sign in sign up
<<
Home , Arctic ringed seal, Caspian seal, Grey seal, Leopard seal, Lobster fishing, Mediterranean monk seal

revieo

o era ional in erac ions 1111111111111 eeeninnies an isenes

4

111111111111

mumlomni

111111111

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FAO rvìe 1c) TECHNICAL o sraticnall inter ctions PAPER et sonnnìe s anfisenes

FISHERIES BRANCH LIBRARY FIDI NF 220 52174

by Paai A. Wickens Research Institute University of Cape Town Rondebosch 7700 South Africa

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Rome, 1995 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, , city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

M-40 ISBN 92-5-103687-X

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, Publications Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, .

0 FAO 1995 PRETAilATION OF THE DOC

Although the FAO recognizes the competence of the International Commission in matters related to the management of whales, the FAO has a clear interest in marine when they are caught as (and thus their conservation) and their predationon commercially valuable as it affects the supply of fish for manldnd.

FAO's mandate, as it relates to marine mammals, is mainly executed through the Fisheries Resources and Environment Division. Among other responsibilities, this division is concerned with setting and monitoring environmental standards for protecting resources, fish habitats and fisheries. Clearly, in many areas, fisheries and the capture of marine mammals form common areas of activity. FAO has been responsible for, and involved in, a number of programs that either directly or indirectly, address the five activity areas expressed for the protection of marine mammals by the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation, Management and Utilization of Marine Mammals'. This plan was developed between 1978 and 1983 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the FAO.The objective of the plan was to promote the effective implementation of policies for conservation, management and utilization of marine mammals which would be widely acceptable to governments and the public.

This publication, which has been prepared through an author's contract, is a contribution to research on problems arising from interactions between fisheries and marine mammals, in this case .We hope that it will help managers and others to improve methods of and provide a valuable reference for future workers.

The cover page has been illustrated by M. Picker.

Distribution:

FAO Fisheries Department Marine Sciences General Author

UNEP 1988. Marine Marrunals Plan of Action: Evaluation of its Development and Achievements. UNEP Reg. Seas. Rep. Stud. No. 102. 43pp. iv

Wickens, P.A. A review of operational interactions between pinnipeds and fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 346. Rome, FAO. 1995. 86p.

ABSTRACT

This review documents the available literature on /fisheries operational interactions, including as much infoiiiiation as possible from both scientific papers and local reports. Seven areas are examined worldwide and the status of thespeciesfound throughout theseareasisreviewed.Theinteractions detrimental to fisheries are described in terms of the extent of depredation, gear damage and disturbances during passive and active net, trap and line fishing and fish farming. The mortality of pinniped is detailed in terms of numbers dying during each of the different types of fishing operation.Mitigation measures that have been tried in different areas are discussed.

Interactions occur throughout the world and vary greatly in extent and in their impact on either a fishery or pinniped population, ranging from an infrequent interaction in a specific area to large-scale problems causing population declines or substantial economic losses. Thirty six of the total of forty-five pinnipeds have been recorded as being involved in some form of interaction with fishing operations or fish fauns. Fourteen interactions involve pinnipeds only and have no effect on fisheries. No interactions are recorded as being only detrimental to the fisheries and not to the pinnipeds involved. Nine pinnipeds have no recorded interactions with fishing operations. CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT iv

IN'TRODUCTION

NORTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN 4 2.1 General Situation 4 2.2 Detrimental Effects on Fisheries 5 2.2.1 Depredation 5 2.2.2 Gear Damage 8 2.2.3 Disturbance of Operations 10 2.3 Detrimental Effects on Seals 10 2.3.1 Incidental Entrapment 10 2.3.2 Deliberate Killing 19 2.4Mitigation Measures 20

NORTHWEST 21 3.1 21 3.2 Detrimental Effects on Fisheries 22 3.2.1 Depredation 22 3.2.2 Gear Damage 23 3.2.3 Disturbance of Operations 23 3.3 Detrimental Effects on Seals 24 3.3.1 Incidental Entrapment 24 3.3.2 Deliberate Killing 26 3.4 Mitigation Measures 26

NORTHEAST A 1LANTIC OCEAN 26 4.1 Regional Description 26 4.2 Detrimental Effects on Fisheries 27 4.2.1 Depredation 27 4.2.2 Gear Damage 30 4.2.3 Disturbance of Operations 31 4.3 Detrimental Effects on Seals 32 4.3.1 Incidental Entrapment 32 4.3.2 Deliberate Killing 35 4.4 Mitigation Measures 36 vi

NORTHWEST PACIFIC OCEAN 37 5.1 Detrimental Effects on Fisheries 37 5.1.1 Depredation 38 5.1.2 Gear Damage 38 5.1.3 Disturbance of Operations 38 5.2 Detrimental Effects on Seals 39 5.2.1 Incidental Entrapment 39 5.2.2 Deliberate Killing 41 5.3 Mitigation Measures 42

SOUTH PACIFIC/ATLANTIC OCEANS 42 6.1 Species Distribution 42 6.2 Detrimental Effects on Fisheries 43 6.2.1 Depreciation 43 6.2.2 Gear Damage 43 6.2.3 Disturbance of Operations 44 6.3 Detrimental Effects on Seals 44 6.3.1 Species Affected 44 6.3.2 Incidental Entrapment 44 6.3.3 Deliberate Killing 45 6.4 Mitigation Measures 46

SOUTH ATLANTIC/INDIAN OCEANS 47 7.1 Species Distribution 47 7.2 Detrimental Effects on Fisheries 47 7.2.1 Depredation 47 7.2.2 Gear Damage 49 7.2.3 Disturbance of Operations 49 7.3 Detrimental Effects on Seals 50 7.3.1 Incidental Entrapment 50 7.3.2 Deliberate Killing 51 7.4 Mitigation Measures 51

SOUTH INDIAN/PACIFIC OCEANS 52 8.1 Species Situation 52 8.2 Detrimental Effects on Fisheries 53 8.2.1 Depredation 53 8.2.2 Gear Damage 53 8.2.3 Disturbance of Operations 54 8.3 Detrimental Effects on Seals 54 8.3.1 Incidental Entrapment 54 8.3.2 Deliberate Killing 56 8.4 Mitigation Measures 56 vii

CONCLUSIONS 57 9.1 Introduction 57 9.2 Quantification of Interactions 57 9.3 Summary of Extent of Interactions 58 9.4 Mitigation Measures 59

LITERATURE CITED 64

TABLES

Species and common names for all extant pinnipeds and the IUCN Red List (1993) status of the species 2

Summary of reported cases, of pinnipeds interacting with fishing operations.. . 60

Summary of reported cases, of fishing operations/fish farms causing mortality of pinnipeds 61

Summary of reported cases of pinnipeds interacting with different types of fishing gear in different areas 62

5 Summary of reported cases of different types of fishing gear in different areas affecting pinnipeds through mortality/entanglement. 62

IGURE

. Distribution of pinnipeds throughout the world, the geographic areas used 3

1. INTRODUCTION

Pinnipeds and fisheries interact in a number of ways and these interactions may affect either the pinnipetl, the fishery or both. Broadly there are two forms of interaction. A "biological" or "ecological" interaction in which pinnipeds and fisheries both utilise the same resource/s resulting in potential competition between the two which is mutually disadvantageous, although not necessarily equally so. An "operational" or "direct" interaction is that in which pinnipeds and fisheries interfere with one another during fishing operations resulting in a cost to the fisheries through loss or damage to catch, damage to fishing gear and disturbance of operations, and incidental or deliberate mortality, injury or harassment of the pinnipeds.

"Biological" interactions have been discussed by many authors and in various forums (eg, Melteff and Rosenberg 1984, Beddington et al. 1985, Malouf 1986, Butterworth and Harwood 1991, UNEP 1992). In this review only "operational" interactions are considered, je, the direct losses incurred during fishing operations by fisheries and pinniped populations. There are at least two related areas of interaction that are neither "biological" nor "operational";one influencing fisheries catches and the other having a detrimental effect on pinnipeds. The first is the transmission of parasites from pinnipeds to fish resulting in reduced quality of fish (IUCN 1981, Harwood and Greenwood 1985, Malouf 1986, Bonner 1989) and the other is the entanglement of pinnipeds in discarded or lost fishing gear causing pinniped mortality (Shaughnessy 1980, Henderson 1984, Fowler 1987, Stewart and Yochem 1987, Scialabba 1989, Croxall et al. 1990, Shomura and Godfrey 1990, Pemberton et al. 1992).

Other related reviews of pinniped/fisheries operational interactions have been either of specific areas or worldwide reviews relating to all or specific fishing operations, and may consider pinnipeds in general or certain pinniped in particular. Such reviews have came from commissioned studies, reviews or workshops, and are often the result of pressure from those with interests in fisheries, je, fishing industries, or those with pinniped stocks in mind, je, conservation groups (Mate 1980, IUCN 1981, Contos 1982, Miller et al. 1983, Northridge 1984, 1988, 1991a, b, Beddington et al. 1985, Malouf 1986, Montgomery 1986, Woodley and Lavigne 1990, 1991, Young et al. 1993, Mattlin 1994b, Wickens 1994b, Barlow et al. in press).

Pinnipeds are an order comprised of three families with a total of 33 extant species and a number of subspecies, resulting in a total of 45 distinguishable pinnipeds (Table 1). Otariidae or "eared" seals include 5 extant species of sea and 9 species of seal. Phocidae or "true seals" include 18 extant species. The has just one species, the .

This review is divided into seven different geographic regions on the basis of the distribution of pinniped species and the research that has been carried out on interactions in different regions (Figure 1). The region has been excluded as there are no reported interactions there, except where they occur at fishing operations near populated landmasses, in which case they are considered within the relevant geographic region. There are twofur seal species and 4 "true" seal species in the Southern Ocean. These include fur seals (310 000 seals calculated from Croxall and Gentry 1987), fur seals (L6 million seals and increasing, Boyd 1993), 2

Table 1

Species and common names for all extant pinnipeds and the IUCN Red List (1993) status of the species. "Endangered" :species in danger of extinction and whose survival is unlikely if the causal factors continue operating. "Vulnerable": species likely to move into the "Endangered" category in the near future if the causal factors continue operating."Rare": species with small world populations that are not at present "Vulnerable" but are at risk."Insufficiently known": species that are suspected to belong to one of the above because of lack of information.

COMMON NAME SPECIFIC NAME STATUS Sea Steller's (Northern) Eumetopias jubat US Vulnerable sea lion californianus californianus Galapagos sea lion Zalophus californianus wollebaeki South American (Southern) sea lion Otaria byronia cm crea Rare Hooker's () sea lion Phocarctos hookeri Vulnerable

Fur seals Northern (Pribilof) fiir seal Callorhinus ursinus Guadalupe townsendi Vulnerable Galapagos fiir seal Arctocephalus galapagoensis Juan Fernandez fur seal Arctocephalus philipii Vulnerable South American fiir seal Arctocephalus australis gracilis South African (Cape) fiir seal Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus Australian (Tasmanian) fur seal Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus New Zealand fur seal Arctocephalus tropicalis Arctocephalus gazella

True seals Halichoerus grypus Eastern Atlantic harbour (common) seal vitulina vitulina Western Atlantic harbour (common) seal Phoca vitulina con color Western Pacific harbour (Kuril) seal Phoca vitulina stejnegeri Eastern Pacific harbour (corrunon) seal Phoca vitulina richardsi Ungava seal Phoca vitulina mellonae Insufficiently known Phoca groenlandica Larga (spotted) seal Phoca largha Phoca hispida hispida Okhotsk Sea ringed seal Phoca hispida ochotensis Baltic ringed (Baltic) seal Phoca hispida botnica Vulnerable Saimaa seal Phoca hispida saimensis Endangered Ladoga seal Phoca hispida ladogensis Vulnerable Phoca caspica Vulnerable Phoca sibirica Phoca fasciata Cystophora cristata Atlantic Erignatus barbatus barbatus Pacific bearded seal Erignatus barbatus nauticus Mediterranean Monachus monachus Endangered Monachus schauinslandi Endangered Southern Mirounga leonina Mirounga angustirostris Leptonychotes Ommatophoca rossii Lobodon carcinophagus seal Hydrurga leptonyx

Walruses Atlantic walrus Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus Pacific walrus alobenus rosmarus divergens 3

1: NORTHEAST PACIFIC 2: NORTHWEST 3: NORTHEAST ATLANTIC 4: NORTHWEST PACIFIC Steller's sea lion ATLANTIC Grey seal Stokers sea lion Grey seal Eastern Atlantic harbour seal Northern fur seal Western Atlantic harbour seal Harp seal Western Pacific harbour seal Ungava seal Larga seal Eastern Pacific harbour seal Harp seal Baltic ringed seal Arctic ringed seal Larga seal Arctic ringed seal Saimaa seal Okhotsk ringed seal Arctic ringed seal Hooded seal Ladoga seal Baikal seal Ribbon seal Atlantic bearded seal Caspian seal Ribbon seal Pacific bearded seal Atlantic walrus Hooded seal Pacific bearded seal Hawaiian monk seal Atlantic bearded seal Pacific walrus Northern elephant seal Pacific walrus Atlantic walrus

5: SOUTH PACIFIC / ATLANTIC 6 : SOUTH ATLANTIC / INDIAN 7: SOUTH INDIAN / PACIFIC Galapagos sea lion South African fur seal Australian sea lion Hooker's sea lion Galapagos fur seal Australian fur seal Juan Femandez fur seal New Zealand fur seal Antarctic tur seal § Wodell seal Leopard seal

Fig. 1: Distribution of pinnipeds throughout the world (shaded area), the geographic areasused in this report and the species occurring in each of these areas. Freshwater species are given in italics.Southern Ocean species are shown in outline text (§ = also breeds inSouth America) and are only shown where they are involved in interactions with fishing operations in any of the seven designated areas. 4

Southern elephant seals (70 000 - 800 000 although some of these are also found in South America (Area 5), calculated from Reijnders et al. 1993), Weddell seals (more than 750 000 seals, Reijnders et al. 1993), Ross seals (more than 130 000, Erickson and Hanson 1990), Crabeater seals (more than 10 million seals, calculated from Reijnders et al. 1993) and Leopard seals (more than 300 000 seals, Erickson and Hanson 1990).

The purpose of this report is to document as much literature as possible on pinniped/ fisheries operational interactions to form a bibliography of work done in this field; to give some idea of the scale of interactions in different areas; to provide a summary of the key fishing methods and pinniped species that are involved in interactions; to examine mitigation methods that have been attempted to alleviate interactions, and finally to synthesize common problems throughout the world. Every effort has been made to acquire as much of the relevant literature as possible. Much of the literature is not accessible in scientific papers as much information is often found only in the "grey literature" or in papers on other related issues. Most of the literature reviewed is that written in English.

Within each region a brief description is given of the pinniped stocks involved, their stock sizes and trends. The types of fisheries affected or affecting pinnipeds in the region are outlined in terms of being either passive (static, fixed) gear which are anchored or left to drift to catch fish as they approach it (eg, gill nets, longlines, fish or traps) or active (ie, mobile) gear which is towed or moved so that fish are intercepted in some way (eg, trolled lines, lampara nets, trawls, seines purse-seines). The interaction between pinnipeds and fisheries is described with separately for each area. The detrimental effects on fisheries is separated into depredation (g,. seals taking fish from lines or nets), gear damage (eg, seals brealdng tackle from lines or tearing nets), and disturbances to fishing operations (eg, the presence of seals causing fish to disperse).The detrimental effects of fishing operations on pinnipeds are described in terms of incidental entrapment in fishing gear causing drowning and deliberate killing by fishermen. In each area mitigation measures that have been attempted to address problems are described. The review concludes with a synthesis of the problems of quantifying interactions and making comparisons between studies, a synthesis of the species, areas and fishing operations involved and of the mitigation measures that have been tried.

2. THE NOR EAST PACIFIC OCEAN

2.1General Situation

The Northeast Pacific includes the west coast of North America, the west portion of the north coast of North America, the and the Hawaiian islands and the small portion of South America that falls above the equator (FAO area 67 and part of 18 and 77). Two species/subspecies of sea lion, two species of fur seals, seven "true" seal species/subspecies and a subspecies of walrus are found in this region.

Steller's sea lion is found along the west coasts of and the USA, including the 5

Aleutian Islands with a population size in the area of 55 000 which is decreasing(Reijnders et al. 1993) and is listed as "Vulnerable" in the 1993 IUCN Red List. This species is consideredto have been seriously affected by fishing operations and incidental catches and shooting of Steller'ssea lions have been suggested as causing the decline in the Alaslcan population (Loughlinand Nelson 1986, Merrick et al. 1987, Loughlin 1989, Perez and Loughlin 1991). Californiasea lions are found along the coast from Mexico to and havean increasing population size in excess of 145 000 (Le Boeuf et al. 1983).

Northern fur seals are found along the entire west coast of Canada and the USA with a population size of 904 000 in this area (Reijnders et al. 1993).The species is threatened by mortality from entanglement in driftnets (Fowler 1982, Reijnders et al. 1993). The Guadelupe fur seal is found on the Guadelupe Islands and has an estimated population size of 7 348 animals. The population is increasing (J. Gallo, pers. comm.).

The Eastern Pacific harbour seal is found along the Aleutian Islands, down the west coast of Canada and the USA. It has a population size in this area of approximately 380 000 animals (from Reijnders et al. 1993). Large seals are found along the Alaskan coast and form a proportion of the population of 135 000 (Popov 1982). Arctic ringed seals are found along the Aleutian Islands and the Alaskan coast and are a proportion of the Bering Sea population of 70 000 - 80 000 (Reijnders et al. 1993). Ribbon seals are found along the Aleutian Islands and the Alaskan coast animals in this region are a proportion of the Bering Sea population of 60 000 animals (Popov 1982). Pacific bearded seals are found along the Alaskan coast and are a proportion of the Bering Sea population of 250 000 animals (Popov 1982). Hawaiian monk seals are found only in Hawaii and have a population size of 1 500 seals. Interactions during fishing are cause for concern (Reijnders et al. 1993) and the species is described in the 1993 IUCN Red list as "Endangered". Northern elephant seals are found along the coasts of , British Columbia, mainland USA and Mexico and have a population size of 25 000 which is increasing (Reijnders et al. 1993). The Pacific walrus is found in Alaska and is a proportion of the Pacific population of 230 000 animals (Gilbert 1989).

2.2Detrimental Effects on Fisheries

Of the 12 pinnipeds found in this area, 4 (Steller's sea lions, California sea lions, Eastern Pacific harbour seals and Hawaiian monk seals) are involved in detrimental interactions with passive and active net fishing and active line fishing in different areas.

2.2.1 Depredation

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

In gill net fisheries fish caught may be lost or damaged, sometimes rendering them unsaleable, as a result of Steller's sea lions, California sea lionsand harbour seals in areas ranging from Alaska down to Mexico (eg, Mate 1979, Fiscus 1980, Everitt and Beach 1982, Malouf 1986, Obee1987, 6 Hoover 1988, Loughlin 1991, Reijnders et al. 1993, Young et al. 1993).

