Box 76, Deception Bay, Queensland 4508, Australia. Corresponding author is J. B. Robins, pared with other countries, and all are species of sea turtle caught in Aus- email: [email protected] limited-entry fi sheries. Bycatch issues tralian prawn-trawl nets are fl atback in northern Australian prawn-trawl fi sh- turtles, Natator depressus; loggerhead eries focus predominantly on unwanted turtles; green turtles, Chelonia mydas; ABSTRACT —Prawn trawling occurs in most states of Australia in tropical, subtrop- fi sh bycatch and the incidental capture and olive ridley turtles, Lepidochelys ical, and temperate waters. Bycatch occurs and mortality of sea turtles in trawl nets olivacea. Of these, the loggerhead turtle to some degree in all Australian trawl fi sher- (Table 1). Bycatch issues in southern is listed as endangered at both state ies, and there is pressure to reduce the levels Australian prawn-trawl fi sheries focus and Commonwealth levels and is the of trawl fi shery bycatch. This paper gives predominantly on unwanted fi sh and focus of a national recovery plan a brief overview of the bycatch issues and technological solutions that have been eval- bycatch (Table 1). (Anonymous, 1999). Furthermore, the uated or adopted in Australian prawn-trawl There are several reasons why by- Commonwealth “Endangered Species fi sheries. Turtle excluder devices (TED’s) catch issues in Australian prawn-trawl Protection Act 1992” and the nomi- and bycatch reduction devices (BRD’s) are fi sheries have received considerable nation of trawling as a “key threaten- the principal solutions to bycatch in Aus- tralian prawn-trawl fi sheries. This paper attention over the past decade. Most ing process” has provided an additional focuses on a major prawn-trawl fi shery of Australian fi sheries management agen- means of pressuring the prawn trawl- northeastern Australia, and the results of cies have a legislative mandate to ensure ing industries of northern Australia to commercial use of TED’s and BRD’s in that trawl fi sheries comply with the mitigate their catch of endangered sea the Queensland east coast trawl fi shery principles of ecological sustainable turtles. are presented. New industry designs are described, and the status of TED and BRD development (ESD), such as the Com- The U.S. embargo of caught in adoption and regulation is summarized. The monwealth “Fisheries Management Act nets without TED’s created some addi- implementation of technological solutions 1991” and the Queensland “Fisheries tional pressure on Australian prawn fi sh- to reduce fi shery bycatch is assumed gener- Act 1994.” Many Australian prawn- eries to address their catch of sea turtles. ally to assist prawn-trawl fi sheries within Australia in achieving legislative require- trawl fi sheries also have legislation or However, most Australian prawn-trawl ments for minimal environmental impact policies that require a reduction in the fi sheries were not directly infl uenced by and ecological sustainable development. take of nontarget species and a minimi- the U.S. embargo, because the majority

46 Marine Fisheries Review Table 1.—Bycatch issues within Australian prawn-trawl fi sheries and the status of adoption of TED’s and BRD’s.

Fishery Bycatch issues Key initiators Technological solutions

Queensland east coast1 Sea turtles and fi sh, since the Conservation driven but Mandatory TED’s in 7 areas as of 1 May 1999; mandatory BRD’s in daytime late 1980’s supported by industry trawling by early 1999 Torres Strait Sea turtles, unwanted fi sh bycatch Conservation driven Voluntary use and testing of TED’s and BRD’s Northern Prawn Sea turtles, unwanted fi sh bycatch Conservation driven but Compulsory use of TED’s and BRD’s 1 April 2000 since the late 1980’s supported by industry Western Australia: Kimberley Jellyfi sh Industry driven Voluntary use of grids coast Western Australia: Fish, seaweed, and Industry driven Voluntary grid and BRD trials Exmouth Gulf since 1996 Western Australia: Shark Bay1 Sea turtles and crabs since 1996 Industry driven TED and BRD research trials in progress South Australia: Spencer Gulf Crabs and fi sh since the mid 1980’s Industry driven Voluntary use of bags, mandatory areas closures, grid and BRD trials and West Coast South Australia: Gulf of Small prawns and fi sh since 1995 Industry driven Voluntary use of square-mesh codends at selected times St. Vincent New South Wales: estuaries Fish since late 1980’s Government driven, Voluntary use of BRD’s (Nordmore grid) at selected times and places supported by industry New South Wales: oceanic Fish since late 1980’s Government driven, Voluntary use of BRD’s (square-mesh panels) at selected times and places supported by industry