On the Copper River Delta in Alaska, Imler and Sarber (1947) estimated that some 2% of netted was damaged by harbour seals. In 1977 Matkin (1978) reported that salmon gill net fishermen from the Copper River had 8.3% of their fish damaged (2.1% of the damage by harbour seals and 6.2% by Steller's sea lions), representing a loss of $517 per boat or $230 000 for the fleet of 44 boats in the area. In 1978 Matkin and Fay (1980) estimated that seals, mostly harbour seals, and to a lesser extent Steller's sea lions, damaged fish in the summer Coghill fishery.Harbour seals caused all of the damage in the Copper-Bering autumn fishery, reducing the potential value of salmon catches by approximately 2.3% ($210 000). During 1988 a field survey showed that 3% and 0.3% of salmon in nets on the Copper River Delta were damaged by harbour seals and Steller's sea lions respectively, although fishermen reported that only 1.8% of salmon were damaged by either of these seal species (Wynne 1990). Although damage from Steller's sea lion was less frequent it was more damaging than from harbour seals and fishermen indicated that 82% of salmon damaged by sea lion was unmarketable.Only 10% of salmon damaged by harbour seal was unmarketable (Wynne 1990). During 1988 Wynne (1990) conservatively estimated financial loss due to depredation from salmon drift nets to be less than 1% of the ex-vessel value of salmon landed (approximately $250 000).

In the Skeena , British Columbia, in the 1940's the damage to salmon by harbour seals was estimated to be 7-12% of the salmon catch and was worst when were being caught ( 1952). In Hecate Strait, British Columbia, in 1962 it was estimated that there was a $54 loss per fisherman from damage to gill-netted salmon attributable to Steller's sea lions (Bigg cited in Mate 1980).

In Washington, Scheffer and Slipp (1944) recorded a fisherman as landing only two saleable fish out 13 gilled salmon, the others having been destroyed by seals. In southern Puget Sound, Washington, in 1984 driftnet caught chinook salmon that were unsaleable because of seals attack, ranged from 61.5% of catches in the first week of the season to 1.6% in the week of peak catches, averaging 2.9% between July and September.During this time the income from the fish was reduced by $4 669 (Geiger and Jeffries 1987).By 1985, in the same area, unsaleable chinook ranged from to 1.2% - 22.2% of the catch, averaging 3.1% of the catch during which time the value of fish that was unsaleable amounted to $2 946 (Geiger and Jeffries 1987). Damage rates to set-netted chinook were initially zero and ranged up to 54.5%, averaging 11.3% of the catch with a value of $750 (Geiger and Jeffries 1987).

On the , in Oregon, examination of salmon deliveredto a processing plant during 1972-77 revealed that 1.0-2.3% of those fish examined were damaged by harbour seals, with value amounting to approximately $60 000/year.The percentages were higher in summer and spring, and there figures are underestimates because heavily damaged, unsaleable, fish were not included (Hirose 1977). In test fisheries on the Columbia River (although test fishing does differ from because only a single boat is fishing at a time) all forms of pinnipecl damage affected about 13% of catches between 1972 to 1980 (Everitt et al. 1981). Damage to gill- netted salmon was particularly severe when salmon runs were low and could reach 25-30% of the 7 catch whereas during other more abundant runs the damage was only 1.4%. Themore sustained fisheries experienced damage rates of 5-10% of the catch (Everitt et al. 1981). The minimum loss during the 1980 gill net fishery from damaged fish was estimated at over $100 for all areas considered in the study (Everitt et, al. 1981). On the Columbia River in 1981, the pinniped damage rate to spring chinook and steelhead in the April test fishery at Woody Island was 44.7% in 1980 (Beach et al. 1981). On the Columbia River, harbour seals damaged 5.3% of sold from the fall gill net fishery in 1980 and 15.4% in 1981 (Beach et al. 1985). In the winter gill net seasons of 1980, 1981 and 1982 harbour seals in combination with California sea lions damaged to 8.1%, 4.6% and 2.2% of the chinook salmon landed (Beach et al. 1985). In the Youngs Bay terminal fishery off the Columbia in Oregon, in 1980 and 1981 harbour seals damaged 5.2% and 9.0% of the chinook catches and 2.7% and 1.9% of the coho catches respectively, for a total salmon damage of 3.7% and 5.5% in these years, respectively (Beach et al. 1985).

In northern California an unknown amount of depreciation by sea lions occurred in the Klamath River gill-net fishery. The problem was most severe in geographic areas, near seal haul- outs (Miller et al. 1983). Herder (1983) reported that 13.2% of salmon were damaged in the Klamath River gill net fishery, of roughly $34 077 in value, or $831 per fisherman in 1979/80.

Apart from these salmon fisheries, various other fisheries utilising gill nets lose fish to seals. Log books from 58 vessels of Pacific fishery in Cape St Elias and the from 1958/1960 indicated 8.1% of fish caught were damaged or destroyed and, extrapolated to the whole fleet, losses attributable to Steller's sea lions were estimated at $ 500 000 (Bell 1961). In the gill net and trammel net sea lions were estimated to take 12.5% of the catch in waters off Baja California and in southern California most of the 2.2% lost was taken by California sea lions (Miller 1981). Miller et al. (1983) estimated losses from gill net fisheries in 1979/80 for halibut of $ 46 640 (10%), white seabass $ 7 480 (4%) in California, $39 000 (10,2%) in Mexico, rockfish $2 600 (1,4%), white croaker $2 978 (7,1%), barracuda $330 (2,2%), bonito$1270 (6,5%) and flying fish $200 (6,4%). Miller et al. (1983) noted that during observationsin 1979/1980 California sea lions also took from gill nets in California.

Active Net Fishing

Steller's sea lions, California sea lions and harbour seals are involved ininteractions with round haul (lampara and purse-seine) nets. In Alaska, the Japanese haveestimated that 50% of sablefish caught in purse-seine nets Kodiak region and 20-30% of catchin the Bering Sea, south of the is damaged by Steller's sea lions (Burns citedin Mate 1980). In Washington harbour seals take fish in the purse-seine net fisheries (Mate1980). In Yaquina Bay, Oregon, California sea lions are reported to cause some minor damage tothe herring round-haul fishery (Brown 1988). In California, are reported to be takenfrom purse-seines by California sea lions (Mate 1980). In the years 1979/1980 sea lions wereobserved to take herring from lampara and round haul nets in California but since this Pacific herringfishery operates on a quota system, if the quota is filled there is only a loss in time, as more timewill be required to catch the quota (Miller et al. 1983). 8

Active Line Fishing

Steller's sea lions, California sea lions and Hawaiian monk seals take line-caught fish during various types of active line-fishing along the North American west coast and in Hawaii, (Fiscus 1980, Everitt et al. 1981, Everitt and Beach 1982, DeMaster et al. 1982, 1985, Malouf 1986, Montgomery 1986, Hanan et al. 1989, Loughlin 1991). In British Columbia seals take salmon from sport fishermen and anglers at times have reported losing as many as 4 out of 5 hooked fish to seals (Obee 1987). In Oregon on the Columbia River, salmon severely damaged by harbour seals amounted to 15% of the catch in test fishing in 1976 and 30% in 1977; unsaleable salmon represented 5% of the catch in 1976 and 12% in 1977 (Mate 1980).

In the Klamath River, northern California, Herder (1983) reported that in the sport hook and line fishery in 1979/80 less than 1% of salmon and a similar incidence for surfperch, were damaged amounting to little cost in terms of lost fish. In Monterey Bay, California in 1969 California sea lions damaged 4% of the caught fish by salmon trollers for an estimated cost of as much as $122 000 annually and representing 2.6% of the ex-vessel landings (Briggs and Davis 1972). California sea lions were estimated to take roughly 2.5% of the catch in southern California, from the commercial sport-boat fishery, with the value of fish and gear loss varying between $37 000 and $38 800, over 6% in Baja California and a negligible amount in central California (Miller 1981). In California in 1979/80, sea lions were estimated to cost the hook and line fishery $1500 through a depredation rate of 0.44% (Miller et al. 1983). In 1979/80 California sea lions were estimated to depredate 1.9%, 0.32%, 0.02-0.18% and 0.1% of salmon caught by the California commercial salmon troll, partyboat, recreational skiff and salmon and steelhead river fisheries at a cost of $274 000, $6 000, $2 300 and an unknown amount respectively (Miller et al. 1983). Sea lion depredation was also estimated to cost the partyboat fishery for bottomfish $27 000 in 1980(Miller et al. 1983). Hanan et al. (1989) showed that over a five-year period (1984 - 1988) California sea lions consistently took similar numbers of fish during each commercial passenger sport fishing trip but the frequency of sea lion depredation declined over the years.

In Hawaii, monk seals are occasionally seen taking hooked fish from bottomfish fishing lines or near lobster fishing vessels (MMC 1993). During 46 monitored fishing trips, 2 Hawaiian monk seals were seen to take hooked opelu from lines before they could be retrieved (Humphreys 1981).

2.2.2 Gear Damage

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

In gill net fisheries from Alaska southwards to California, gear damage results from interactions with Steller's sea lions, California sea lions and harbour seals in different areas (eg, Fisher 1952, Hirose 1977, Mate 1979, 1980, Everitt et al. 1981, O'Hara et al. 1986, Loughlin 1991, Reijnders et al. 1993, Young et al. 1993).

In Alaska, salmon gill net fishermen from the Copper River suffered gear damage in 1977 9 amounting to $162 per boat or $72 OGO for the fleet(Matkin 1978). In the Copper River Delta spring salmon drift net fishery in Alaska, Matkinand Fay (1980) estimated that some $1501 I or 1.7% of the value of the fishery, was caused, mostly by Steller'ssea lions (80%), but also harbour seals. In 1988 net damage by seals in the CopperRiver Delta was also estimated to be mostly attributable to Steller's sea lion damage (> 84%) and theremainder to harbour seals (Wynne 1990). This damage was estimated to cost between $52 000and $155 000, although this is a conservative estimate because additional losses related tonet in efficiencies and lost fishing time during repairs could not be estimated (Wynne 1990). In Alaska,fishermen found that the Steller's sea lions also chewed marker buoys (Mate 1980)!

In British Columbia Steller's sea lions and Californiasea lions are reported to make holes of considerable size in the gear when talcing fish from gill nets (Malouf 1986). InHecate Strait, British Columbia, in 1962 estimated losses of $22 per salmon gill-net fisherman from damagedgear were attributable to Steller's sea lions (Bigg cited in Mate 1980).

In Oregon on the Columbia River in 1980 gill net fishermen experienced 0.6-2.2cases of gear damage for every 100 hours fished and in 1981 there were 50 instances of Californiasea lions causing damage to gill nets (Everitt and Beach 1982). In the Columbia River, approximately 40% of gill net damage was attributed to harbour seals and Californiasea lions during the winter fishing season of 1981 (IUCN 1981). California sea lions and harbour seals are also reported to significantly damage gear in the sport fishery in Oregon (Everitt and Beach 1982).

In the Klamath River, northern California in 1979-1980, Herder (1983) calculated that each fishermen lost $1600 worth of gill nets. In California in 1980, losses from gill net fisheries were estimated by Miller et al. (1983) to be $792 for , $24 071 for habilut, $1000 for white croaker and $382 for bonito.In 1979 and 1980 it was estimated that sea lions may have caused gear loss to the value of $5 000 in Pacific herring gill nets in California (Miller et al. 1983).

Active Net Fishing

California sea lions are reported to make holes in purse-seine nets in California (Mate 1980).

Active Line Fishing

California sea lions and harbour seals are involved in interactions with various forms of line fishing in California. Herder (1983) reported that in the Klamath River in northern California, the incidence of loss of bait, lures and broken leaders to harbour seals in the salmon sport hook and line fishery occurred, but was less than 1%, and amounted to less than $100 for the season in 1979 and 1980. In California in 1980, gear losses to California sea lions were estimated at $12 225 in the commercial salmon troll fishery and $360 in the salmon partyboat fishery (Miller et al. 1983). California sea lions were also estimated to cost $10 730 in 1980 through gear loss to the partyboat fishery for bottomfish in California (Miller et al. 1983). 10 2.2.3 Disturbance of Operations

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

California sea lions, harbour seals and Hawaiian monk seals interact with crab and lobster fisheries in different areas, disrupting fishing. In Oregon, California sea lions and harbour seals are reported to remove bait in the sport crab fishery to asignificant degree (Everitt and Beach 1982). In Hawaii, during 46 monitored lobster fishing trips, a Hawaiian monk seal was seen to tug at the night light used to attract lobster and in doing so chased away the lobster from the trap (Humphreys 1981).

Active Net Fishing

In California, California sea lions enter round haul nets before the bag reaches the boat and frighten fish out of the net; this is of more concern than depredation (Miller et al. 1983). California sea lions are also reported to make holes in purse-seine nets allowing fish to escape (Mate 1980).

Active Line Fishing

In California near San Diego, California sea lions may take the chum being used to catch fish during sport fishing (Hanan et al. 1989).

2.3Detrimental Effects on Seals

All of the 12 pinniped species found in this area (Steller's and California sea lions, northern and Guadelupe fur seals, Eastern Atlantic harbour, Larga, Arctic ringed, ribbon, Pacific bearded, Hawaiian monk and northern elephant seals and the Pacific walrus) are killed either incidentally or deliberately in passive and active nets and passive and active line fishing in various areas.

In an investigation of stranded pinnipeds in central and northern California from 1986 to 1992, 169 stranded live pinnipeds (155 California sea lions, 5 elephant seals, 5 harbour seals, 3 Guadelupe fur seals and 1Steller's sea lion) were found to have injuries related to fishing operations including 116 gun shot wounds, 33 gill net injuries, 13 with fishing tackle injuries and 2 with debris injuries (Barocchi et al. 1993).

2.3.1 Incidental Entrapment

Steller's Sea Lion

Steller's sea lions are caught incidentally caught and die during gill net and trawl fishing in various areas from Alaska southwards to California (eg, IUCN 1981, Mate 1982b, Herrick and Hanan 1988, Perez and Loughlin 1989). The total incidental Ici11 of Steller's sea lions from 1973 to 1988 has been estimated at 14 000 (Anon 1990b) but fewer have been killed in recent years - 11 Young et al. (1993) estimated that 27 sea lions were incidentally killed in Alaska in 1990 and 57 were killed in 1991.

In Alaska, during a 1977 pilot study, 40-50 Steller's sea lions were taken in salmon gill nets in the Copper River Delta and 10 were taken in Coghill District (Matkin and Fay 1980). During a salmon netting study in 1978, 8 Steller's sea lions were captured and released alive despite the Coghill District and none were drowned in the Copper River Delta (Matldn and Fay 1980). In a 15-week survey in 1988 a single Steller's sea lion was incidentally caught but was released alive in 387 salmon drift net sets in the Copper River Delta (Wynne 1990). In Prince William Sound and South Unimalc, Alaska driftnet and setnet fisheries for salmon, Steller's sea lions were reported to have been entangled but none died in 1990 (Wynne 1991, Barlow et al. 1990). In Prince William Sound in 1991, Wynne et al. (1992) reported 7 Steller's sea lions dyed. Incidental catches of Steller's sea lions were reported in the Cook Inlet driftnet and set net fishery for salmon but there were no incidental deaths in 1990 and 1991 (Barlow et al. in press).

In central California, halibut, , and gill net fisheries take fewer than 5 Steller's sea lions per year (Wild 1986); and just one was taken in 1986 in the halibut gill and trammel net fishery (Wild 1987). In the California /shark drift-net fishery Julian (1993) calculated that 8 Steller's sea lions died in 1992. Barlow et al. (in press) report that no Steller's sea lions were taken in the California swordfish/shark drift-net fishery in 1990, 1991 and 1993.

Since about 1954, Steller's sea lions have been taken in the foreign commercial trawl fisheries in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska (Loughlin and Nelson 1986) and there are reports of Steller's sea lions caught in the joint venture trawl, foreign and domestic trawlfisheries in the 1970's and 1980's (Loughlin et al 1983, Loughlin and Nelson 1986, O'Hara et al. 1986, Craig and Owen 1988, Loughlin 1990, Perez and Loughlin 1991, Loughlin 1991). Perez and Loughlin (1991) suggest that the annual incidental take in foreign and joint-venture trawl fisheries around Alaska declinedfrom peak levels of 1 000 - 2 000 Steller's sea lions in the early 1970's to less than 100 in 1988. Perez and Loughlin (1991) estimated that the average annual take of Steller's sea lions in the foreignand joint-venture trawl fisheries of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska regions inthe period from 1978 to 1988 was 595 animals and reached a maximum of 1756 sea lions in 1982. In the 1970's incidental mortality of Steller's sea lions exceeded 25 sea lions per 10 000 tonnesof fish catch in foreign fisheries in the Kodiak Island/Aleutian Islands area (Perez andLoughlin 1991). Loughlin et al. (1983) note that incidental mortality in foreign and joint venture fisheries inthe mid- 1980s was fewer than 500 Steller's sea lions annually. Estimates of Steller's sea lionincidental catch taken from NRC (1989), excluding live relea.sed and de-composedanimals, for the foreign and joint-venture trawl fishery were 2651 (1978-1987) and 2005 (1983-1987),respectively.The numbers declined from 978 in 1978 to just 5 in 1987 in the foreign trawlsand from 704 in 1983 to 83 in 1987 in joint-venture trawls. Young et al.(1993) reported that the joint venture trawl fisheries which have operated off Oregon, Washington, and northernCalifornia have taken approximately one Steller's sea lion every other year since 1976.

Over the period 1973-88, Steller's sea lions accountedfor 87% of the incidental mortality of marine mammals reported by observers aboard trawlers in theGulf of Alaska and eastern Bering 12

S-(Perez and Loughlin 1991). In the Bering Sea most were males whereas in the Gulf of Alaska, females were most frequently caught (Perez and Loughlin 1991). Loughlin and Nelson (1986) report that most females were mature and from a range of ages while the males caught were young. Seventy three percent of the sea lions were caught at night, probably during net retrieval (Loughlin and Nelson 1986).

The low catches from 1986 to 1988 resulted from the phase-out of foreign and joint-venture fisheries and an expansion of the U.S. domestic fishery (Loughlin 1990). Loughlin (1990) provided a preliminary estimate of an average of 121, and up to 395, sea lions caught in domestic trawl operations in the Bering Sea during 1988. Craig and Owen (1988) report that during the observation period from 1978-1988, 4 sea lions were caught in 1176 domestic trawls in 1980 of which one was released alive. 'C (1989) estimated that, excluding live released and decomposed animals, 294 Steller's sea lions were caught incidentally in the domestic trawl fishery between 1983 and 1987 increasing from 26 to 106 over the years.