1 Fisheries either entirely or partially within a “World Heritage Area.” of Australian prawn catch is exported to Asia (ABARE, 1998). “World Heritage” status has brought increased scrutiny of commercial fi shing practices, especially trawling operations, to ensure that the exploitation of fi sher- ies resources do not occur at the expense of the quality of the ecosystem. Two Australian prawn-trawl fi sheries occur within “World Heritage Areas,” these being the Great Barrier Reef World Her- itage Area in Queensland, and the Shark Bay World Heritage Area in Western Australia. World Heritage status implies that the listed area has fi xed cultural and natural properties of such outstanding value, from a global perspective, that the site listed should be conserved and protected for the benefi t of all humanity (Valentine et al., 1997). Although the bycatch of unwanted fi sh has been an issue for a long time, pressure to reduce the capture of noncommercial Figure 1.—Trawl fi sheries of Australia for prawns and scallops (ABARE, 1998) species has increased recently. Reduc- ing fi shery bycatch had been addressed bycatch within the fi shery (Table 1). 1) were the fi rst Australian prawn-trawl primarily through the use of techno- For example, square-mesh panels are fi sheries to have legislative deadlines logical gear solutions, such as turtle voluntarily used during oceanic trawl- for the compulsory use of TED’s and excluder devices (TED’s) and bycatch ing in New South Wales for eastern BRD’s. In the Queensland east coast reduction devices (BRD’s). Additional king prawns, plejebus, to allow trawl fi shery, TED’s and BRD’s are ways to reduce the overall bycatch of the escape of unwanted fi sh bycatch being phased-in over 2 years (Anony- prawn-trawl fi sheries have been achieved (Broadhurst and Kennelly, 1997), while mous, 1998), and legislation supporting through the reduction in the number of crab-bags and grids have been used in these requirements in the Queensland days fi shed or specifi cations of allowable Spencer Gulf, South Australia, to remove east coast trawl fi shery was gazetted fi shing gears (i.e. smaller nets). Many blue swimmer crabs, Portunus pelagi- in April 1999. TED’s were made com- TED’s and BRD’s are being used in var- cus, from the catch (Carrick, 1997). pulsory on 1 May 1999 in seven areas ious fi sheries, depending on the reason The Queensland east coast trawl fi sh- where the risk to sea turtles of trawl for reducing bycatch and the type of ery and the northern prawn fi shery (Fig. capture and drowning is appreciable.

61(3), 1999 47 A multiple-agency risk assessment pro- geographic area from lat. 10°30′S to local community and commercial fi sh- cess has reviewed additional areas in 28°00′S, and includes areas of the ermen. The capture of unwanted species which TED’s may be needed. Likewise, continental shelf, major shallow-water and the subsequent “waste” of these BRD’s were made compulsory as of embayments, and the Great Barrier is an issue common through- 1 May 1999 during all daytime prawn Reef World Heritage Area. Between out the fi shery, although the magni- trawling in the Queensland east coast 85,000 and 95,000 boat-days of fi shing tude of the problem varies considerably trawl fi shery. The next phase of BRD effort are recorded each year (Williams, between sectors. The incidental capture regulation involves all trawlers work- 1997). Landings are about 10,000 t, of protected species such as sea turtles ing within 9.26 km (5 n.mi.) of the being valued at between A$120 and and sea snakes is also an issue through- Queensland east coast using BRD’s. A$130 million per year (Williams, out the fi shery, but again varies spa- TED’s and BRD’s will be compulsory 1997). About 890 vessels are licensed tially in its extent. on all trawlers working within the north- to trawl on the Queensland east coast, ern prawn fi shery from the commence- most of which are owner/operators or TED’s and BRD’s ment of fi shing in 2000. This regulation small family companies. Commercial Several research projects have eval- was approved by the Australian Fish- catch includes 12 species of penaeid uated TED’s and BRD’s in the eries Management Authority in early prawn (Table 2), two species of scallop, Queensland east coast trawl fi shery 1999. Amusium spp., and one species of whit- (Robins-Troeger, 1994; Mounsey et al., TED’s and BRD’s are loosely defi ned ing, Sillago robusta. Also retained, but 1995; Robins-Troeger et al., 1995; for the Queensland east coast trawl fi sh- not usually targeted, are blue swimmer McGilvray et al., 1998; Robins and ery, but are more prescriptively defi ned crabs, P. pelagicus; shovel-nosed lob- McGilvray, 1998; Goeden1). These for the northern prawn fi shery. The aim sters, spp.; and squids, Photo- research trials suggested varying de- of TED and BRD defi nitions in both loligo spp. and Sepioteuthis spp. grees of effi ciency of the bycatch reduc- fi sheries is to allow fl exibility in design Several bycatch issues are common tion technology (Table 3). However, during the initial phase of compulsory throughout the Queensland east coast the location of the trial and the asso- use of TED’s and BRD’s. There is a trawl fi shery. Confl ict is most preva- ciated quantity and composition of the need to ensure that the designs devel- lent when trawling occurs adjacent to bycatch was probably the most infl u- oped by the fi shing industry are effi cient population centers where recreational ential factor determining the effi ciency and effectively meet the desired targets fi shing is popular or when there is a con- of a particular device in a particular of a 95% reduction in sea turtle bycatch fl ict over resource allocation (i.e. blue location (Robins and McGilvray, 1998). (Anonymous, 1999) and the reduction swimmer crabs) between overlapping Research trials could never encompass of unwanted fi sh bycatch (Anonymous, sectors of the commercial fi shing indus- the range of fi shing locations and con- 1998; NORMAC, 1998). The compul- try. Concerns about impacts on benthic ditions in which the Queensland east sory use of bycatch reduction tech- communities and habitat structure are coast trawl fi shery operates. nology in these fi sheries has received common throughout the fi shery, except Several industry members took an the support of the respective fi shing for oceanic areas where the sea fl oor is interest in developing devices to reduce industry associations and representative predominantly sand. This is a particu- fi shery bycatch. The devices varied bodies. This has been achieved through larly prominent issue in the Great Bar- depending on the need of the particular a long-term, collaborative approach rier Reef World Heritage Area, where fi sherman. Some fi shermen developed between government agencies and the public expectation and scrutiny of the grids to exclude turtles, rays, sponges, commercial fi shing industry to develop fi shery is high (Tanzer et al., 1997). and jellyfi sh, because these animals acceptable and practical solutions to Bycatch discarded from vessels trawl- were caught frequently or because the reducing fi shery bycatch. ing inshore can wash up on public value of their target catch could be It is diffi cult to generalize the his- beaches causing confl ict between the increased markedly (e.g. the collection tory and adoption of bycatch reduction of live leader prawns as broodstock for technology in Australian prawn-trawl Table 2.—Penaeid prawn species taken by the Queens- the industry). fi sheries, as each fi shery has unique land east coast otter trawl fi shery. Despite research trial success and characteristics that have molded the pro- Species Common name the success of individuals, only a hand- cess of gear development and adoption. ful of the 900 or so vessels in the Penaeus plebejus Eastern king prawn We use the Queensland east coast trawl Penaeus merguiensis Banana prawn Queensland east coast trawl fi shery had fi shery as an example of an Australian Penaeus longistylus Red spot king prawn adopted TED’s or BRD’s by 1996. To prawn-trawl fi shery where TED’s and Penaeus latisulcatus Blue-legged king prawn promote and encourage the use of TED’s Penaeus esculentus Brown tiger prawn BRD’s have been adopted. Penaeus semisulcatus Grooved tiger prawn and BRD’s throughout trawl fi sheries Leader prawn, giant tiger prawn of northern Australia, a broad exten- Queensland East Coast Metapenaeus ensis Red endeavour prawn Trawl Fishery Metapenaeus endeavouri Blue endeavour prawn Metapenaeus macleayi School prawn 1 The Queensland east coast trawl Metapenaeus bennettae Greasyback prawn Goeden, G. 1985. An evaluation of the trawl effi - Trachypenaeus spp. Hardback prawn ciency device in Queensland waters. Queensland fi shery covers a large and diverse Dep. Primary Ind. Internal Rep., 16 p.