Six experimental fishing operations off British Columbia between 1979 and 1988 resulted in a single Steller's sea lion being taken in 1987 (Jamieson and Heritage 1988).

California Sea Lions

California sea lions have been reported incidentally caught during passive net (gill net), active net (trawl and purse seine) and active line (troll) fishing all along the North American west coast (eg, DeMaster et al. 1982, Mate 1982a, Herrick and Harlan1988, Hanan et al. 1993, Reijnders et al. 1993). Lowry et al. (1992) give a figure of about 30 California sea lions, predominantly males, being incidentally lcilled in gill nets during winter in the Columbia River and some possibly also taken in other areas of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. In the Columbia River in winter 1981, 4 sea lions that became entangled in chinook gill nets died (Everitt and Beach 1982). Geiger (1985) estimated that in 1981, 45 sea lions were incidentally killed in the Columbia River gill net fishery for salmon.

Miller et al. (1983) estimated that in gill and trammel net fishing for halibut and angel sharks in California, 242 California sea lions were incidentally killed in the 1979/80 season. In the four years during the period 1983/84 and 1986/87, Hanan et al. (1988) and Hanan and Diamond (1989) estimate that 3427, 2244, 2207 and 4288 California sea lions, respectively, were incidentally killed. In the 1987/88 season, Konno (in press) estimate that 2 725 ± 486 California sea lions were killed in this fishery. Wild (1990) estimated that on average 15.2 sea lions died each year between 1980 and 1989 in gill and trammel net hauls for halibut in the region between Monterey and Bodega Bay.

Incidental catches of the California sea lions in monitored hauls of gill and trammel nets for halibut and angel sharks from central California were reported by Wild (1985, 1986, 1987); 8 sea lions were recorded caught in 298 net hauls during 1984; three sea lions were caught in 312 net hauls during 1985 and two sea lions were caught in 421 net hauls during 1986. For southern California, Collins et al. (1984, 1985, 1986) reported by-catches of sea lions in gill and trammel set nets for halibut, soupfin shark, angel shark and white seabass. Seventeen sea lions were 13 observed caught in 556 hauls during 1983; 15 sea lions were observed caught in 904 hauls during 1984 and 43 sea lions were observed caught in 795 hauls during 1985. Between 1983 and 1986, California set net fisheries alone were responsible for more than 8132 sea lion deaths (Collins et al. 1984, 1985, 1986, Wild 1985, 1986). Numbers are given of 847 (6 months of 1990), 1858 (1991), 3255 (1992), 1984 (1993) taken in this fishery (Lennert et al. 1991, Julian 1993, 1994, Barlow et al. in press).

Miller et al. (1983) estimated that 952 California sea lions were incidentally ldlled in shark drift gill nets in the 1979/80 season in California. Barlow et al. (in press) updated information of California sea lion mortality in California drift gill net fishery for swordfish and sharks from Diamond et al. (1986a, b, 1987) and Lennert et al. (1991) to provide figures of 5130 (4/1980- 3/1983), 917 (4/1983-3/1984), 232 (3/1984/1985) and 157 (4/1985-3/1986), 129 (4/1986-3/1987), 90 (7-12 1990) and 34 (1991). In California in 1992 and 1993, Julian (1993, 1994) calculated that 68 and 89 California sea lions died in the swordish/shark drift-net fishery, respectively. Miller et al. (1983) estimated that in the 1979/80 season, 7 California sea lions were killed incidentally in the Klamath River gill-net fishery in northern California and 15 California sea lionsdied in rockfish gill nets.

Overall, Barlow et al. (1990) estimated that some 2000 - 4000 California sea lions have been taken annually in California set net fisheries for halibut and angel sharks. Cranmore (1990) estimated that about 2250 sea lions are killed in California gill nets during a typical year. Perkins et al. (1992) gives figures of 3753 (1988/89), 2315 (Apr - Dec 1989), 2753 (1990) and 1865 (1991) California sea lions incidentally killed in California commercial gill net fisheries. Young et al. (1993) estimate that incidental mortalities in Washington, Oregon and California were 2983 in 1990 and 2043 in 1991.

Incidental mortality of California sea lions have also been reported in other fisheries. Incidental mortality of sea lions in 1979/80 in California was estimated by Miller et al. (1983) to be 20 in the purse seine net fishery for anchovy and , 10 in the purse seine fishery for squid and a maximum of 300 seals in 1980 in the commercial salmon troll fishery. Brown (1988) noted that in the Yaquina Bay purse seine herring fishery, sea lions normally escapefrom nets through the bottom or over the cork line before it is closed. From 1973 to 1988, only a single California sea lion was incidentally caught and died in foreign trawlers in the NorthPacific and eastern Bering Sea (Barlow et al. 1990, Perez and Loughlin 1991)and low numbers of California sea lions were reported to be taken in Pacific trawlfisheries in Oregon (Mate 1980). Miller et al. (1983) estimated that 25 California sea lions were killed incidentally in thetrawl fishery in the 1979/80 season in California.

Northem Fur Seals

Northern fur seals die incidentally during gill net (rarely in inshore but morefrequently in offshore) and trawl fishing in coastal and offshore waters alongthe northwest coast of North America (Mate 1980, O'Hara et al. 1986, Cranmore 1990,Loughlin 1991). Occasionally northern fur seals are taken during salmon drift netting (Everitt andBeach 1982). During observed sets in 14

1990 in Prince Williams Sound and South Unimalc, Alaska, 2 northern fur seals were entangled but broke free from drift and set nets for salmon (Wynne 1991). Young et al (1993) estimate that the total number of incidental deaths of northern fur seals in coastal Alaska, Washington, Oregonand California were 4 and 7 in 1990 and 1991 respectively. Around 200 northern fur seals are taken in offshore salmon drift nets per year, based on observations in the EEZ of the US (Cranmore 1988).

In a total of 45 sets of squid nets on Canadian research cruises using commercial size mesh between 1986 and 1989 a single northern fur seal was entrapped but it was released alive (Bernard 1986, LeBrasseur et al. 1987, 1988 and McKinnell et al. 1989). Between 1983 and 1987, Jamieson and Heritage (1988) and Barlow et al. (in press) report that a single northern fur seal was caught in Canadian offshore squid fishery trials in 1985 and 1987. In 1986 and 1987 US observers recorded a total of 30 (22 lcilled) northern fur seals caught in squid nets (Jones 1988).

Observers often recorded no incidental captures between 1973 and 1988 on foreign trawlers in the North Pacific and eastern Bering Sea and generally no more than 5 northern fur seals annually, except in 1984 when 17 were caught (Perez and Loughlin 1991, Loughlin et al. 1983). NRC (1989) reports that foreign trawlers have taken an estimated 192 seals over the period 1978 - 1987, with 45 taken in 1978, declining to zero in 1987. In the joint-venture fishery only 24 were taken between 1984 and 1987; in the domestic trawl fishery, 11 were caught between 1985 and 1987 (NRC 1989).

Guadelupe Fur Seals

Guadelupe fur seals die as a result of line fishing. Two out of six Guadelupe fur seals recovered in central California were found to have wounds from fishing hooks (Hanni et al. 1993).

Eastern Pacific Harbour Seals

Harbour seals are taken incidentally during gill net and trawl fishing in areas off Alaska, and southwards to California (eg, Miller 1981, Montgomery 1986, Herrick and Hanan 1988, Cranmore 1990, Hanan et al. 1993, Reijnders et al. 1993).Young et al. (1993) estimated that the total incidental mortality in Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California was 1153 in 1990 and 979 in 1991.

In the Copper River salmon net fisheries in the spring of 1978, 117 harbour seals were caught and died (Matkin and Fay 1980). In the Coghill District, 28 harbour seals were captured and died, and 24 were released alive (Matkin and Fay 1980). In the Copper-Bering fishery in the autumn of 1978, 44 harbour seals were captured; 11 died and 33 were released alive (Maticin and Fay 1980). In 15 weeks of survey in 1988 only a single harbour seal pup incidentally drowned in 387 salmon drift net sets in the Copper River delta (Wynne 1990). Wynne (1991) estimated that 36 harbour seals died in the Prince William Sound driftnet and set net fisheries for salmon in 1990 and Wynne et al. (1992) estimated that 20 harbour seals dyed in this fishery in 1991. For 1990, preliminary data indicate that only two harbour seals were taken in 3150 observed sets of Prince William Sound 15 drift and set-nets for salmon. Fishermen reported the catch of only one harbour seal in gillnet fisheries in southeastern Alaska; 5 harbour seals caught incidentally and a further 4 reported killed in set nets in Yakutat (Barlow et al. 1990, in press). Logbook data for 1990-1991 record 25 harbour seals deaths in the Bristol Bay, Alaska set and drift net fisheries for salmon. There were incidental deaths in 1990 and 1991 in the Cook Inlet, Alaska driftnet and set net fishery for salmon (Barlow et al. in press)

In the Columbia River in Oregon/Washington, Everitt and Beach (1982) reported that at least 51 harbour seals died in the salmon gill net fishery in 1980 and 4 died or were Idlled in 1981. Later it was estimated that 193, 334 and 210 harbour seals were incidentally caught in 1980, 1981 and 1982.Captures for the mid-1980's were estimated at 350 to 400 seals per year (Geiger 1985, O'Hara et al. 1986, NMFS 1992, Boveng 1988b, Beach et al. 1985). Fishermen reported that 24 harbour seals were taken in the Washington salmon gill net fisheries in 1989 (Gearin et al. 1990, Barlow et al. in press). In inland waters of Washington, an estimated 50 to 100 harbour seals are incidentally killed in the Puget Sound gill net fisheries per year (Boveng 1988b). During 1984 in the Columbia River gill net fishery, 5 harbour seals were observed incidentally caught and killed (Brown 1988).

In 1980, DeMaster et al. (1985) reported that 132 seals were caught and killed in gill nets, in California. A later estimate by Barlow et al. 1990, is that in California 1000 - 2000 harbour seal mortalities occur in the inshore net fishery and others die in mainly gill net fisheries.

In the Klamath River drainage in northern California, 18 out of 29 harbour seals recovered from the salmon gill net fishery in 1979/1980 were known to have died, a further 4 were released alive in (Herder 1983, Miller et al. 1983). Off the California coast, Miller et al. (1983) estimated that the ocean gill net fisheries took about 95 harbour seals in 1980.

Wild (1985, 1986, 1987) reported 22 harbour seals from a total of 372 gill and trammel net hauls in central California, during 1984, 36 from 419 net hauls during 1985, and 61 from 514 net hauls during 1986. From 1980 to 1989, observations of gill and trammel net hauls for halibut in central California recorded between zero and 71 harbour seal taken annually for a total of 249 seals from 1764 hauls (Wild 1990). For southern California, Collins et al. (1984, 1985, 1986) reported incidental catches of harbour seals in monitored gill and trammel set nets for halibut, soupfin shark, angel shark and white seabass, from two to 17 during the years 1983 to 1985. In the driftgill net fishery for swordfish and sharks, harbour seal mortality was reported as zero (4/1980 -3/1985), 158 (1985/86), 90(1986/87), 23 (1990) and zero (1991-1993) (Diamond et al. 1987, Lennert etal. 1991, Barlow et al. in press). Overall in California, incidental harbour seal mortality in gill netand trammel net fisheries was 130 (1980/81), 834 (1983/84), 1138 (1984/85),1886 (1985/86), 2028 (1986/87), 903 (1987/88), 392 (1990), 559 (1991), 1136 (1992) and 480 (1993) (Miller etal. 1983, Hanan et al. 1985, 1988, 1989, Hanan and Diamond 1989, Barlow etal. 1990, in press, Lennert et al. 1991, Hanan 1992, Julian 1993, 1994, Konno inpress).

On foreign trawlers in the North Pacific and eastern Bering Sea, observersrecorded an of a single harbour seal in 1977, 1979, 1981 and 1982after which the number 16 increased, reaching 9 in 1985 and then decreasing again until 1988 (Loughlin et al 1983, Perez and Loughlin 1991). The total incidental kill of harbour seals in commercial fisheries off Alaska was estimated at 1440 in domestic fisheries and 289 from foreign fisheries in 1978 (NMFS 1978), and at 2800 in both fisheries in 1979 (Brooks 1979). The annual catches of harbour seals in trawl fisheries have been estimated as between zero and 20 seals for the period 1979 to 1987, for a total of 85 deaths (NRC 1989).

Larga Seal

Small numbers of Larga seals are taken during gill net and trawl fishing in Alaska and offshore areas (eg, Lentfer 1988). Young et al. (1993) estimated that the number of incidental deaths of Larga seals in fisheries in Alaska was 3 in both 1990 and 1991. In set and drift net fisheries for salmon in Bristol Bay Alaska, logbook data for 1990-1991 record 2 Larga seals deaths (Barlow et al. in press).

On foreign trawlers in the North Pacific and eastern Bering Sea, observers recorded incidental captures from 1973 to 1988 of a single Larga seal in 1983, 1987 and 1988 (Barlow et al. 1990, Perez and Loughlin 1991) although between 1978 and 1986, an estimated 2- 22 seals have been taken by foreign and joint-venture demersal fisheries (Cranmore 1990).

Arctic Ringed Seals

Few Arctic ringed seals are taken by gill net and trawl fishing in offshore regions (eg, Kelly 1988b), Young et al. (1993) reported that none were lcilled in 1990 and 1991. Small numbers of Arctic ringed seals are taken in high-seas salmon research driftnets (Ito 1986, FAJ 1986, 1987, 1988).On foreign trawlers in the North Pacific and eastern Bering Sea, observers recorded incidental captures and from 1973 to 1988, noted that a single Arctic ringed seal was caught in 1986 and 1988 (Perez and Loughlin 1991) although incidental captures of 17 Arctic ringed seals have been reported in the Alaskan trawl fishery (Barlow et al. 1990).

Ribbon Seal

Few ribbon seals are taken incidentally in trawl fishing in offshore areas (Kelly 1988a, Reijnders et al. 1993). Young et al. (1993) reports that none were killed or injured in 1990 and 1991. On foreign trawlers in the North Pacific and eastern Bering Sea since 1973, a single ribbon seal was caught in 1978 and 1979 (Perez and Loughlin 1991). Two ribbon seals were taken in 1982, 5 in 1983, 7 in 1984 and 1 in 1985 and none until 1988 (Perez and Loughlin 1991). NRC (1989) provides estimates of 30 in 1978, 5 in 1982, 7 in 1983 and 6 in 1984 ribbon seals (live released and decomposed animals excluded) taken in foreign fisheries, with none taken in the otheryears.

Pacific Bearded Seal

Small numbers of Pacific bearded seals are taken in gill net and trawl fishing in Alaska and offshore regions. Logbook data for 1990-1991 show deaths of 14 bearded seals in the Bristol Bay 17 set and drift net fisheries for salmon (Barlow et al. in press). Between 1978 and 1988 there have been fewer than five reported incidental takes of bearded seals in foreign commercial fishing activities in the Bering Sea (NMFS 1992). Four bearded seals were reported taken in the Alaslcan trawl fishery for pollock (Barlow et al 1990) - one caught in 1985, two in 1986 and one in 1988 (Perez and Loughlin 1991). In 1991 three bearded seals were observed caught in domestic Alaslcan trawl fisheries and the total number of incidental ldlls in Alaskan fisheries is estimated to be 1 in 1990 and 37 in 1991 (Young et al. 1993).

Hawaiian Monk Seals

Small numbers of monk seals are caught incidentally during gill net and trap fishing and during longline fishing (Reijnders et al. 1993).

One monk seal was reported to have died in a gill net near Poipu, Kauai in 1976 (Nitta 1990), another in a line near Necker Island in 1986 (Nitta 1990, Ragen 1993) and one in a fish trap (Kenyon 1981). Nitta (1990) reports that there is circumstantial evidence that Hawaiian monk seals may have died in the broadbill swordfish longline fishery in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands although no mortalities have been confirmed. Various harmful injuries relating to fishing operations have been noted: hooks from longline gear embedded in their skins or mouths (Reddy and Griffith 1988, Nitta 1990, Woodley and Lavigne 1991, MMC 1993, Ragen 1993, Young et al. 1993), probable propeller wounds (Craig et al. 1993, Ragen 1993) and unusual head or lateral injuries (Ragen 1993, Young et al. 1993)

Northern Elephant Seals

Small numbers of northern elephant seals are incidentally taken in gill net and trawl fishing in coastal and offshore waters (Condit and Le Boeuf 1984, Collins et al. 1984, 1985, 1986, Diamond et al. 1986a, b, Herrick and Hanan 1988, NMFS 1992) and Boveng (1988a) suggests that this is probably a result of elephant seals feeding offshore in deep water. Young et al. (1993) estimated that the total mortality of northern elephant seals for fisheries in Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California was 286 in 1990 and 137 in 1991.

Wild (1985, 1986, 1987) reported the incidental take of 2 elephant seals in 1984, 4 in 1985 and 5 in 1986 in halibut set nets in Half Moon and Bodega Bays of north-central California. Between 1980 and 1989 Wild (1990) reported an annual take of zero to 15 elephant sealsin observed hauls of gill and trammel nets for California halibut and white croaker in central California (Monterey to Bodega Bay area). An incidental catch of one elephant seal was recorded from 145 observed hauls of set-nets for halibut and angel sharks off California in 1990(Barlow et al. 1990) while Lennert et al. (1991) estimate that the numberof mortalities rates of northern elephant seals in set nets for halibut and Pacific angel sharks in California was 144in six-months in 1990. Barlow et al. (in press) report that 26 elephant seals were takenin the California set net fishery for halibut and angel sharks in 1991 and Perkins et al. (1992)estimate that 137 elephant seals died during 1991. In 1992 and 1993 in Julian (1993, 1994) calculated that51 and 71 northern elephant seals respectively died in the Californian halibut set-netfishery. Although there are no 18 data, it has been suggested that elephant seals are likely to be taken by drift gill net vessels in Mexico (Barlow et al. 1993).

In the drift shark/swordfish drift gill net fishery in California, Diamond et al. (1987) reported catches of 308 elephant seals in 1983, none in 1984 and 300 in 1985. Lennert et al. (1991) estimate that the mortalities of northern elephant seals in these nets was 90 in six-months of 1990. Thereafter Barlow et al. (in press) report that 110 were taken in 1991. In 1992 and 1993 Julian (1993, 1994) calculated that 114 and 103 northern elephant seals died in the swordish/shark drift-net fishery, respectively.

Miller et al. (1983) estimated that 25 northern elephant seals were taken in ocean gill nets during 1980 off the coast of southern California. Fishermen reported one northern elephant seal talcen in the salmon drift net fishery in the southeastern Alaska (Barlow et al. 1990, in press). An incidental catch of three elephant seals (one in 1976 and two in 1982) has been documented for foreign trawlers in the eastern North Pacific Ocean and eastern Bering Sea (Loughlin et al. 1983, Barlow et al. 1990, Perez and Loughlin 1991).