48 Marine Fisheries Review Table 3.—Summary of bycatch reduction gear tests in the Queensland east coast.

Performance of TED’s or BRD’s vs. standard trawl nets

Prawn catch Bycatch No. of Trial category Gear Fishery conditions1 tows Mean Range2 Mean Range2 Comments

Research vessel, Morrison soft TED3 Subtropical, estuarine 20 –29% –46% to – 7% –32% –46% to –14% Tendency to clog with seaweed research trials Subtropical, estuarine 20 –18% –31% to –2% –2% –21% to +21% and crabs in estuarine areas Subtropical, oceanic 23 –8% –30% to +20% –21% –38% to –1% Subtropical, oceanic 17 –19% –33% to –5% –13% –34% to +2%

Research vessel, AusTED4 Subtropical, estuarine 21 –9% –32% to +20% –18% –32% to 0% Tested in a limited number of research trials Subtropical, oceanic 27 –1% –25% to +32% –19% –33% to –1% areas, no problems with clogging Subtropical, oceanic 19 –2% –26% to +30% –12% –27% to +7% encountered Subtropical, coastal 13 +3% –57% to +149% –55% –68% to –36%

Commercial vessel, AusTED II5 Subtropical, estuarine 40 –3% –9% to +3% –16% –22% to –10% Worked well in “clean” grounds, but research trials Subtropical, oceanic 20 –9% –16% to –2% –15% –27% to –2% tended to clog with sponges and Tropical, coastal 8 –1% –9% to +7% –31% –45% to –14% starfi sh, leading to prawn losses Tropical, inter-reef 8 –36% –46% to +23% –49% –56% to –40%

Commercial vessels, Super shooter TED6 Tropical, inter-reef 12 –5% –25% to +20% No data No data Excludes turtles, stingrays, and supervised gear trial Tropical, coastal 15 +6% –7% to +21% 0% –18% to +21% sharks; can become clogged with starfi sh

Commercial vessels, Seymour TED6 Tropical, inter-reef 40 –3% –13% to +8% –15% –24% to –5% Clogging with large rocks, sponges, supervised gear trial and starfi sh is only a problem in selected areas; frequent exclusion of sponges appears to be corre- lated with prawn loss; effi ciently ex- cluded large animals

Commercial vessel, Monofi lament BRD6 Daytime, coastal 35 0% –36% to +55% –39% –51% to –25% Very similar in design to the U.S. research observer expanded-mesh BRD, consistently excludes fi sh bycatch, no clogging occurs, manufacture is labor inten- sive, well respected design by commercial fi shermen

Commercial vessel, Neil Olsen BRD6 Tropical, coastal 14 –6% –21% to +13% –20% –45% to +27% Has been used commercially in research observer tropical, inter-reef areas with no marked prawn losses; reductions in bycatch were less consistent; ability to exclude animals affected by visibility conditions, i.e. light, water clarity

Commercial vessel, Bigeye BRD Tropical, coastal 19 +3% –15% to +24% 0% –16% to +19% Excludes swimming animals, i.e. research observer sharks, stingrays, and some fi sh species; ability to exclude animals affected by visibility conditions, i.e. light, water clarity, and possibly trawl speed; used commercially by a proportion of the banana trawl fl eet

1 Prawn trawling in the Queensland east coast trawl fi shery is predominantly a night time activity. Fishery conditions will include night time trawling unless specifi cally stated as daytime. 2 Range based on 95% confi dence interval of mean difference between standard and modifi ed trawl nets. A – indicates the modifi ed nets had reduced catch relative to the standard net, and a + indicates the modifi ed nets had an increased catch relative to the standard net. 3 Robins-Troeger, 1994 4 Robins et al., 1995 5 Robins and McGilvray, 1998 6 Queensland Department of Primary Industries, unpubl. data on fi le at the Southern Fisheries Center, P.O. Box 76, Deception Bay, Qld 4508, Aust. sion project was initiated in mid 1996 commercial conditions. Previous expe- As expected, TED’s were very effi - (Robins, 1997). The aim of the project rience suggested that TED’s and BRD’s cient in excluding large animals such was to inform fi shermen of the available needed to suit the different trawling as rays, Rhynchobatus spp. and Dasys- technology to reduce fi shery bycatch, conditions of the Queensland east coast tis kuhluii; sea turtles, and sharks. The how this technology could make trawl- trawl fi shery (i.e. estuarine, coastal, effect of TED’s upon catch rates of ing more effi cient and “environmentally oceanic, interreef, deepwater, daytime, other bycatch species, such as unwanted acceptable,” and to provide a low-cost nightime). Research staff custom-made fi sh and sea snakes, was more vari- means of evaluating bycatch reduction TED’s and BRD’s to suit individual able, as indicated in the large range of technology in commercial prawn fi sher- fi shermen and, where possible, assisted bycatch rates observed during research ies of northern Australia. The extension them in commercial testing of the gear at and commercial tests (Table 3). Sig- program offered overseas and locally sea. Results of these commercial super- nifi cant reductions in bycatch were developed TED’s and BRD’s on loan vised gear trials of TED’s and BRD’s observed during tests of the AusTED, to trawl operators for evaluation under were variable (Table 3). AusTED II, and the Seymour TED,