Pacific Walrus

Walruses are taken in offshore active nets (trawls). Young et al. (1993) estimate that 5 and 6 were killed in 1990 and 1991 in Alaska, respectively. Observers, on foreign trawlers in the North Pacific and eastern Bering Sea, observers recorded incidental captures from 1973 to 1988 of single walruses in 1977 and 1980, after which the number increased to 20 in 1985 and 1987 and 16 in 1988 (Perez and Loughlin 1991). Estimated annual catches in the joint-venture and domestic trawl fisheries were 3-40 animals between 1983 and 1987 and 2-51 animals between 1985 and 1987 (NRC 1989). The NMFS has recorded a direct catch of 76 walruses in trawls (Barlow et al. 1990). In foreign and joint-venture groundfish fisheries between 1977 and 1988, 40 walruses were caught (NMFS 1992). Walruses also have some interactions with the yellowfin trawl fishery (Young et al. 1993).

Unidentified Pinnipeds

Various unidentified pinnipecls have been recorded as taken in gill net and trawl fishing in coastal and offshore waters. Fishermen have reported one sea lion as taken in the salmon drift net fishery in southeastern Alaska (Barlow et al. in press). In California, Julian (1993, 1994) calculated that 59 and 43 unidentified pinnipeds died in the halibut set net fishery in 1992 and 1993, respectively and 63 unidentified sea lions died in 1992 in the halibut set-net fishery.

On foreign trawlers in the North Pacific and eastern Bering Sea, observers recorded incidental captures from 1973 to 1988, 25 unidentified pinnipeds were recorded in 1973; from 1982 fewer than 4 annually were recorded (Perez and Loughlin 1991). 19 2.3.2 Deliberate Killing

Steller's Sea Lions

Steller's sea lions are killed by intentional and indiscriminate shooting (Mate and Gentry 1979, Loughlin 1991, Reijnders et al. 1993, Barlow et al. in press).In the Copper River salmon net fisheries in the spring of 1978, 305 Steller's sea lions were shot in the Coghill district and 20 died (Matkin and Fay 1980). In 15 weeks of survey in 1988, only 3 Steller's sea lions were killed (Wynne 1990). Beach surveys in the Copper River showed 10 Steller's sea lion to have died from gunshot wounds and a further 6 to have suspected gunshot injuries in 1988. During 1989 definite gunshot wounds were found on 4 animals and a further one had a suspected gunshot wound (Wynne 1990).

California Sea Lions

California sea lions are shot or clubbed during fishing operations (Everitt and Beach 1982). Lowry and Folk (1987) reported that 11% of 121 fresh or moderately decomposed dead strandings examined between October 1980 and September 1983 in southern California, and 82% of 11 dead strandings at Santa Catalina Island, had gunshot wounds assumed to have been inflicted by fishermen. Lowry et al. (1992) report that 3 live stranded California sea lions in 1988), 1 in 1990 and 1 in 1991 were treated in San Diego and were presumed to have been shot by fishermen.

Herder (1983) reported that 5 of the 7 California sea lion mortalities were caused by the lamprey seine fishery.Miller (1981) report that in 1979 during salmon fishing operations only a single California sea lion was known to be shot but that more animals than this are probably shot. Miller et al. (1983) report that 200 - 300 animals were shot by commercial salmon troll fishermen in 1980 attempting to protect their gear or catch on the California coast.

Northern Fur Seals

Northern fur seals are known to be shot or clubbed (Everitt and Beach 1982),

Guadelupe Fur Seal

Reijnders et al.(1993) note that lobster fishermen possibly kill Guadelupe fur seals, presumably for bait because there are no documented cases of these fur seals interacting with their fishing operations.

Eastern Atlantic Harbour Seals

Harbour seals are shot or clubbed during fishing operations in Alaska and California (Herder 1983, NMFS 1992).In the Copper River salmon net fisheries, 73 harbour seals were shot in the spring of 1978 and 111 in the autumn of 1978, while in the Coghill district 119 harbour seals were killed (Matkin and Fay 1980). In 387 salmon drift net sets in 1988 and 1989 in the Copper River 20 Delta, 2 harbour seals were observed to be shot and killed by fishermen defending their catch and gear (Wynne 1990). During beach surveys in the Copper River, 6 harbour seals had suspected gunshot injuries in 1988 and 2 harbour seals showed definite or suspected gunshot wounds in 1989 (Wynne 1990).

Hawaiian Monk Seals

A survey conducted at French Frigate Shoals in late January 1991 recorded five seals with head injuries indicating they had been hooked or clubbed (Woodley and Lavigne 1991).

Northern Elephant Seals

Some northern elephant seals are killed by fishermen (Reijnders et al. 1993).

2.4Mitigation Measures

Acoustic scare systems have been tried but while they may be initially successful their effectiveness does not appear to be long-term (DeMaster et al. 1982, Everitt and Beach 1982, Anon 1983, Mate and Miller 1983, Awbrey and Thomas, 1987, Geiger and Jeffries 1987, Greenke and vanSlyke 1987, Greenlaw 1987, Hanan and Scholl 1987a, b, Harvey et al. 1987, Mate et al. 1987, Rivinus 1987, Scholl 1987, Scholl and Hanan 1987a, b). Mate and Harvey (1987) documented the problems of using acoustic devices and the factors that need to be considered when designing acoustical methods, namely the temperature, salinity and depth of the water, background noise such as water turbulence, rain or man-made noises, bottom topography which affects sound propagation, water surface reflections, bottom reflections and the location of the subject relative to the sound source.

Other mitigation measures that have been discussed are the use of sounds, cracker shells, seal bombs, flashing lights, chemical deterrents and lethal methods, but all have problems, amongst which are the general problems with acoustic methods, habituation of seals to the methods, association of seals with fish occurrence resulting in the acoustic signal attracting seals, the fact that the methods frighten the fish, public safety and reaction in the case of lethal methods (Hanan 1985, Mate and Harvey 1987) and cost (for example a Canadian halibut boat reportedly spent $4000 annually on materials, including dynamite, to deter and kill sea lions) (Anon 1978b).

Tests on captive California sea lions to see if they would develop taste aversion to fish contaminated with lithium chloride proved to be promising (Kuljis 1985) and field trials were to be continued (Montgomery 1986) and assessed in conjunction with auditory signals to keep the negative stimulus and reduce habituation (Mate and Harvey 1987) while bearing in mind behaviourial conditioning (Pryor 1987).

DeMaster and Sisson (1992) note that although California sea lions cause financial losses to fishermen through operational interactions, reducing the general population of sea lions will do little 21 to mitigate these interactions. Only changes in the local abundance ofsea lions or the development of methods to frighten them away from fishing grounds will address thisproblem (DeMaster and Sisson 1992).

Montgomery (1986) suggested that studies should be done to identify factors (eg,soalc time of nets) that may be causing, or contributing to, the incidental take of harbour sealsand to investigate alternative fishing gear and practices and the use of acoustic signals paired with shooting, loud sounds or other adverse stimuli and disturbance experiments. In Alaska, fishermen found that the Steller's sea lions' habit of chewing marker buoys could be countered by theuse of a solid styrofoam float (Mate 1980).

DeMaster et al. (1982) note that most fishermen seem to consider losses caused by marine mammals as an overhead or they simply avoid where seals congregate. Many fishermen in the partyboat fishery in California note that harming sea lions in an effort to improve fishing will probably alienate, rather than satisfy, their clients (Scholl 1983).

3. NOR WEST ATLANTIC OCEAN

3.1Species Distribution

This area includes the east coast of North America, the east portion of the north coast of North America from 100°N, the west coast of and the small portion of the east coast of South America that falls above the equator (FAO areas 21 and 31 and part of 18 and 41). Seven species/subspecies of "true seal and a subspecies of walrus are found this area.

The grey seal population of 80 000 - 110 000 in 1987 on the east coast of Canada is increasing (Zwanenburg and Bowen 1990). Western Atlantic harbour seals occur along the northeast coast of the USA, the east coast of Canada, the Canadian arctic and the west coast of Greenland with a population size of at least 40 000 to 100 000 (Reijnders et al. 1993). The Ungava seal is found in lakes in , eastern Canada and has a population size of possibly 200 - 600 individuals (Power and Gregoire 1978) and is listed by the IUCN Red List as "Insufficiently known". Harp seals are found on the east coast of Canada, the Canadian arctic and Greenland and have a population of 2.4-4.2 million animals (CAFSAC 1991). The Arctic ringed seal is found on the east coast of Canada, the Canadian arctic and the west coast of Greenland and comprises part of the total population of 6-7 million animals (Reijnders et al. 1993). Hooded seals are found on the east coast of Canada, the Canadian arctic and Greenland and have a population in that area of 325 000 (Reijnders et al. 1993). Atlantic bearded seals are found on the Canadian east coast, the Canadian arctic and Greenland but no population size estimates are available (Reijnders et al. 1993). The Atlantic walrus is found in the east Canadian arctic and west Greenland with a population size in that area estimated at a few thousand animals (Fay et al. 1990). 22

3.2Detrimental Effects on Fisheries

Three of the 8 pinnipeds found in this area (grey, Western Atlantic harbour and harp seals) have been reported to affect all forms of fishing in different areas - passive and active net, trap and line fishing and fish farming.

3.2.1 Depredation

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

Depredation by grey, harbour and harp seals occurs during gill netting in Canadian waters and lobster trap fishing on the U.S.A. coast.In the Gulf of St Lawrence, seals, probably harp seals, feed on smelts caught in set nets when ice is scarce (Malouf 1986). In the southern part of the Gulf of St Lawrence, and in in New Brunswick, seals, and in particular grey seals, "rob" salmon gill nets so that the nets are not be watched continually and often retrieved at night, though this is no longer such an important problem because reductions in salmon fishing (Mansfield and Beck 1977). In the Bay of Fundy grey and harbour seals are reported to depredate gill-netted fish and interfere with the Atlantic herring weir fishery (Malouf 1986, Colbourne and Terhune 1991). Salmon trap fishermen in estimated losses of 30-45% of their catch to seals and traps cannot be used near grey seal haul-outs (Mansfield and Beck 1977). Grey seals enter traps set for mackerel and herring and mutilate large numbers of fish (Mansfield and Beck 1977).On the northeast coast of the U.S.A., fishermen report that harbour seals eat taken from traps (Malouf 1986).

Active Net Fishing

Pemberton et al. (1994) assessed depredation during off by harp seals and to a lesser extent by hooded seals to be less that 0.002% of the catch although seals do taken fish spilled from the net.

Passive Line Fishing

In New Brunswick, grey and/or harbour seals, eat fish from longlines often only leaving the head attached to the hook (Malouf 1986).

Active Line Fishing

Along the Canadian coast, grey and/or harbour seals, take fish from all types of hook and line gear such as trolls and sports gear (Malouf 1986).

Fish Farming

In 1983/84 grey seals attacked fish at about 75% of the cage operations in the Bay of Fundy (Malouf 1986). 23 3.2.2 Gear Damage

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

Grey seals and to a lesser extent harbour and harp seals, damage or result in the loss of gill nets and lobster traps in a number of areas on the Canadian coastline (eg, Reijnders et al. 1993) though in the southern part of the Gulf of St Lawrence this is no longer such an important problem because of reductions in salmon fishing (Mansfield and Beck 1977).

Mansfield and Beck (1977) estimated from questionnaires and interviews in Nova Scotia in 1975, that individual fishermen could suffer losses to grey seals of gear (drift and set gill nets, trap nets and lobster traps) to the value of $1 000 in a single year, but losses averaged $300 per fisherman. Zwanenburg and Beck (1981) from a survey in Nova Scotia in 1978, reported that the maximum damage caused by seals to gear amounted to $105 per fisherman and varied greatly along the coast from no losses to $308 per fisherman.

Calculations by Malouf (1986) from estimates in Farmer and Billard (1984) showed that repair and replacement costs to fixed gear as a result of seals in Nova Scotia in 1983 amounted to an average of $236 per fisherman per year and individual damage estimates were reported for mackerel-herring gill nets ($35 272), groundfish gill nets ($8 072), wooden lobster traps ($23 945) and fish traps ($2 916). Total losses as a result of gear damage in the mid-1980's were calculated as $1 241 000 but given various factors that affect these calculations, it was concluded that damage in the Nova Scotia region could be millions of dollars or higher per year (Malouf 1986).

Malouf (1986) report that as many as 75-100 bait bags were removed from lobster traps in the vicinity of seal colonies in a single day of fishing and that fishermen had lost up to 1500 bait bags in a season in Nova Scotia.

Fish Farming

In 1983-1984 grey seals made holes in the cage twine at about 75% aquaculture cage operations in the Bay of Fundy (Malouf 1986).

3.2.3 Disturbance of Operations

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

Grey seals enter traps set for mackerel and herring and sometimes drive the fish through the trap opening into the open sea (Mansfield and Beck 1977). They also open lobster traps, force their way into them and steal bait, allowing the lobsters to escape and preventing further catches until the trap is baited and re-set (Mansfield and Beck 1977, Malouf 1986). 24 3.3De ental Effects on Seals

All of the pinnipecls found in this area (grey, Western Atlantic harbour, harp, Arctic ringed, hooded, Atlantic bearded and the Atlantic walrus, except the freshwater Ungava seal), are incidentally or deliberately killed during passive and active net fishing and passive line fishing.

3.3.1 Incidental Entrapment

Grey Seals

Small numbers of grey seals are lcnown to be caught incidentally in gill net and trawl fishing in various areas along the Canadian and U.S.A coast (eg, Gilbert and Wynne 1988, Lien et al. 1989, Woodley and Lavigne 1991, Reijnders et al. 1993). In groundfish fisheries on the north-east coast of the U.S.A. 4 grey seals were caught in 1984 (Gilbert and Wynne 1985) and Young et al. (1993) estimate that a total of 4 and 3 grey seals were killed in fisheries on the east coast of the U.S.A in 1990 and 1991, respectively.

Western Atlantic Harbour Seals

Harbour seals are taken during gill net and trap fishing trawl and purse-seine fishing and longlines fishing in Canada and the U.S.A.

In Newfoundland and Labrador ,harbour seals have been taken incidentally in inshore waters, particularly in gill nets (86% of the take) but also in salmon-gill nets (10%) and cod traps (4%) (Lien et al. 1988a, 1989). Piatt and Nettleship (1987) estimated that 29 harbour seals were caught per year mostly in relatively shallow set (<30m) cod gill-nets in eastern Newfoundland.

In the U.S.A., an average of 22 harbour seals are entangled annually by 17 groundfish gill net fishermen in the Gulf of ; all are apparently young of the year (Gilbert and Wynne 1988). Other fishing operations in Maine, although rarely, herring purse seines, halibut tub trawls, lobster traps and mackerel gill nets and longlines (Gilbert and Wynne 1985, 1988, Cranmore 1988) take harbour seals. Young et al. (1993) estimated that 617 harbour seals were Idlleci in 1990 and 257 were killed in 1991 in fisheries on the east coast of the U.S.A.

Harp Seals

Harp seals are taken during gill net and trawl fishing on the coasts of Canada and Greenland. Peak entrapments of harp seals in groundfish gill nets occur in May / June along the west and south coasts of Newfoundland when seals are migrating northward (Piatt and Nettleship 1987, Lien et al. 1988a). From a survey of the southeast coast of Newfoundland during 1981-84, 746 harp seals per year were estimated to be taken in deep-set (>20m) cod and flounder gill nets, set up to 100 km from shore in eastern Newfoundland (Piatt and Nettleship 1987).

Malouf (1986) reported that the incidental kill of harp seals around Newfoundland and 25

Labrador rose from 1000 annually between 1979-82to around 5000 in 1984. In 1984, substantial numbers of harp seals were caught in variousareas (Lien et al. 1984) and Malouf (1986) reported anecdotal evidence of one fisherman catching 38 harp seals in hisnets in one day. Existing reports are thought to considerably underestimate numbers of harp seals caught ingroundfish gill nets, ranging from up to 68 per day in June and 20-30per day in July (Lien et al. 1984). In 1985, reports from Newfoundland indicted "many" harp sealswere entrapped, particularly young seals, and the perception of fishermen was that thiswas higher than in previous years (Lien et al. 1985).

In 1987 two reports were received at midyear of captures of 11to 25 seals per 100 nets set and a similar number suggested as having been taken in the 3-4years previously in the Bonne Bay area (Lien et al. 1987). A number of fishermen indicated that perhaps 500 to 2000young harp seals were taken in the spring groundfish gill net fishery in Old Fort Quebec in the Gulf of St Lawrence in the spring of 1987 (Lien et al. 1987, Lien 1988). It is estimated that during1986 and 1987, catches were around 700 per year (Lien et al. 1988a). In 1988 itwas estimated that 10 700 seals, mostly the young of the year, were taken primarily in gill nets on the west coast of Newfoundland and in some areas, 80-90 seals were reported as by-catch each dayover two weeks (Lien et al. 1988a, b). Captures were reported to have remained high in 1989 (Lien et al. 1990a) and incidental catches of harp seals appear to be increasing in the inshore coastal waters of Newfoundland, although it is difficult to quantify inshore fishing effort (Lien et al. 1989). Off the west coast of Greenland Christensen and Lear (1977) report that harp seals are caught incidentally in salmon gill nets.

During cod trawling off north-east Newfoundland, Pemberton et al. (1994) reported 8 harp seals caught during 14 trawls in 450 fathoms of water, 2 of which were dead. Two of those alive were females, the rest were male (Pemberton et al. 1994).

Arctic Ringed Seals

Arctic ringed seals are taken during gill net fishing in Canada and Greenland. In southern Labrador several fishermen reported taking "dozens" of Arctic ringed seals in inshore nets in 1985 (Lien et al. 1985) and the incidental capture of Arctic ringed seals in inshore nets was also reported during 1990 (Lien et al. 1990b). In Greenland, salmon gill nets have been reported to take Arctic ringed seals (Christensen and Lear 1977).

Hooded Seals

Very few hooded seals are caught in gill nets in Newfoundland and Labrador (Lien et al. 1989). Piatt and Nettleship (1987) documented the incidental take of four hooded seals in cod gill nets off southe,ast Newfoundland between 1981 and 1984 and Lien et al. (1990b) reported two hooded seals in inshore nets in 1990.

Atlantic Bearded Seals

Christensen and Lear (1977) reported that there were incidental catches of bearded seals in 26 salmon gill nets off Greenland.

Walrus

In the Newfoundland and Labrador region, a walrus was reported to have been caught in an inshore gill net during 1990 (Lien et al. 1990b).

3.3.2 Deliberate Killing

Grey seals are lcnown to be shot by fishermen (Reijnders et al. 1993). Grey seals, and to a lesser extent harbour and harp seals, were reported to be controlled by shooting near salmon nets when they were considered to be a problem (Malouf 1986).