61(3), 1999 49 but these were often associated with cally a very large fi sheye that can be ularly suitable for conditions in More- some degree of reduction in the com- sewn anywhere in the body of a trawl ton Bay (lat. 27°S, long. 153°E) was mercial prawn catch (Table 3). The net (Fig. 2, 3). Bigeyes were designed the ability to change the spacing of the best results were observed during test- to exclude unwanted fi sh bycatch from defl ector bars of the TED by having a ing of the AusTED (subtropical coastal trawls during fi shing for banana prawns. dual frame system (Fig. 2). This TED is conditions), and the monofi lament Fishing for banana prawns forms one fi shed with 64 mm bar spacings when BRD, where bycatch was consistently sector of the Queensland east coast jellyfi sh are abundant, and the second reduced, but mean prawn catches were trawl fi shery, and occurs mostly during grid is removed, giving a grid with 127 not reduced (Table 3). Many of the the day in shallow, turbid waters adja- mm bar spacings, while fi shing in areas TED’s tested achieved promising cent to rivers, creeks, and bays. It is where blue swimmer crabs are retained results, in terms of retaining prawn associated with the Queensland wet as marketable catch. The design also catches, until trawling operations moved season between January and July. Prom- includes a gusset between the outer into areas where sponges and starfi sh inent fi sh bycatch species3 include pony frame of the grid and the fi rst defl ec- were common. These species tended fi sh, Leiognathus spp.; croaker, Joh- tion bar, providing a tie-off point for the to clog against the bars of the TED’s, nieops vogleri; trevally, Caranx para; escape hole. This improves the robust- which resulted in reductions in the grunter, Pomadasys maculatum and Ter- ness of the installation of the grid, pos- prawn catch (Table 3). The BRD’s tested apon theraps; and hairtail, Trichiurus sibly preventing slipping of the meshes in the Queensland east coast trawl fi sh- lepturus. and subsequent changes in grid angle. ery were not observed to clog with Preliminary feedback from the fi sh- TED’s have been adopted by about 80% sponges or starfi sh, as the design of the ery indicates that about 30% of the of the fl eet in the particular area of devices are very different to the physi- banana-prawn fl eet installed and used Moreton Bay (Queensland, Australia), cal barrier of a TED. This is one fea- a Bigeye BRD during the 1998 fi shing mostly because of the benefi ts of TED’s ture that makes BRD’s more attractive season. Anecdotal reports suggest that during times of high jellyfi sh abun- than TED’s to Queensland fi shermen. unwanted fi sh bycatch was usually dance. However, an additional benefi t Of the BRD’s tested, the greatest reduc- reduced by between 30% and 40% has been the exclusion of sea turtles tion in unwanted bycatch, especially during daytime fi shing. At night or in (which are a frequent catch: i.e. more fi sh bycatch, occurred during daytime extremely turbid water, exclusion rates than 1 per 5 nights of fi shing) and sting- trawling (Table 3). Anecdotal reports were between 10% and 15%, and were rays (i.e. more than 1 per night). from Queensland fi shermen who have less consistent (Table 3). Fishermen tested BRD’s suggests that this is a also reported a reduction in the catches Uptake of TED’s and BRD’s common result. of sea turtles, sea snakes, sharks, and It has taken several years for opera- stingrays in nets fi tted with the Bigeye tors within the Queensland east coast Industry Solutions to BRD. The ready acceptance and use of trawl fi shery to embrace the concepts Fishery Bycatch this local design is due to several fac- and technology associated with TED’s The supervised gear tests on com- tors in its advantage over other BRD’s: and BRD’s. Voluntary use of TED’s mercial vessels and port displays of has been restricted to individuals and TED’s and BRD’s inspired several local 1) It is simple and cheap to install, selected areas where TED’s are seen to operators to test and develop their own 2) It has no rigid parts, have advantages. Legislative deadlines designs (Fig. 2). Most are based on 3) It can be any size and can therefore have provided incentive for the majority modifi cations or refi nements of TED’s allow large animals (i.e. stingrays) of vessels within the Queensland east and BRD’s used in the United States of to escape, and coast trawl fi shery to consider using America (Watson et al., 1994). This may 4) It can be sewn into any part of the TED’s. BRD’s for fi sh exclusion have be because the Queensland east coast trawl forward of the codend, unlike been viewed much more favorably by trawl fi shery is more similar in fi shing most other BRD’s. the commercial trawling industry. Local operations and species caught to the designs were the catalyst for the uptake penaeid shrimp fi sheries of the south- The Wicks TED is basically a fl at, of BRD’s by a signifi cant portion of eastern United States than to the tem- rectangular grid, being curved on one the Queensland east coast trawl fi shery. perate-water groundfi sh and pandalid side (Fig. 2). It was designed primarily Again, legislative deadlines for BRD’s shrimp fi sheries of northern Europe, to exclude jellyfi sh from trawl nets by have provided incentive for the remain- where square-mesh and the Nordmore2 retired fi sherman Kevin Wicks. A mod- der of the fl eet. grid are predominantly used (Briggs, ifi cation to this design that was partic- 1992; Isaksen et al., 1992). Conclusion Two Queensland designs are of note, 2 Mention of trade names or commercial fi rms TED’s and BRD’s are currently the the John Olsen Bigeye and the Wicks does not imply endorsement by the National main solutions to the issue of prawn- TED, mostly because of their wide- Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. trawl fi shery bycatch in Australia. The 3 Queensland Department of Primary Industries spread adoption by Queensland fi sher- unpubl. data on fi le at Southern Fisheries Center, greatest advances in adoption rates have men. The John Olsen Bigeye is basi- P.O. Box 76, Deception Bay, Qld. 4508, Aust. occurred after respected individuals