3.4Mitigation Measures

In Canada lobster fishermen have modified their gear to minimise damage from seals (Malouf 1986). They put boxes over the bait and used smaller rings to make it difficult for seals to get their heads .into the trap, although this may have precluded catching "jumbo" lobsters (Farmer and Billard 1985). Salted bait was also reported to be less attractive to seals, thereby reducing seal damage, but was also thought to be less attractive to lobsters (Malouf 1986). The introduction of heavier twine for aquaculture cages was reported to reduce seal damage in New Brunswick (Malouf 1986).

Pemberton et al. (1994) report that seal captures in trawls can be reduced dramatically if the nets are kept on deck and then shot to the bottom immediately on entering the water. A chute from the working deck to the gunwale was suggested as a method of allowing captured seals to leave the vessel quickly (Pemberton et al. 1994).

4. NORTIIE:ST ATLANTIC OCEAN

4.1Regional Description

This area includes the east coast of Greenland, , Svalbard, western Europe, the , the west coast of Africa above the equator and the Baltic and Mediterranean Seas (FAO areas 27 and 37 and part of 34). There are 11 species/subspecies of "true" seals and a subspecies of walrus in this area.

Grey seals occur around Britnin, Iceland, , northwestern Russia and in the and have a population in the area of between 104 700 and 106 700, which is probably increasing. Grey seals have significant problems related to incidental entanglement in the Baltic and White Seas (calculated from Reijnders et al. 1993). Eastern Atlantic harbour seAls occur in Iceland, Svalbad, Britain, northwestern Europe, Norway and into the Baltic with a population in the area of over 90 27 000 (calculated from Reijnders et al. 1993). Incidental entanglement affects the population. Harp seals are found in the Atlantic arctic from Greenland to northwest Russia and its associated islands with a population size in the area of between 600 000 and 900 I II seals (calculated from Reijnders et al. 1993). Incidental entanglement is a cause for concern.

Arctic ringed seals are found in the Atlantic arctic from Greenland through to northwest Russia and its associated islands and in this region comprise a proportion of a total population of 6- 7 million animals (Reijnders et al. 1993). The Baltic ringed seal is found in the Baltic Sea with a total population of 5000 - 8000; it is probably increasing (Helle and Stenman 1990) although incidental entanglement is a potential threat to the population (Reijnders et al. 1993). This subspecies is listed as "Vulnerable" in the 1993 IUCN Red list. The Saimaa seal is found in Lake Saimaa in and has a population size of 160-180 seals (Sipilia 1991), occasional entanglement is considered a possible threat to the population (Reijnders et al. 1993) and it is listed as "Endangered" in the 1993 IUCN Red list. The Ladoga seal is found only in Lake Ladoga in Russia with a population size of 10 500 - 12 500 and is probably increasing (Reijnders et al. 1993).It is listed as "Vulnerable" in the 1993 IUCN Red list.

The Caspian seal lives only in the with a total population of 5 -600000 (Reijnders et al. 1993) and is listed as "Vulnerable" in the 1993 IUCN Red list. H ed seals occur in Gre,enland, Jan Mayen, Iceland and Svalbard with a population of 200 in the region (ICES/NAFO 1991). Atlantic bearded seals are found in the Atlantic arctic from Greenland through to northwest Russia and its associated islands. There are no estimates of population size for this area (Reijnders et al. 1993). The Mediterranean monk seal is found in the and along the coastline and islands of .The population is estimated at 423 - 555 and decreasing with incidental and deliberate mortality considered one of the main causes of the population decline and a threat to the survival of the species (Reijnders et al. 1993). This species is listed as "Endangered" in the 1993 IUCN Red list.The Atlantic walrus is found in the arctic Atlantic from Greenland through to the northwestern Russian islands with a population estimated at a few thousand animals (Fay et al. 1990).

4.2Detrimental Effects on Fisheries Five of the 12 pinnipeds found in this area (grey, Eastern Atlantic harbour, harp, Mediterranean monk seals and possibly Baltic ringed seals) are reported to cause damage in various areas to all of the different fishery types of fishing operation - passive net, traps and line fishing and active net and line fishing and fish farming.

4.2.1 Depredation

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

Grey, harbour, harp and monk seals, are regularly observed removing or damaging fish from trammel, tangle, stake, pound and bag nets and eel and lobster traps in different areas in Britain, 28 , Scandinavia and in the Mediterranean (eg, Hardy 1953, 1961, Mountford and Smith 1963, Hickling 1964, Bonner 1972, 1982, Lister-Kaye 1979, Harwood 1984).In Britain, damage is highest in the early part of the salmon season when the larger and more valuable fish are running. The problem is attributed mostly to a small number of "rogue" seals which specialise in preying on netted salmon (Parrish and Shearer 1977, Harwood 1991). Although the level of damage is variable from place to place, it shows no apparent relationship between the proximity of the nets to known concentrations of seals and remained steady during 1965-76 although the grey seal population doubled in size (Harwood and Greenwood 1985).

In in 1954, records kept by 2 firms on the River Tweed recorded losses of about £400 each due to seal-damaged salmon (Rae 1960). During the 1958 and 1959 seasons, an average of 5% of salmon were damaged on the east coast of Scotland based on a study of fish sold in the Aberdeen fish market (Rae 1960). Rae and Shearer (1965) found that in Scotland 24.5% of the salmon in gill nets were damaged by seals. The sorts of wounds inflicted were reduced the value of the salmon by 10-20%(Parrish and Shearer 1977). Anon (1975c) reports that one Scottish salmon found 9.7% of their salmon bitten or clawed by seals in 1974 and it was felt that a considerable number of salmon was completely removed by seals. Grey seals on the Scottish coast were estimated to take or damage, 3.0% of fish in bag/stake nets (Greenwood 1981).

In north-east England Potter and Swain (1979) investigated grey seal in the drift net fishery for salmon and estimated that seals removed 3-10% of the fish caught, averaging about 5% of all fish caught, and damage,d a further 1.4%, although there was considerable variability through the fishing season and from site to site. This represented a loss to salmon fishermen of about $30 000 in 1977 (Potter and Swain 1979). In northeast England grey seals were estimated to have taken or damaged 2.3% of fish in bag/stake nets (Greenwood 1981). In the inshore whitefish set net fishery damage by month in a northern area of northeast England by grey seals was estimated to vary between 2.5% and 13.7% and between 0 and 6.7% in the southern area, varying overall between 0% and 21% but averaging about 5% annually, causing an estimated loss of approximately £16 000 (Heap et al. 1986).

Seals steal or mutilate fish in trammel nets, remove bait or fish from lobster pots and remove or damage fish from the wreck net fisheries for cod (Northridge 1988, Harwood 1991). In the Minch damage was estimated at 10% of the catch cod in the period 1958-1960 (Rae 1960). Large scale damage by seals on cod caught in nets on the British coast was reported by Rae (1969). He an example from 1969 of 24 boxes out of 72 being unmarketable, 10 out of 52 boxes thrown overboard because of seal-damage, and a further 6 boxes being marketable but at a lower market price. Harbour seals damage catches in the small herring drift net fishery off southeast England, but although seals bite the heads off herring in drift nets, the low value of the individual fish does not make this a major economic problem (Northridge 1988).

In Ireland during a two-week study in the draft net fishery in Ballytsodare Bay, 16.8% of salmon were recorded damaged (Anon 1980). On the south coast of Ireland in 1992, 31% of fish caught in tangle nets were damaged by grey seals; the damage was typically the loss of a tail. Damage varied monthly with less damage offshore (>5 miles) than inshore (Collins et al. 1993). 29

Seal-damage recorded from auction halls in Ireland varied fromnone in Kenmare, 0.66% in Galway to 1.2% of the catch in north Mayo. These are underestimates because they excluded headsor partially eaten fish (Anon 1980). At midyear in 1981, examination of salmon catches inGalway Bay showed 25.7% to 44.5% of salmon to be damaged by harbour seals (Anon 1981). Grey and, more extensively, harbour seals, were responsible for damage to salmon in gill net fisheries on the west coast of Ireland, ranging from 18.5% (1979) to 44.5% (1981) in Galway Bay, and 7.5% (1980) to 9.8% (1981) of the catch in Sligo Bay (McCarthy 1985).

ICES (1979) reported that since 1964, the estimated damage to entrapped salmon bygrey seals was 3-5%, and grey seals were seen to talce at least 2.3% of driftnet catches.

Grey, harbour and harp seals are known to eat salmon from nets in (Soderberg 1975), Finland (Stenman 1978), Norway (Bjorge et al. 1981, ICES 1992b) and Denmark (Hansen 1987). In Finland, Stenman (1978) found that during 1974-76, up to 60% of netted salmon were damaged. In Norwegian coastal waters, damage to salmon catches by grey or harbour seals was estimated by fishermen to vary between 5-25% with an average of about 15% (Bjorge et al. 1981). In Norway, the value of catches lost from gill nets attributable to harp seals was estimated at N.Kr 610 lOI in 1979 and N.Kr 490 00 in 1980 (Bjorge et al. 1981). Nilssen et al. (1990, 1992) report that in January 1986, 2.2-26%, (average 8.4%) of cod in gill nets in northern Norway may have been damaged by harp seals, with usually the ventral soft parts of large fish being taken, including the liver and intestines. However, Nilssen et al. (1990, 1992) indicate that during the winter from 1989 to 1991 no fish were damaged. In Denmark harbour seals take or damage fish from inshore pound and gill nets and damage in traps in areas where there are no because eels make no attempt to escape from the trap in the presence of crabs and therefore are less accessible to seals (Hansen 1987).

Monk seals are reported to talce fish from fishing nets (Boulva 1979).

Active Net Fishing

In Britain grey or/and harbour seals, are said to remove or bite fish through the cod-end of trawls on occasion and are presumed to remove or bite fish in seine nets (Northridge 1988).

Passive Line Fishing

In some places in Britain, grey and/or harbour seals, are reported to remove bait or fish from longlines (Rae 1960, Anon 1975c, Bonner 1982, Northridge 1988).

Active Line Fishing

Grey seals and possibly harp and ringed seals depredate fish from lines inBritain and Scandinavia. On the English and Scottish coasts, grey and possibly harbour seals, strip baitfrom hooks and eat or mutilate hooked line-fish (Rae 1960, 1969). In the Baltic Sea, seals,possibly grey and Baltic ringed seals take hooked linefish such as pike and garfish (Pilats1989). 30

Fish Farming

Mong parts of the Scottish coast, grey and harbour seals are regularly seen around the cages of salmon farms, bite at salmon through the cage walls and are evidently regarded as serious pests at some salmon farms (Harwood 1991). This seal predation occurs all year around but mostly in winter and particularly during bad storms when seals come into the lochs for shelter and are closer to the cages (Ross 1988). Predation also occurs more at night, possibly because salmon tend to congregate at the cages bottom making them easier prey (Ross 1988).

Northridge (1988) and Ross (1988) report that many of salmon farms were estimated to suffer losses due to seals of less than £1000 per year, but several other sites reported seal damage as a major problem, with seal damage assessed at more than £10 000 per year and at one site, losses to seals in 1985 were estimated to exceed £100 000. In 1987 it was estimated that harbour and grey seals were responsible for over 82% of damage to salmon held in cages in Scotland, which could amount to £1.4 and £4.8 million annually, excluding indirect effects, most notably the increa.sed vulnerability to disease (Ross 1988, Anon 1988c). The scale of seal predation at these salmon farms was found to be extremely variable, from no damage at some farms to losses of tens of thousands of fish, valued at £280 000 per year, at others (Ross 1988).

4.2.2 Gear Darnal,Fe

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

In Britain, Scandinavia and the Mediterranean, grey, harbour, harp and monk seals and possibly, ringed seals damage drift nets, stake and bag nets and wreck nets and eel traps (eg, Hardy 1953, 1961, Lockie 1959, 1962, Rae 1960, Hickling 1964, Bonner 1969, 1972, Beverton 1985, Reijnders et al. 1993) but many fishermen think that this is minimal compared to damage from other sources (Northridge 1988). With the progressive introduction of synthetic fibre nets in the 1960's the number of damaged nets declined markedly and little damage was reported in the 1970's (Parrish and Shearer 1977, Harwood and Greenwood 1985).

There are often complaints by fishermen of seals going straight through drift nets, especially in the salmon fishery, in the northeast of England and Scotland, often in full view of fishermen who wait by the nets, attempting to keep seals at bay (Lister-Kaye 1979, Northridge 1988). In Scotland seal damage to coastal nets ranged from less than 5% of the nets in some areas to more than 30% at others (Rae and Shearer 1965). In the Scottish stake and bag salmon net fisheries for salmon, seals occasionally enter these nets and may tear them while trying to get out (Northridge 1988). In northeast England the cost of repairing set nets as a result of grey seals amounted to between £6 and £39 per fishing trip (Heap et al. 1986). Harbour seals damage nets in the small herring drift net fishery off southeast England, normally going straight through the net (Northridge 1988).

In Denmark, eel traps are easily broken by harbour seals and no eels are subsequently caught when the net is broken (Hansen 1987). Harbour seals used to cause damage to pound nets but a change to synthetic material has reduced this to a rare occurrence (Hansen 1987). 31 In Norway, inshore net damage by harbour and grey seals along parts of the coast was reported by 62% of fishermen (Oritsland and Bjorge 1981). In 1980, Norwegian fishermen estimated that damage by grey or harbour seals to fishing gear, mostly gill nets, buoyed salmon trap and bag nets for storage of or cultured salmon, amounted to between N.Kr 170 and N.Kr 30 000, averaging N.Kr 2 900, while the cost of damage as a result of harp seals was estimated at N.Kr 610 000 in 1979 and N.Kr 980 000 (Bjorge et al. 1981). It was estimated that 3000 - 4000 nets were damaged annually by harp seals in the Varanger Fjord area of Norway was and may have caused damages of up to $300 000 (Ulhang 1981). In the east Baltic, seals, possibly grey and ringed seals, damage nets used in the whitefish fishery (Pilats 1989).

In the Mediterranean, damage to gear, mostly to gill nets by monk seals has been reported (Ronald and Healy 1974, Shultze-Westrum 1976, Marchessaux and Duguy 1977, Berkes et al. 1979, Boulva 1979, Berkes 1982, Panou et al. 1993). In monk seals are reported to make characteristic holes 20-30 cm in trammel nets, with damages per trip estimated at 7.7% for offshore trammel net trips 13.0% of inshore trammel net trips and 7.7% of gill net trips (Panou et al. 1993).

Passive Line Fishing

In Greece, monk seal damage was found on 1.3% of trips using bottom long-lines (Panou et al. 1993).

Fish Farming

On Scottish salmon farms, grey and harbour seals occasionally cause net damage but specific incidents can have substantial impacts (Ross 1988, Harwood 1991).

4.2.3 Disturbance of Operations

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

Grey and harbour seals disturb fishing at gill and pound nets in Britain and Scandinavia. In Britain, seals are reported to wait at the entrance to nets and divert fish from entering the net (Rae 1960). Scottish fishermen claim that fish can smell when a seal has been in their nets and this can deter fish from entering the nets for several days (Rae 1960). Some support for this beliefis given by Alderdice et al. (1954) who found that the movements of Pacific salmon wereinfluenced by the placing an extract from seal skin into the water, but these effects are difficult to quantify.Harbour seals in Britain have even been reported to chew marker buoys, which can be a greatnuisance (Northridge 1988). In Denmark, harbour seals are reported to frighten the fish away fromthe entrance to pound nets and this is possibly the mostdetrimental effect on the but is impossible to prove or cost (Hansen 1987).

Fish Farming

Grey and/or harbour seals disrupt salmon in fish farms in Scotland.Salmon farmers there 32 believe that the presence of seals causes stress to salmon which results in reduced growth rates of salmon; wounded fish are highly susceptible to disease which can spread to the remainder of the stock. This is seen as a much greater threat to wiping out stocks than direct damage by predators. Stress from the mere of predators causes increases their vulnerability to disease, and the disruption in fe,eding causes loss in growth (Ross 1988, Harwood 1991).

4.3Detrimental Effects on Seals

Seven of the 12 pinniped species found in this area (grey, Eastern Atlantic harbour, harp, Baltic ringed, Saimaa, hooded and Mediterranean monk seals) are incidentally or deliberately Id'led during all forms of fishing - passive and active net fishing, active and passive line fishing and during fish farming.

4.3.1 Incidental Entrapment

In western Europe the seals involved in interactions are not always specified by species so grey and harbour seals are combined here where distinguishing information was not given.

Grey and Eastern Atlantic Harbour Seals

Grey and/or harbour seals are taken in gill, wreck and trammel nets and fykes, pair trawls, midwater trawls, active line gear and anti-predator nets around fish farms in Britain and the Netherlands (eg, Reijnders and Lankester 1990). Northridge (1988) provides historical information on the incidental deaths of grey and/or harbour seals, namely 3 seals in tangle nets, one prior to the 1970's, and two in the 1980's; 2 seals in midwater trawl nets in the 1970's and several seals in these nets during the 1980's; 3 seals in gill nets in the 1980's; 2 seals in a trammel net and one seal in a wreck net in the 1980's (Northridge 1988). Northridge (1988) suggested that at least a "couple of hundred" harbour and grey seals may be taken annually and more than 100 seals of both species may drown in anti-predator nets on Scottish salmon farms. Occasionally seals are drowned by taldng a hook from a line fishermen on the Scottish and English coasts (Rae 1969).In the Netherlands, there are regular reports of seals being caught in fyke nets and in one area about 10 seals drown each year in these nets (ICES 1992a).

Grey Seals

Grey seals are caught during gill, bag, fly and tangle net and seine fishing in Britain, France and Scandinavia (eg, Rae 1968, Bonner 1979, Scialabba 1989, Helle 1979, Almkvist et al. 1980, Reijnders et al. 1993). In a small tangle net fishery in Scotland, catch rates appeared quite high, for example one fisherman took 36 grey seals in one season (Northridge 1988). Most seals found in nets are young, and from tagging results it appears that a minimum of between 1 and 2% of seal pups drown in fishing gear (Northridge 1988). Off the Northumberland and Berwickshire coast of Britain, Lockie (1959) reported 14 grey seals taken in salmon set nets between 1956 and 1958. In Scotland, several grey seals have drowned in cod nets and a grey seal was reported drowned by 33 becoming caught on a fish hook (Rae 1960). Ina sample of grey seals examined between January 1967 to June 1971, 119 were from salmon nets and 13 fromwhitefish and herring nets (Rae 1973). Of 528 grey seals tagged that were found dead, 148 (28%)were found in nets but this is likely to be an overestimate because drowned sealsare more likely to be returned than those dying of natural causes (Harwood and Greenwood 1985). In a small area around Montrose, the number ofgrey seals recorded from 1961 to 1980 was 128 in salmon bag nets, 72 in salmon flynets, 38 in cod nets and two in seines (NERC 1984).

Along a section of the coast of Norway, the minimum firstyear mortality rate of 8% after weaning is largely attributed to incidental catches in fishinggear (Oritsland and Bjorge 1981). Between 1974 and 1985, it was estimated that approximately 20% ofgrey seal pups in the 13altic Sea were ldlled in fishing gear annually (Sjoasen 1986). At the island of Hiiumaa in theEast Baltic conservative estimates of grey seals drowned in bag nets increased from 6- 10 in the early 1980's to 24 - 28 in the late 1980's (Pilats 1989). In the whole East Baltic, Pilats (1989) estimated that in 1987 approximately 70 seals were taken incidentally in bag nets. The incidental catch varies annually, but the mortality in 1987 represented about 5% of the estimated population and affected the population negatively (Pilats 1989).

Eastern Atlantic Harbour Seal

Harbour seals drown in gill, bag and fly nets and fykes, trawls and anti-predator nets around fish farms in parts of Britain, Ireland, France and Denmark (eg, Rae 1968, McCarthy 1985, Scialabba 1989, Reijnders et al. 1993).In the Wash in England some tens of harbour seals may be caught in midwater trawl (Northridge 1988). In a sample of dead harbour seals examined between January 1967 to June 1971, 9 were from salmon nets and 4 from whitefish nets (Rae 1973). Lockie (1959) indicated that two harbour seals were taken in salmon set nets off Northumberland and Berwickshire during 1957-58. Off Montrose between 1961 and 1980, NERC (1984) reported a total of 36 harbour seals were taken in salmon bag nets, 9 in salmon fly nets and 2 harbour seals in cod net fisheries.

Several hundred harbour seals may drown in protective nets around salmon farms annually (Ross 1988). In the Netherlands during the periods 1971-1980 and 1982-1984, a minimum of 4 and 12 young harbour seals, respectively, were reported to drown annually in fykes and nets (Reijnders 1985). In Denmark, between 1889 and 1927 some 37 000 harbour seals were shot or drowned in fishing tackle (Hansen 1987).

Harp Seals

Harp seals are taken in gill nets, trawls and longlines in Scandinavia. In northern Norway there have been some large catches of harp seals, particularly in the cod set net fisheries but also in longlines and trawls (Beverton 1985, Blix 1991, Haug et al. 1991). There is evidence that 10 I I I - 15 000 harp seals drowned annually in gill nets between1978 and 1984 (Bjorge et al. 1981, ICES 1990). An estimated 9000 or more harp seals were killed in gill nets for cod in 1980 (Ulltang 1981) and figures have ranged from 517 - 3311 animals annually in the early 1980's to 15 000 in 1984 34 and 4409 in 1986 (Malouf 1986, Oritsland 1990, Haug et al. 1991, ICES 1992b). In 1987, 56 222 were reported caught, followed by more than 21 538 in 1988(ICES 1990, Haug et al. 1990, Oritsland 1990, Haug et al. 1991, ICES 1992b), although it has been estimated that between 60 000 to 100 000 animals died in 1987 (Wiig 1988). Thereafter numbers have decreased to those of the early 1980's with only 1314 caught in 1989 (Haug et al.1990) and only 368 seals in 1990 (Oritsland 1990, Haug et al. 1991, ICES 1992b). The age composition of incidentally caught harp seals does not show any specific pattern in terms of age and sex caught (Haug et al. 1991).

These figures may generally be much lower than actual numbers of animals killed and should be considered as a relative index (Haug et al. 1990). The high levels of incidental mortality of harp seals in Norwegian coastal waters from 1978 to 1988 have contributed to a significant decline in the harp seal population that breeds in the ' (Ulltang 1989, ICES 1990).

Baltic Ringed Seals

Baltic ringed seals are taken in bag nets in Scandinavia. Several tens of thousands of Baltic ringed seals die each year through incidental catches in the Baltic Sea (Helle 1979, Almlcvist et al. 1980, ICES 1992a, Reijnders et al. 1993). In the East Baltic at the Island of Hiiumaa conservative estimates are of less than ten ringed seals drowned in bag nets in the 1980's (Pilats 1989).

Saimaa Seals

Saimaa seals are taken in fishing nets resulting in a high juvenile mortality which is one of the most important reasons that the population has decreased sharply from the early 1960's to the early 1980's (Helle et al. 1981, Hvarinen and Sipilia 1983, 1984).

Hooded Seals

Hooded seals are taken off the northern coast of Norway in salmon driftnets and longlines (Northridge 1984).

Mediterranean Monk Seals

Mediterranean monk seals die in gill and trammel nets, trawls and longlines throughout the species range and although there are very few incidental deaths in fishing gears, this is an important component of seal mortality, probably one of the main causes of the population decline and has been identified as one of the potential threats to the species (eg, Boulva 1979, Ronald and Duguy 1979, Kenyon 1981, Ronald and Healy 1982, Reijnders et al. 1988, 1993, UNEP 1990, Panou et al. 1993).

Jacobs and Panou (1988) report that 8 out of 34 animals died from incidental mortality. Anon (1990d) report that 27 out of 40 died incidentally in fishing gear between 1980 and 1990 in Morocco. There is no evidence that any specific age or sex is particularly vulnerable (Anon 1990d). 35 Monk seals have be,en caught on baited hooks in the Danube Delta (Schnapp et al. 1962), in nets at Cassis in France since the 1930's (Cheylan 1974, Sergeant et al. 1978), in trammel nets in the Bay of Tunis (Othman et al. 1971), infrequently in trammel nets in Italy although thiswas more common in the 1940's (Di Natale and Notarbartolo-di-Sciara 1990), occasionally in coastal gill nets in Greece (Northridge 1984), Mauritania (Scialabba 1989), Morocco (Maigret 1990) and (Di Natale and Notarbartolo-di-Sciara 1990), in trawl nets near Spanish Morocco in the 1970's (Soriguer 1977), in undefined gear on the coast of Spanish Sahara in 1913 -ttger 1951) and in the 1970's in (Berkes 1976). In the , 8 monk seals are reported to have drowned in fishing gear, of which 3 are known to have died in trammel nets, 2 in gill nets, and one was taken on a longline (Anon 1988a). A single monk seal died in a trammel net off Santorini Island (Greece) in March of 1990 (Cebrian et al. 1990) and one died in a gill net off Morocco between 1980 and 1982 (Maigret 1990).

4.3.2 Deliberate Killing

Grey and Harbour Seals

Northridge (1988) reports that probably 1000 seals of both species may be shot by Scottish salmon farm operators.

Grey Seals

Grey seals in Scotland are deliberately killed by fishermen to prevent them from damaging their catch and gear, and specifically in Scotland, grey seals are shot by some fishermen if they are considered to be causing damage to the salmon in cages (Harwood and Greenwood 1985, Ross 1988, Reijnders et al. 1993). In a sample of grey seals examined between January 1967 to June 1971, 109 seals had been shot by fishermen (Rae 1973).

Eastem Atlantic Harbour Seals

Harbour seals are killed in Scotland and Denmark if they interfere with fishing or fish farming.In Scotland, harbour seals are shot by some fishermen if they are considered to be causing damage to the salmon in cages (Ross 1988). In a sample of harbour seals examined between January 1967 to June 1971, 65 seals had been shot by fishermen (Rae 1973). In Denmark, between 1889 and 1927 some 37 000 harbour seals were shot or drowned in fishing tackle (Hansen 1987).

Baltic Ringed Seals

Although ringed seals are protected, Swedish fishermen can shoot these seals around their nets, and lcill to less than a few hundred seals annually (Durant andHarwood 1986).

Mediterranean Monk Seals

Deliberate lcilling of monk seals by fishermen in different areas of the Mediterraneanis 36 probably one of the main causes of the population decline and has been identified as one of the potential threats to the monk seals (Boulva 1979, Ronald and Duguy 1979, Ronald and Healy 1982, UNEP 1990, Reijnders et al. 1988, 1993, Panou et al. 1993).

Deliberate lcilling is primarily a problem in the eastern Mediterranean (Anon 1990d) occurring in Greece (Ronald and Healey 1974), the Turlcish Mediterranean and southern Aegean seas (Berkes 1976) and the northern Aegean, Marmara and Black Seas (Berkes 1976) but also further west in Tunisia (Muller 1975) and Algeria (Bahri 1974, Boulva 1975, Bougazelli 1979). Deliberate killing by fishermen was largely responsible for the disappearance of monk seals from Corsica (Boulva 1975). In Algeria fishermen consider it unlucky to kill seals but younger fishermen are less inhibited from lcilling seals (Sergeant et al. 1978, Berkes 1982).

Specific reports of deliberate Icills are 21 out of 34 dead monk seals reported to Jacobs and Panou (1988), 19 monk seals shot in Turkey (Berkes et al. 1979), 16 shot and a further 10 killed using axes, sticks or thrown rocks in the Baleares (Avella 1979) and 11 lcilled along the coast of Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco (Avella 1987). Fishermen at Rhodes are reported to have shot dead 20 monk seals in 1985 in retaliation for damage to gear (Naturopa cited by Northridge 1991a).

4A Mitigation Measures

In general, change in gear design or fishing method seems to be the most effective means of controlling seal damage (Northridge 1988). The effects of the introduction of stronger, synthetic, twines to the Scottish stake net fishery is one such example of reducing net damage inflicted by seals (Lister-Kaye 1979, Northridge 1988) although Northridge (1988) points out that there is no evidence that the amount of fish damaged decreased. In the Netherlands, it was suggested that seal catches in mullet nets and fykes could be reduced through gear modifications and Dutch fishermen are required to put a wide mesh net over the opening of fyke nets (Reijnders 1985, ICES 1992a). Although many salmon farm operators use anti-predator nets of various types, Ross (1988) found that they worked with varying degrees of success and that there is unlikely to be a simple universal solution, but rather specific solutions at individual sites or in particular fisheries need to be worked out which are dependent on, for example, water current and degree of fouling. Nets are often less effective in areas of strong tidal flow, as seals can learn to push the netsagainst the cages and continue biting fish.

Potter and Swain (1979) and Northridge (1988) note that it appears to be only a small number of the seals that are responsible for predation from salmon nets. For this reason, deterring or killing those individuals which have learnt to depredate is thought to be more effective than general culling (Anon 1975c). Shooting and poison were both used against seals talcing salmon and damaging nets in Scotland, but neither approach was effective because shooting a moving target is difficult and there are the risks and suffering involved in using poisons such as strychnine (Anon 1975c, Lister- Kaye 1979). Further seals become wary and stay below the surface (Thompson et al. 1984).

The use of acoustic devices to scare seals have been investigated in the Britain (Anon 1975c, 37

Anderson and Hawlcins 1978, Ross 1988) but they proved ineffective inscaring seals (Anderson and Hawkins 1978). In Denmark various deterrents have been tested suchas gas canons, fire effects near the tackle, shooting and chasing the seals near the tackle but the seals quicklys me accustomed to the disturbance (Hansen 1987).

5. NORTHWEST PACIFIC OCEAN

This area includes Japan and the east coast of Asia (FAOarea 61 and part of 18 and 71). In this area there is one sea lion species, one fur seal species,seven "true" seal species/subspecies and a walrus subspecies. Steller's sea lions are found from northern Japan along the east Russian coast and have a population in this area of 13500- 13800 which is decreasing (Reijnders et al. 1993). They are listed as "Vulnerable" in the IUCN Red list 1993.

Northern fur seals are found from northern Japan along the Russian east coast witha population size of 335 000 - 350 000 in the area (Reijnders et al. 1993). The Western Pacific harbour seal is found along the northern Japan and the Russian east coast and numbers 3 950 in this area. This species has declined markedly as a result of deliberate and incidental mortality during fishing (Wada et al. 1991, Hayama 1988). Larga seals are found along the east Russian coast and northern Japan and have a population size of over 130 000 in this area (Popov 1982). The effect of incidental and deliberate mortalities still to be assessed (Reijnders et al. 1993). Arctic ringed seals occur along the northern and northeastern coast of Russia with a population that is a part of the Bering Sea population of 70 000 - 80 000 animals (Popov 1982). Okhotsk ringed seals occur along the east Russian coast and Japan and have a population of 800 000 - 1000 000 (Reijnders et al. 1993). The Baikal seal is found in the Baikal Sea and has a population of about 60 000 - 70 000 (Pastukhov 1990).Incidental catches of young seals are a possible threat to the population (Reijnders et al. 1993). Ribbon seals are found along the east Russian coast and northern Japan with a population over 133 000 (Popov 1982). The Pacific bearded seal is found along the northeast and east Russian coast and northern Japan and has a population in this area of between 200 000 and 450 000 animals (Popov 1982).

The Pacific walrus is found along the Russian east coast and is a part of the total Pacific population of 230 000 (Gilbert 1989) with an additional 4000 - 5000 animals found in the Laptev Sea (Fay et al. 1990).

5.1Detrimental Effects on Fisheries

Six of the 10 pinnipeds found in this area (Steller's sea lions, northern fur seals, Western Pacific harbour seals, Larga seals, Okhotsk ringed seals and Pacific bearded seals) are involved in interactions with passive net fishing. 38 5.1.1 Depredation

Passive Net and Trap Netting

Steller's sea lions, harbour seals Larga seals, northern fur seals, ringed seals and bearded seals depredate from gill nets trap in Japan and RussiaIn salmon trap nets, on Hokkaido Island, harbour seals, Larga seals, bearded seals, ringed seals and northern fur seals (in order of abundance in terms of those found dead in traps) cause salmon damage (Wada et al. 1986, 1991). Seals were estimated to damage 5.1% (1982) and 1.8% (1983, when there was an early closure of the fishing season) of salmon caught, most attributable to harbour seals (4.7% in 1982 and 1.7% in 1983) (Wada et al. 1991). Along the Hokkaido coast, particularly along the Rebun and Rishiri Islands and the Shalcotan Peninsula, Steller's sea lions also take fish from bottom gill nets (Yamanalca et al. 1986). Masuda (1986) estimates that the economic losses from seals feeding on salmon and causing salmon impairment amounted to the equivalent of 2 to 4 persons share in the fishery co-operative system in southeastern Hoklcaido.

On Daikoku Island damage to salmon from trap nets from examination of wounded salmon (excluding severely damaged salmon je, no head) was 2.1% in 1983 and 3.2% in 1984, of the catch (Niizuma 1986). Cape Erimo in Japan, seals caused damage amounting to 1.4, 1.7 and 1.3% of the catches from three nets and the value of damaged salmon was 70-80% of normal price maldng the losses equal to 0.3-0.5% of the income from these traps (Tanahashi and Itoo 1986). This area is the largest breeding area of harbour seals but there was no pattern of damage caused at the traps closest to the bre,eding ground. There was an inverse relationship between the size of the catch and the percentage of salmon that was damaged (Tanahashi and Itoo 1986). Tanahashi and Itoo (1986) believe most predation takes place at night. In the Kamchatka region Larga seals and Steller's sea lions damage caught fish, decreasing the quality of the fish (Burkanov 1990, Reijnders et al 1993).

5.1.2 Gear Damage

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

In Japan, along the Hokkaido coast, particularly along the Rebun and Rishiri Islands and the Shakotan Peninsula, Steller's sea lions damage bottom gill nets as they take fish from the nets (Yamanaka et al. 1986).

5.1.3 Disturbance of Operations

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

Steller's sea lions disperse shoals of fish from bottom gill nets on the Holdcaido coast, particularly along the Rebun and Rishiri Islands and Shakotan Peninsula (Yamanaka et al. 1986). In Russia, in the Kamchatka region Larga seals and Steller's sea lions sometimes prevent fish from entering traps (Burkanov 1990). 39 5.2Detrimental Effects on Seals

Seven of the 10 pinniped species and subspecies found in this area (Steller's sea lions, northern fur seals, Western Pacific harbour seals, Larga seals, Okhotsk ringed seals, ribbon seals and Pacific bearded seals) je, all except the freshwater Baikal seal and the Pacific walrus, are ldlled incidentally or deliberately during passive net and trap fishing and active net fishing.

5.2.1 Incidental Entrapment

Steller's Sea Lions

Steller's sea lions are taken during gill net and trawl fishing offshore from Russia and Japan. Yablokov (1981) reported that Soviet trawlers in the North Pacific may take several hundred Steller's sea lions annually while Burkanov (1990) noted that it is lcnown that they are caught by trawlers in the Kamchatka region but no quantitative data are available.

Small catches of Steller's sea lions were reported to be caught during Japanese salmon driftnet research cruises - only a single seal in the period 1979 to 1987 (Ito 1986, FAJ 1986, 1987, 1988, Anon 1988b, Northridge 1991b).

Northem Fur Seals

Northern fur seals are taken in gill nets, traps and trawls in the North Pacific (eg, Fowler 1982, Anon 1988b). It is estimated that Japanese salmon and squid fisheries take less than 200 northern fur seals annually (NMFS 1992). In the Japanese mothership drift net salmon fishery, Fukuhara (1974) reported that approximately 3150 - 3750 fur seals were taken annually but it is not lcnown what proportion are released alive (Mate 1980). Lander (1979) and Lander and Kajimura (1982) estimated that the annual accidental catch may have been closer to 7000 because fur seals may have been used as food by the fishermen. Over 700 northern fur seals wereestimated to have been killed in 1978 in this fishery (IUCN 1981, NMFS 1981). O'Hara et al. (1986) estimated that 400 - 1000 animals were taken annually. Jones (1980, 1981, 1982) estimated that in the early 1980's only 100 to 1000 fur seals were taken incidentally while reported incidental deaths in this fishery were limited to 5 northern fur seals during 1985 to 1988 (Northridge 1991b).

Japanese research salmon cruises report catches of 74 northern fur seals between 1979 and 1984, 3 in 1985, 7 in 1986 and 3 in 1987 (Ito 1986, FAJ 1986, 1987, 1988, Northridge 1991b). During Japanese squid driftnetting various figures have been reported. A total of 14 northern fur seals were incidentally killed during 30 sets on a Japanese driftnet vessel in 1986 (Tasunoda 1989, NMFS 1992). During 1986/87, US observers noted that 24 northern fur seals died in squid drift nets (Jones 1988). In 1988 during 464 operations of squid driftnetting, 43 northern furseals died (FM 1989) while in the same year, during 22 sets from a Korean vessel 2 northern fur seals were caught but were released alive (Gooder 1989). In 1989 during 1402 sets, 52 northern fur seals died (Gjernes et al. 1990, NMFS 1992) while (Northridge 1991a) gives a total of approximately2 700 northern fur seal incidental deaths; (Larntz and Garrott 1991) gives 1592 for seals ofdead or of 40 unlcnown status of (236 - 2922, 95% confidence intervals) or 1592 (1000 - 2350, 95% confidence intervals) (Yatsu and Hayase 1991). In 1990, Baba et al. (1991) give 1033 females (up to 1300, 95% confidence intervals) for the incidental take (dead or of unlcnown status).Yatsu and Hayase (1991) give 2066 (1600 - 2600, 95% confidence intervals) as taken in total. The incidental catch in the Japanese squid fishery has been mainly of 1/2 year-old animals and catch rates have ranged from 0.25 (1988) and 0.15 (1989) to 0.23 (1990) per 1000 tans (Anon 1991b). Recent preliminary estimates are of more than 2100 fur seals dying annually due to entanglement in squid driftnets (MMC 1991).