50 Marine Fisheries Review Figure 2.—TED’s and BRD’s designed or evaluated in the Queensland east coast trawl fi shery. within the fi shing industry have devel- bycatch. The use of the new technology advantages and effi ciency with which oped or modifi ed gear that reduces clearly demonstrates to their peers the TED’s and BRD’s can work when mod-

61(3), 1999 51 Figure 2.—Continued. ifi ed for local conditions. In hindsight, seas experiences in the development reduces fi shery bycatch (Tucker et al., Australia benefi ted greatly from over- and implementation of technology that 1997).

52 Marine Fisheries Review Figure 2.—Continued.

In general, we have little understand- that will emanate from the use of TED’s Australia. Even if monitoring of these ing of the potential ecosystem effects and BRD’s in trawl fi sheries of northern ecosystems occurs, it will be diffi cult to

61(3), 1999 53 Figure 3.—Queensland try net (3.66 m headline) fi tted with a John Olsen Bigeye BRD, being examined in the fl ume tank of the Australian Maritime College (photo by G. Day). separate changes in the ecosystem due turtles in Australia. Environ. Aust., Canberra, population in decline. In R. James (Editor), 108 p. Proceedings of the Australian Marine Turtle to the use of TED’s and BRD’s from Andrew, N. L., and J. G. Pepperell. 1992. The Conservation Workshop, p. 39–59. Aust. the environmental variations prevalent by-catch of shrimp trawl fi sheries. Oceanogr. Nature Conserv. Agency, Canberra. in northern Australia. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 30:527–565. McGilvray, J. G., R. P. Mounsey, and J. Mac- Briggs, R. P. 1992. An assessment of nets with a Cartie. 1998. The AusTED II, an improved square mesh panel as a whiting conservation trawl effi ciency device1. Design theories. Fish. Acknowledgments tool in the Irish Sea Nephrops fi shery. Fish. Res. 841:1–11. Res. 13:133–152. Mounsey, R. P., G. A. Baulch, and R. C. Buck- Much of the work reported upon Broadhurst, M. K., and S. J. Kennelly. 1997. The worth. 1995. Development of a trawl effi ciency in this paper is the consequence of composite square-mesh panel: a modifi cation device (TED) for Australian prawn fi sheries I: the Fisheries Research and Develop- to codends for reducing unwanted bycatch and the AusTED design. Fish. Res. 22:99–105. increasing catches of prawns throughout the NORMAC. 1998. Northern prawn fi shery bycatch ment Corporation’s (FRDC) Effects of New South Wales oceanic prawn-trawl fi sh- action plan. N. Prawn Fish. Advis. Committ., Trawling Subprogram. The support of ery, Australia. Fish. Bull. 95:653–664. Aust. Fish. Manage. Authority, Canberra, Carrick, N. 1997. A preliminary assessment of 21 p. FRDC and that of organizations collab- the bycatch from the Spencer Gulf prawn fi sh- Pender, P. J., R. S. Willing, and D. C. Ramm. 1992. orating in Project 96/254, such as the ery. S. Aust. Res. Dev. Inst., S. Aust. Fish. Northern prawn fi shery bycatch study: distri- Australian Maritime College and the Assessment Ser. 97/02, 57 p. bution, abundance, size and use of bycatch Dredge, M. C. L. 1988. Bycatch from the cen- from the mixed species fi shery. Dep. Primary Commonwealth Scientifi c and Indus- tral Queensland prawn fi sheries. Part 1. The Ind. Fish., N. Territory, Fish. Rep. 26, 70 p. trial Research Organisation (CSIRO) prawn fi sheries and their bycatch composition Poiner, I. R., R. C. Buckworth, and A. N. H. Division of Marine Research, is grate- in terms of species and community assem- Harris. 1990. Incidental capture and mor- blages. Queensland Dep. Primary Ind., Fish. tality of sea turtles in Australia’s northern fully acknowledged. Res. Branch Tech. Rep. FRB 88/4, 45 p. prawn fi shery. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. Harris, A. N., and I. R. Poiner. 1990. By-catch of 41:97–110. Literature Cited the prawn fi shery of Torres Strait; composition ______and A. N. H. Harris. 1996. Incidental and partitioning of the discards into compo- capture, direct mortality and delayed mortal- ABARE. 1998. Australian fi sheries statistics— nents that fl oat or sink. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwa- ity of sea turtles in Australia’s northern prawn 1998. Aust. Bur. Agric. Resour. Econ., Aust. ter Res. 41:37–52. fi shery. Mar. Biol. 125:813–825. Gov. Print., Canberra, 51 p. Isaksen, B., J. W. Valdmarsen, R. B. Larsen, and Robins, J. B. 1995. Estimated catch and mortal- Anonymous. 1998. Queensland trawl fi shery, pro- L. Karlsen. 1992. Reduction of fi sh by-catch ity of sea turtles from the east coast otter trawl posed management arrangements 1998–2005. in shrimp trawl using a rigid separator grid in fi shery of Queensland, Australia. Biol. Con- Queensland Fish. Manage. Authority, Bris- the aft belly. Fish. Res. 13:335–352. serv. 74:157–167. bane, Aust., 40 p. Limpus, C. J., and D. Reimer. 1994. The logger- ______. 1997. The adoption of bycatch reduc- ______. 1999. Draft recovery plan for marine head turtle, Caretta caretta, in Queensland: a tion gear technology: a Cook’s tour. In Asia-