Research drift nets for squid in the northwest Pacific, which generally have larger mesh size than commercial nets, appear to catch more pinnipeds than commercial nets (Northridge 1991b). In 1988, using equal lengths of research and commercial nets, Yatsu (1989) reported that during 33 squid netting operations, 4 northern fur seals were ta.ken, all in research nets. Other figures for northern fur se,a1 incidental deaths during research cruises using both research and commercial nets, are 4 during 42 sets in 1986 (Murata 1987), 4 during 45 sets in 1987 (Murata et al. 1988), 3 during 73 sets in 1988 (Murata et al. 1989) and 4 during 29 sets in 1989 (Kawasaki et al. 1989).

In salmon traps on Holdcaido Island, one northern fur seal was reported to have drowned in 1982 and 1983 (Wada et al. 1986, 1991). During a six-day observation period in 1984, a single northern fur seal died in a salmon trap net on Daikoku Island (Niizuma 1986). In the Kamchatka, region northern fur seals are caught incidentally in salmon drift nets and walleye pollock and cod trawls (Burkanov 1990). Catch rates in the Taiwanese large mesh fishery for tuna and are preliminary put at 0.14 of dead and unknown animals per 1000 tans (Anon 1991b).

Western Pacific Harbour Seals

Harbour seals are taken in gill nets and traps in Japan. Incidental catches of harbour seals are low except in the waters around Hokkaido Island where there is greater use of large salmon trapnets and smaller gill nets and where incidental deaths exce,ed the number of pups born (Reijnders et al. 1993). Naito (1976) indicated that some harbour seals are incidentally taken in salmon set nets off the coast of Japan's Islands. Kuzin et al. (1974) reported 1483 harbour seals dying in nets around the in 1970 and 557 dying in nets in 1971 around the Habomai Islands. During 1982 and 1983 on Holcicaido Island 163 harbour seals drowned in salmon trap nets annually with almost all being found at one particular site, Habomai Fishermen's Cooperative Association anda particular trap (Trap 27), close to the Nosappu Cape; this is about one half of the population along the southeastern coast of Holdcaido Island, or more than 8% of the total population (VVada et al. 1986, 1991). After discontinuation of salmon trap nets at this and a neighbouring site, the number of dead seals increased at other traps, suggesting that the seals moved elsewhere (Wada et al. 1991). Most of the seals caught were pups (27%) and subadults (69%) (Wada et al. 1991). On Daikoku Island during a six-day period 2 harbour seal pups were captured in 1984 in salmon trap nets (Niizuma 1986). Wada et al. (1991) suggest that these seals had learned the structure of the salmon net and could escape without drowning. Itoo and Shikunobe (1986) found that itwas difficult to link the number of dead seals directly with population changes at haul-out sites. 41 Larga Seals

Larga seals are taken in gill nets and traps in Japan and Russia. Naito (1976) reportedat least 27 incidental mortalities of Larga seals in fishing nets in the coastalwaters of Japan in 1969-1971. During 1982 and 1983 on Hokkaido Island, 97 Larga sealswere caught incidentally and died in trap nets set, most being found at one particular site, Habomai Fishermen's Cooperative Association and in a particular trap (Trap 27), close to the Nosappu Cape (VVada et al. 1986, 1991). In 1984 during a six-day period, 10 Larga seals, mostly pups, were caught in salmon trap netson Daikoku Island (Niizuma 1986). Accidental mortality of Larga sealsoccurs in the crab trap-net fisheries in Kamchatica (Burkanov 1990) and Barlow et al. (in press) reports a Larga seal entangled in crab fishing gear.

Okhotsk Ringed Seals

A total of 9 ringed seals were reported to have been incidentally caught in salmon set nets and other fishing nets in Japan between 1969 and 1975 (Naito 1976). During 1982 and 1983 on Holdcaido Island a single ringed seal was caught incidentally and died in a salmon trap net (Wada et al. 1986, 1991). Few ringed seals are caught in Japanese salmon drift-net research cruises - only a single seal in the period 1979 to 1987 (Ito 1986, FAJ 1986, 1987, 1988, Northridge 1991b).

Ribbon Seals

A few ribbon seals are caught incidentally by gill net and trap fishing in Japan (eg, Reijnders et al. 1993). On Hokkaido Island during 1982 and 1983 10 ribbon seals died incidentally in trap nets (Wada et al.1986, 1991). In the coastal waters of the Japanese islands, Naito (1976) documented the incidental catch of two ribbon seals in salmon set nets during 1970 to 1971. During a six-day period in 1984, 14 seals lcilled in salmon trap nets off Daikoku Island, one was an adult male (Niizuma 1986). Naito (1976) reported the incidental catch of 3 ribbon seals by offshore gill nets in 1969 and a single ribbon seal was reported drowned in Japanese salmon gill nets in 1981 in the west Bering Sea (Stewart and Everett 1983).

Pacific Bearded Seals

Bearded seals are taken in traps in Japan. Naito (1976) reported a take of at least six animals from 1968 to 1970 in the coastal waters of Japan. On Holckaido Island during 1982 and 1983 a single bearded seal died in a salmon trap net (Wada et al. 1986, 1991).

5.2.2 Deliberate Killing

Steller's Sea Lions

Steller's sea lions are shot in the Bering Sea by salmon fishermen in an attempt to prevent damage to their catches in nets (Burlcanov 1990). 42 Larga Seals Larga seals are shot by salmon fishermen to prevent damage to their catches in nets (Burkanov 1990, Reijnders et al. 1993).

5.3Mitigation Measures

To investigate means of alleviating damage on bottom set nets in Holckaido baited bag nets of different strengths were tested against attack from Steller's sea lions (Sasalcawa 1989). It was shown that bags of more than 75 yarns were safe from damage by sea lions and knotted webbing is better in preventing the spread of broken areas (Sasalcawa 1989). An automatic explosion simulator to keep sea lions away from nets was tested in Hokkaido and during 13 hauls of the net good catches were made without damage from sea lions (Sasakawa 1989).

6. SOUTH PACIF1C/ATLANTIC OCEANS

6.1Species Distribution

This area includes South America south of the equator and the Galapagos Islands (FAO area 87 and most of 41 and part of 77). In this area there are two species/subspecies of sea lion, three species of fur seal and a single "true" seal species. Galapagos sea lions are found on the Galapagos Islands and there is an estimated population of 30 000 individuals (Trillmich 1979). South American sea lions are found along the Peruvian, Chilean and Argentinean coasts and at the and have a population size of 155 000 (calculated from Reijnders et al. 1993) that has declined. This may be due to deliberate killing by fishermen (Reijnders et al. 1993).

Galapagos fur seals are found only on the Galapagos Islands and have a population of less than 40 000 (Trillmich and Ono 1991). Juan Fernandez fur seals are found on the Juan Fernandez and Desventuradas Islands of , and have a population size of 18 295 which is increasing (J. Francis, pers. comm.). South American fur seals are found along the coast of southern and throughout Chile, the coast of and the Falkland Islands with a population size of 235 000- 285 000 (P. Majluf, M. Lima and A. Ponce de Leon, pers. comm.).Southern elephant seals are found in and the Falkland Islands; these animals are a proportion of a total population of 700 000 - 800 000 animals (calculated from Reijnders et al. 1993).

Only one of the 6 pinnipeds found in this area (South American sea lions) are reported to interfere with passive net and line fishing, active line fishing and fish farms. 43 6.2Detrimental Effects on Fisheries

6.2.1 Depredation

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

South American sea lions are known to depredate fish caught in gill nets in a number of areas along the west and east coasts of South America, often only consuming the visceral (eg, yaz- Ferreira 1979, 1982).

In the Necochea and Clameco shark fisheries, South American sea lions damage catches, generally biting the belly of the entangled fish and taldng the liver (Corcuera et al. 1990, Crespo and Corcuera 1990, Crespo 1992). An example is given by Crespo and Corcuera (1990) who report that during a survey trip in 1989 a single male South American sea lion damaged almost 60% of the catch.

South American sea lions, mainly adult males, remove whole fish from sciaenid and ratfish nets in southern Chile and also take the belly portion of netted fish, most frequently attacldng sciaenids (Oporto et al. 1991). Depredation occurs mainly in winter and spring and is done by individuals or groups of 3-6 animals per net, although one individual is capable of destroying an entire day's catch (Oporto et al. 1991). At a single one of the 35 localities of artisanal fisheries for sciaenids at Queule in southern Chile, depredation by sea lions amounted to about 140 tons, at a cost of nearly $120 000 per year or 35% of the value of gill net fisheries (Oporto et al. 1991).

Passive Line Fishing

South American sea lions are known to depredate fish caught on passive lines (longline), often consuming the visceral parts only (Vaz-Ferreira 1979, 1982).

Fish Farming

South American sea lions depredate from fish farms in Chile. They attack raft-pens on salmon farms taking or damaging fishthrough the net, usually taking the belly portion (Oporto et al. 1991). This is usually done by 3 or 4 individuals. Losses vary according to the size of the salmon farms and the proximity to sea lion rookeries (Oporto et al. 1991). Losses per salmon farm were estimated at between $7 000 and $40 000, or 0.5-2.2% of total net salmon production (Oporto et al. 1991).

6.2.2 Gear Damage

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

South American sea lions can cause serious damage to both shark nets and sciaenid and ratfish all nets on the west and east coasts of South America (eg, Vaz Ferreira 1982, Crespo1992). 44 Fishermen in southern Chile claim that at least 1 to 2 days a week are needed to repair the nets during which time they could be fishing (Oporto et al. 1991).

Active Line Fishing

South American sea lions can damage squid jigs in trying to remove squid from the jigs on the South American east coast (Crespo et al. 1992).

Fish Farming

South American sea lions, particularly adult males, attack raft-pens of the salmon farms, ripping open the nets and allowing salmon to escape (Oporto and Leal 1990, Oporto et al. 1991).

6.2.3 Disturbance of Operations

Fish farming

South American sea lions disturb fish in fish cages in Chile. When South American sea lions are around raft-pens on salmon farms, their presence causes stress to the fish malcing them more susceptible to disease or causing them to crowd, resulting in deteriorating of body condition and making them unmarketable or diminishing their value (Bonner 1982, Oporto and Leal 1990).

6.3Detrimental Effects on Seals

6.3.1 Species Affected

Four of the 6 pinniped species found in this area, (South American sea lions, Galapagos, Juan Fernandez and South American fur seals) are Idlled incidentally or deliberately during all types of fishing - passive and active netting and line fishing and fish farming. In addition, 3 of the 5 pinniped species found in the Southern Ocean may also be deliberately killed by fishermen for bait or otherwise.

6.3.2 Incidental Entrapment

South American Sea Lions

South American sea lions are known to be caught shark gill nets but rarely in trawls in Uruguay and Argentina (Pinedo 1984, Scialabba 1989, Crespo and Corcuera 1990).

South American Fur Seals

South American fur seals are taken incidentally in gill nets, rarely in trawls and also in salmon farm nets and anti-predator nets in Uruguay, Argentina, the Falkland Islands and Peru (eg, 45

Oporto 1990, Reyes and Oporto 1990). In the Falkland Islands, althoughobserver reports from trawlers indicate that South American fur sealsare quite often seen near fishing operations, in 4 years there is only 1 record of a fur seal drowning (Scialabba 1989).

Galapagos Fur Seals

Galapagos fur seals have died in gill nets but the problem seems to have been resolved (Reijnders et al. 1993).

6.3.3 Deliberate Killing

South American Sea Lions

South American sea lions are Idlled by fishermen, probably in all are,as in which fishing (including gillnets,trawls,long-lines,trolling and fish farming) occurs and are may be considerable mortality (eg, Vaz-Ferreira 1979, 1982, Pinedo 1984). They are also Idlled by king crab fishermen for bait in southern Chile and Argentina (Cardenas et al. 1987, Lesrauweat 1990, Oporto 1990, Torres et al. 1990).

There is periodic indiscriminate lcilling of sea lions using a variety of methods but this is difficult to determine although local populations are reported to have been considerably reduced (Oporto et al. 1991). Oporto et al. (1991) also provide an example of permits issued that exceed the local population sizes. Torres et al. (1990) report that South American sea lions thatare considered "harmful" to fishing activities because they take netted fish may be killed without a permit in Chile.

Trawl, gill net and squid jigging fishermen and salmon farmers shoot South American sea lions or kill them in other ways (including use of dynamite) in southern Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile and Peru (Pined° 1986, Crespo 1992, Crespo et al. 1992, Reijnders et al. 1993). In Brazil most of the animals found dead on the beaches show signs of mutilation through scars or wounds made with firearms, sticks, ropes or nets (Pinedo 1986, Rosas 1989). In Chile sciaenid and ratfish net fishermen frequently kill South American sea lions and at Queule have utilised the military to carry out culls on all ages at certain rookeries (Oporto et al. 1991). In southern Chile, an increase in salmon farming has resulted in considerable legal and illegal hunting of South American sea lions (Woodley and Lavigne 1991). Since 1988 the talcing of pinnipeds for bait has decreased as sea lions have become more scarce and wary of the fishermen, the Argentinean side of the Beagle Channel and near Cape Horn, deliberate killing for bait has decreased (Crespo and Corcuera 1990, Oporto et al. 1991, Crespo 1992).

Juan Fernandez Fur Seal

There may have been some illegal catch of Juan Fernandez fur seals for lobster bait (Hubbs and Norris 1971, Reijnders et al. 1993). 46

South American Fur Seals

In the Beagle Channel South American fur seals are used fcir king crab bait (Crespo and Corcuera 1990, Oporto et al. 1991, Crespo 1992, Reijnders et al. 1993) but although the practice continues in southern Chile, it seems to have decreased on the Argentinean side of the Channel (Crespo and Corcuera 1990, Crespo 1992).

Antarctic Fur Seals

Leopard seals may be captured for use as bait in the ldng crab fishery (Oporto et al. 1991).

Weddell Seals

In southern Chile in 1990 fishermen are known to have killed a Weddell seal at Queule, possibly only because it was in the area and not because it was interfering with fishing (Oporto et al. 1991).

Leopard Seals

Leopard seals may be captured for use as bait in the king crab fishery (Oporto et al. 1991) and fishermen are known to have killed a female leopard seal at Corral Bay in southern Chile, possibly only because it was in the area and not because it was interfering with fishing (Oporto and Brieva 1986).

6.4Mitigation Measures

Various methods have been used to decrease interactions in Chile, including armed guards which shoot at seals, anti-sea lion nets on fish farms, acoustic harassment devices, buckets with fire, fish filled with poisoned bait or sharp objects such as glass, spearing seals with iron tools leaving them to rot in the hopes that other sea lions will avoid the area, and making captured sea lions ingest huge amounts of carbide so that the resultant gas in their stomachs makes them incapable of diving and they are then lcilled with sticks and shotguns (Oporto and Leal 1990, Oporto et al. 1991). Anti-sea lion nets which keep sea lions away from the raft-pens are one of the most successful methods adopted, but they cause entanglement of sea lions in these nets (Oporto and Leal 1990, Oporto et al. 1991). Approximately 12.5% of salmon farms use, or have used, acoustic harassment devices but sea lions become habituated to them (Oporto and Leal 1990, Oporto et al. 1991) and the frequencies used may be incorrect for South American sea lions or individuals have different sound or intensity tolerances (Geiger 1985). The use of fish filled with poisoned bait or sharp objects such as glass is apparently not effective because sea lions avoid damaged fish (Oporto et al. 1991) 47 7. SOUTH ATLANTIC/ Ii OCEANS

7.1Species Distribution

This area includes the coast of Africa south of the equator, (FAOarea 47 and part of areas 34 and 51). Only one subspecies of pinniped is resident in thisarea. South African fur seals are found on the Namibian coast and the west and south coast of South Africa witha population of up to 2 million animals, that is increasing (Butterworth et al. 1991).

South African fur seals interact with passive and active forms of net and line fishingon the west and south coast of southern Africa and overall operational interactions are estimated to cost the in South Africa alone some R2- 5 million per year (0.3 - 0.7% of the value of the fishery) (Wickens 1994b).

7.2Detrimental Effects on Fisheries

7.2.1 Depredation

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

Seals take fish from inshore gill nets and lobster associated with the trap and hoopnet fishery in South Africa (eg, Wickens 1989, 1991, Cochrane and Wickens 1990). In 1989 minimal gill net fishery losses were estimated to be about 21 t or R39 000 (Wickens et al. 1992). Based on an observer programme in 1993, losses caused by seals were calculated to be a few thousand Rand per year, with losses occurring particularly to St Joseph shark nets (1.6% of netted fish) rather than from mullet nets (0.2% of netted fish) (VVickens 1993, 1994b, 1994e, submitted(1994c)). Seals are unlikely to take lobster that form part of the catch from lobster traps and hoopnets, but they do take undersize lobster that are returned to the sea (Wickens et al. 1992, Wickens 1993, 1994b, d, e, sub mitted (b)).

Active Net Fishing

South African fur seals take fish from purse-seine and trawl (inshore and offshore, bottom and midwater) nets but neither is considered to be a major problem because much of this fish are by the vessels (eg, Rand 1959, Shaughnessy et al. 1981, Shaughnessy 1985, Anon 1987, David 1987, Wickens 1989, 1991, 1994a, Cochrane and Wickens 1990, Reijnders et al. 1993). The amount of fish taken from purse-seine nets is not large, possibly 759 t/year (Wickens et al. 1992).

The amount of fish taken from offshore demersal nets is not large, possibly 796 t,/year (Wickens et al. 1992). The distribution of seals has been shown to be significantly influenced by commercial offshore trawling because seals feed on fish scale available as a result of trawling activities (Ryan and Moloney 1988). David (1987) showed that, although there were claims that the trawling industry in South Africa was supporting an artificially high seals population through seals 48 scavenging, this could not be demonstrated on the basis of seal consumption rates and numbers of seals attending trawler nets.

Predation by South African fur seals from inshore trawl nets results in the loss of fish; approximately 0.7% of sole are damaged and 11.7% of Idngklip, but sole are easily removed whole and therefore are not recorded in the catch so this is an underestimate (Wickens 1993, 1994b, e, Wickens and Sims in press). In total this amounts to some R70 000/yr (0.3% of the value of the fishery) in losses of sole and ldngklip (Wickens 1993, 1994b, e, Wickens and Sims in press).

Passive Line Fishing

During demersal long-lining, a method not currently used, seals were lcnown to take fish, often only talcing the belly portion (eg, Anon 1972, David 1987, Wickens 1989, Cochrane and Wickens 1990, Wickens 1991, 1993, 1994b). Losses were large, averaging 11.6% over the five- year period from 1985 to 1989, although the depredation rate did decrease from 19.4% in 1986 to 5.3% in 1989. The cost was R1394/yr in 1992 (Wickens et al. 1992).