54 Marine Fisheries Review Pacifi c Fishing ‘97, p. 91–95. Baird Publ., Tanzer, J., M. Elmer, and T. Healy. 1997. Fisheries Turia and C. Daliston (Editors), The Great Melbourne, Aust. management in the Great Barrier Reef region. Barrier Reef: science, use and management a ______and J. G. McGilvray. 1998. The In N. Turia, and C. Daliston (Editors), The national conference, p. 382–395. Great Barrier AusTED II, an improved trawl effi ciency Great Barrier Reef: science, use and manage- Reef Mar. Park Authority, Townsville, Aust. device 2. Commercial performance. Fish. Res. ment a national conference, p. 298–308. Great Watson, J., I. Workman, D. Foster, C. Taylor, A. 842:1–13. Barrier Reef Mar. Park Authority, Townsville, Shah, J. Barbour, and D. Hataway. 1994. Status Robins-Troeger, J. B. 1994. Evaluation of the Aust. report on the potential of gear modifi cations to Morrison soft TED: prawn and bycatch varia- Tucker, A. D., J. B. Robins, and D. P. McPhee. reduce fi nfi sh bycatch in shrimp trawls in the tion in Moreton Bay, Queensland. Fish. Res. 1997. Adopting TEDs in Australia and the southeastern United States 1990–1992. U.S. 19:205–217. USA: what differences are there in technology Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- ______, R. C. Buckworth, and M. C. L. transfer, promotion and acceptance. Coastal SEFSC-327, 131 p. Dredge. 1995. Development of a trawl effi - Manage. 25:405–421. Williams, L. 1997. Queensland’s fi sheries ciency device (TED) for Australian prawn Valentine, P., T. Webb, H. Marsh, and P. Lucas. resources. Current condition & recent trends fi sheries II: fi eld evaluations of the AusTED. 1997. The Great Barrier Reef: multiple-use 1988–1995. Queensland Dep. Primary Ind., Fish. Res. 22:107–117. marine park and world heritage site. In N. Brisbane, 101 p.

61(3), 1999 55