Active Line Fishing

Seals taldng either whole fish and damaging fish, from handlines is a problem, particularly during snoek fishing and seals can be a minor problem during squid jigging, tuna long-lining and sport fishing (eg, Nepgen 1970, Shaughnessy et al. 1981, Shaughnessy 1982, 1985, Wickens 1989, Anon 1990a, Cochrane and Wickens 1990, Hanks 1990, Wickens 1991, 1994f). A questionnaire survey showed that fishermen considered seals frequently to cause loss of fish and tacIde because they are nearly always present (Wickens 1993, 1994b, c).

Meyer et al. (1992) estimated that 8.3% (1988), 2.8% (1989), 0.7% (190) and 3.6% (1991) of handline-caught fish were lost to seals. The amount lost was 2.3% for all species caught and for the two predominant fish species, 3.0% for snoek and 1.5% for hottentot, the difference in losses between the two species was significant (Meyer et al. 1992). They estimated that R230 000 (0.2% of the value of the fishery) was lost through depredation by seals in 1989. Wickens et al. (1992) put the figure at R911 000/yr in 1989 for depredation from handlines by seals.

Meyer et al. (1992) showed that 67% of trips returned without loss although Wickens (1993, 1994b) showed the reverse, that during snoek fishing in the peak period, on two-thirds of trips some losses occurred (Wickens 1993, 1994b, c, submitted(a)).Based on an observer programme of snoek fishing in South Africa during 1992, losses caused by seals amounted to 5.4% of all fish caught; a further 1.5% were damaged with cost estimated between R435 000 to R871 000 (3.1 to 6.2% of the value of the fishery). This excludes the losses in vessel running time, bait costs etc. (Meyer et al. 1992, Wickens 1993, 1994b, c, e, submitted(a)). During other forms of line-fishing, losses were estimated to be between R20 000 (if only hottentot were considered) and R375 000/yr (if all other handline caught fish were assumed to be lost at this rate) (0.1-1.5% of the value of the fishery), excluding vessel running costs. 49 7.2.2 Gear Damage

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

South African fur seals tear nets in the inshore drift netting fishery butthe damage is difficult to quantify and they may also damage or remove bait bags attached to lobsterhoopnets (eg, Rand 1959, Wickens 1989, Cochrane and Wickens 1990, Wickenset al.1992, Wickens 1994e, submitted(c)). The minimal loss of bait bags from lobster hoopnetswas estimated to cost, R2 517 in 1992 (Wickens 1993, 1994b, d, submitted(b)).

Active Net Fishing

Seals are reported to damage purse-seine nets and trawl nets but this is of negligiblecost although some trawler propellers can be damaged (eg, Shaughnessy 1979, Wickens 1994a). In the demersal offshore trawling fishery, seals are known to become caught in propeller nozzles, causing and great cost to the companies involved (Anon 1987, Wickens 1989, Cochrane and Wickens 1990, Wickens 1991, 1993, 1994b, e, Wickens et al. 1992, Wickens and Sims in press). The cost of damage to propeller blades was estimated at R308 000 in 1989 and in one case a company decided to redesign the deck layout at a cost of one million Rand per vessel for two vessels (Wickens et al. 1992).

Passive Line Fishing

Seals may cause losses of gear during tuna long-lining (Cochrane and Wickens 1990, Wickens 1989, Wickens et al. 1992, Wickens 1993, 1994b).

Active Line Fishing

Seals result in loss of line fishing tackle during , particularly during fishing for snoek but also during tuna sport fishing and squid jigging (eg,.Shaughnessy 1985, Wickens 1989, 1991, 1994 e, f, Cochrane and Wickens 1990, Wickens et al. 1992). During handline fishing Meyer et al. (1992) estimated that R42 000 (0.035% of the value of the fishery) was lost to seals in 1989. While fishing for snoek an estimated 2.3% of tackle is lost to seals, amounting to between R26 000 and R109 000 or equivalent to 0.2 - 0.8% of the value of the fishery (Wickens et al. 1993, 1994b, c, submitted(a)). During other forms of line fishing the loss of tackle to seals is estimated at R4000/yr or 0.02% of the value of the fishery (Meyer et al. 1992, Wickens 1993, 1994b, c, submitted(a)).

7.2.3 Disturbance of Operations

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

Seals are believed to disturb lobster from hoopnets (Rand 1959, Cochrane and Wickens 1990, Wickens et al. 1992, Wickens 1989, 1993, 1994b, d, e). 50

Active Net Fishing

Seals frighten fish from purse-seine nets and disrupt fishing if they are caught in the fish pump or come aboard purse-seiners or trawls when they can then be difficult to removeand may injure crew members (eg, Anon 1972, Shaughnessy 1979, 1981, 1982, 1985, David 1987, Wickens 1989, 1991, 1994 e, f, Cochrane and Wickens 1990, Reijnders et al. 1993, Wickens and Sims in press). Observations show that for 5% of purse-seine hauls seals cause losses of fish from the net at a estimated cost of R1.4 million (Wickens 1993, 1994a, b). Although Wickens et al. (1992) calculated that loss of a fish shoal resulting from seals occurred 24 times per year for the whole purse-seine fleet. Wickens (1993, 1994a, b), using direct observations, estimated that this happens 8 times per vessel per year for the 87 active vessels.

Shaughnessy et al. (1981) report over a hundred seals and up to 500 seals around purse-seiners in Namibia, Thomas and Schulein (1988) indicate that commonly over 50 and often over 300 seals may be seen in the same situation but (Wickens et al. 1993, 1994a, b) saw an averaging 9 seals with no more than 90 seals during observations in South Africa,

Active Line Fishing

Seals may cause linefish shoals (eg, snoek or squid) to disperse and may feed on the chum and disrupt tuna (eg, Rand 1959, Wickens 1989, 1993, 1994a, b, c, Cochrane and Wickens 1990, Meyer et al. 1992, Wickens et al. 1992). During observations, (3.6% of days observed) a sidboat once moved because of seal numbers during hottentot fishing and on 4 occasions (2.4% of days observed) seals were thought to cause snoek to sound (Meyer et al. 1992).

7.3Detrimental Effects on Seals 7.3.1 Incidental Entrapment

South African fur seals are caught incidentally or deliberately Idlled during all forms of passive and active net and linefishing.

South African Fur Seals

South African fur seals drown gill nets, trawls and purse-seines (eg, Shaughnessy 1979, 1982, Shaughnessy et al. 1981, Wickens 1994e, f). Shaughnessy and Payne (1979) calculated that 0.057 seals drowned per trawl on the west coast and between 0.005 and 0.032 seals per trawl drowned on the south coast, Wickens et al. (1992), based on their figures for the west coast, calculated that this amounted to 1089 seals per year in this area. Based on observations during 1992 and 1993, figures indicate that 438 - 1610 for seals drown annually in offshore demersal trawl nets, 1079 in inshore demersal trawl nets, 1034 in midwater trawl nets, 174 in purse-seine nets and 14 in inshore drift nets (Wickens 1993, 1994a, b, submitted(c), Wickens and Sims in press). 51 7.3.2 Deliberate Killing

South African Fur Seals

South African fur seals are shot by the fishermen during all forms of passive and active net and line fishing and they may be deliberately killed if they pose a threat to the safety of the fishermen, eg, if they come aboard a fishing vessel (eg, Shaughnessy 1979, Shaughnessy and Payne 1979, Wickens et al. 1992, Wickens 1994c, e, f). Shaughnessy (1985) reported that aerial surveys of the coastline in Namibia, which showed dead seals on the beaches, indicated that there is a higher mortality rate of seals during the purse-seine fishing season than at other times, indicating that perhaps seals are killed by fishermen during this time.

Shaughnessy and Payne (1979) calculated that when from seals were aboard during offshore trawling on the south coast of South Africa, the mortality rate from deliberate Idlls was 0.018 seals per trawl. Based on observations during 1992 and 1993 in South Africa, an estimated 212-424 fur seals are killed annually during offshore demersal trawling, some possibly during inshore trawling, 143 during midwater trawling, less than 825 during purse-seining and 14 during inshore drift netting (Wickens 1993, 1994a, b, submitted(a), (c), Wickens and Sims in press).

7.4Mitigation Measures

A number of attempts have been made to find efficient and humane methods of deterring seals from fishing operations but none has proved successful for all fisheries (Wickens 1993, 1994b). Experiments in the early 1970's used explosive firecrackers but they were thought to disturb the fish and are therefore no longer used (Anon 1972, 1976, Shaughnessy et al. 1981, Wickens et al. 1992). Electronic pulses and airguns, sounds of lciller whales and shots fired into the water (Anon 1975a, b, 1977, 1978a) had no lasting effects.During demersal long-lining, lines were hauled faster malcing it more difficult for seals to take fish and an inflatable boat was deployedthroughout the hauling operation to pick up floating fish, disrupt the feeding behaviour of seals and tohelp in keeping seals away from lines (Wickens et al. 1992). However, with the developmentof the fishery, seals adapted and dived further away and deeper to take fish fromthe lines.

A suggestion has been made that in, for example, the rock lobsterhoopnetting fishery, a change to the baiting technique used in one particular area may reduceproblems in others but this has yet to be tested (Wickens 1993, 1994b, d). In addition, a method toalleviate the problem of seals damaging propellers on some offshore trawlers is beinginvestigated.Fish discarded overboard - the target for seals - is minced finely malcing it inaccessible toseals (Wickens 1993, 1994b, Wickens and Sims in press).

Culling is not thought to be a solution because it is generally notlarge numbers of seals that are involved; therefore some localisedform of solution is required (Wickens 1993, 1994b, e, f). The shooting of seals is illegal in South Africa but it is anongoing practice (Wickens et al. 1992, Wickens 1993, 1994b, submitted(a)) although there areproblems with this as it is generally 52 considered to be in effective, places undue risk on the part of other fishermen working in the area and is not considered to be a humane (Wickens 1993, 1994b, submitted (a)).

8. SOU ' I IAN/PACIFIC OCEANS

8.1Species Situation

This area includes and New Zealand (FAO areas 57 and parts of 71 and 81) where two species of sea lion and two species/subspecies of fur seal are resident in this area.The Australian sea lion occurs on the southwest coast of Australia and has a stable population size of 10 000 - 12 000 (Reijnders et al. 1993).It is listed in the IUCN Red List as "Rare". Hooker's sea lion is found to the south of New Zealand and has a population size of 10 000 - 15 000 (Reijnders et al. 1993).Incidental mortality during squid trawling and the life history of the population is thought to be a threat to the Hooker's sea lion population (eg, Doonan and Cawthorn 1984, Reijnders et al. 1993, Woodley and Lavigne 1993, 1994).Australian fur seals are found along the southeast coast of Australia and with a population size of 35 000 - 60 000 animals (Kirlcwood et al. 1992). A significant proportion of Australian fur seal mortality is through entanglement and shooting (Shaughnessy and Warneke 1987). New Zealand fur seals are found on the southwest coast of Australia and Tasmania and to the south of New Zealand with a population of 134 700, that is increasing (Brothers and Pemberton 1990, Taylor 1990, Shaughnessy et al. 1994)

All of the 4 pinnipeds found in this area (Australian and Hooker's sea lions and Australian and New Zealand fur seals) are involved in interactions with passive net and trap fishing, active net and line fishing and fish farming in this area.In addition, leopard seals from the Southern Ocean are possibly also involved in interactions with fish farms.

Fur seal bycatch occurs in all areas of the New Zealand zone south of 40°S but is most prevalent off the west coast of the , Snares Shelf, and the Puysegur and Bounty Islands. 'Incidents' occur mostly on the edge of the continental shelf adjacent to rocicy shores that can support fur seal rookeries and haulouts. Forty five percent of the observed seal catch off the coast of the South Island was by vessels fishing for hake, not hold.There are large differences in bycatch off the west coast of the South Island with the highest rates occuring in waters deeper than 500m south of Cape Foulwind (Gibson 1995). A potential threat to New Zealand fur seals is an increase in fisheries activities because of incidental mortality (Reijnders et al. 1993). 53 8.2Detrimental Effects on Fisheries

8.2.1 Depredation

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

Australian fur seals are reported to maul salmon in set nets (Warneke 1979, 1982, Storr 1965, Warneke 1982) and Australian sea lions rob lobster pots as well as shark set nets (Robinson and Dennis 1988, Goldsworthy and Shaughnessy 1994).

Active Net Fishing

New Zealand fur seals pull fish from hoki trawl nets in New Zealand (Mattlin and Cawthorn 1991) and Hooker's sea lion are frequently observed taking squid from shelf trawl nets during retrieval and generally take squid from the side panels of the net as it is hauled along the surface of the water and aboard (Donoghue 1985). In 1993 for the whole zone there were an estimated 774 incidents involving about 1021 seals. There was an apparent decline in the number of incidents between 1990 and 1993 which was probably the result of a large shift in the distribution of fishing away from areas where the incidence rate was better known. Also, vessels with more experience fishing within the zone tended to have lower incidence rates.However, lack of data prevents firm conclusions about many of the relevant factors (Gibson 1995).

Fish Farming

Australian fur seals, and occasionally leopard seals (which occur in the Southern Ocean), take fish from salmon and farms in Tasmania, mostly during the night, particularly from those farms closest to seal-haul-outs (the seals involved generally are large subadult and adult males (Pemberton 1989, Pemberton et al. 1991, Pemberton and Shaughnessy 1993).

8.2.2 Gear Damage

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

Australian fur seals were reported to cause extensive damage to set nets in Victoria (Warneke 1979, 1982).

Fish Farming

Australian fur seals attack salmon and trout farms in Tasmania to take fish and in doing so damage the pens (Pemberton and Shaughnessy 1993). 54 8.2.3 Disturbance of Operations

Passive Net and Trap Fishing

Australian fur seals can cause fish to escape from set nets in Victoria and salmon and trout farms in Tasmania (eg, Warneke 1979, 1982, Pemberton et al. 1991). Usually large quantities of fish do not escape but on a few occasions there were large losses eg, 8 tonnes or 720 salmon and trout, each between 1 and 3 kg (Pemberton and Shaughnessy 1993). Annual losses for 1986/87 were estimated at between $10 000 and $175 000 per farm on 15 farms, with one farm losing more than $500 000 worth of fish in a year (Pemberton 1989).

Active Net Fishing

New Zealand fur seals are known to board hold trawlers in New Z,ealand via the stern ramp which can disrupt activities (Mattlin and Cawthorn 1991).

Active Line Fishing

Australian fur seals were reported to disrupt line fishing for barracouta but this only seems to be in seasons of short supply (Warneke 1979).

8.3Detrimental Effects on Seals

8.3.1 Incidental Entrapment

All of the 4 pinnipeds found in this area (Australian sea lions, Hooker's sea lions, Australian fur seals and New Zealand fur seals) are killed incidentally or deliberately during passive net and trap fishing, active net fishing, passive line fishing and fish farming.

Hooker's Sea Lions

Incidental captures of Hooker's sea lions in squid trawls on the Aucldands Shelf are a concern for the Hooker's sea lion population (eg, Doonan and Cawthorn 1984, Reijnders et al. 1993, Woodley and Lavigne 1993, 1994). Since the mid-1980's it is estimated that the annual kill is about 110 Hooker's sea lions (74 - 163) of which about 72% are females which can therefore result in pups dying as well (Cawthorn 1985, Anon 1991a, Mattlin and Cawthorn 1991). The numbers of Hooker's sea lions that have been talcen in squid trawls are 95 (1978/79), 251 (1979/80), 239 (1980/81), 323 (1981/82) and 309 (1982/83) (Donoghue 1985) and 143 (1986/87) and 43 (1987/88) (Anon 1991a).

Since January 1988, 2506 of 16 860 (14.8%) tows on the Auckland Island's shelf, and annula coverage has varied from 9% in 1994 to 29% during 1993. Nine Hooker's sea lions were reported Idlled in the 1994 southern squid trawl fishery; 3 by vessels with MAF observers and 6 by vessels 55 without observers. Since 1991 all position data of incidents has been known. The main fishery in the area of interest is for squid but other species are also sought, eg, three Hooker's sea lions were caught in 1993 by vessels targeting scampi. Using the data for observed vessels, the total annual mortality estimates for Hooker's sea lions for 1988-1994, assumming all catches were in area 6T can be estimated and is as follows (Baird 1995):

Year Es ate Binomial Interval 1988 32.6 16-60 1989 140.8 98-200 1990 117.4 68-190

1991 20.6 3-71 1992 81.8 38-150 1993 7-36 1994 32.3 8-91

Australian Fur Seals

Australian fur seals drown in fish traps and lobster pots and trawls (eg, Warneke 1979, 1982, Goldsworthy and Shaughnessy 1994). Warneke (1975) reported that at Seal Rocks, 1.8% of juveniles retrieved were identified as having died in fishing gear while around Seal Rocks,24% of juveniles retrieved were identified as having died in rock-lobster pots, fish traps and nets.

New Zealand Fur Seals

New Zealand fur seals are occasionally trapped and drown in set nets and lobster traps,trawls for barracouta on the west coast of the South Islands, trawls for hold onthe east coast of the South Islands, and trawls for squid on the west coast of the South Island) and long-lines onthe west coast of South Island) (Crawley and Warneke 1979, Woodley and Lavigne 1991,Reijnders et al. 1993, Mattlin 1994b).

New Zealand fur seals are caught in the hoki midwatertrawl fishery in New Zealand (Anon 1990e, 1991a, Mattlin and Cawthorn 1991, Mattlin 1994a). Forty areincidental Idlls were recorded in 1986, 52 in 1987 and 21 in 1988 (Anon 1990c), followed by alarge incidental kill of 800-900 seals in 1989 (Mattlin 1994a). After the implementation ofguidelines in 1990 to reduce incidental mortalities an estimated 596 (521-719) seals died (Mattlin 1994a).A further 172 (143-197) died in 1991 and 160 (130-194) in 1992 (Mattlin 1994a). Althoughin 1989 it was common for there to be multiple catches, thereafter there were fewer multiple catches, mostcatches being of single seals (Mattlin and Cawthorn 1991).The probability of patching one or more sealsin a haul has 56 decreased from 13.4% in 1989 to 2% in 1992 (Mattlin 1994a). The numbers of females caught have varied from at least 38% in 1990 and at least 19% in 1991 to 57% in 1992 (Mattlin 1994a). The majority of seals are caught at night and most appear to be taken as the gear is shot away and not as it is being hauled. Fur seals have learned to approach the trawler on hearing the noise of the winch (Anon 1990c).

8.3.2 Deliberate Killing

Australian Sea Lions

Australian sea lions were reported to be Idlled by fishermen if they were caught damaging nets (King and Marlow 1979) and many fishermen carry firearms for dealing with problem seals (Robinson and Dennis 1988).

Hooker's Sea Lion

In the northern part of their range, Hooker's sea lions are occasionally Idlled by fishermen and a few may be killed illegally for use as crab bait (Marlow and King 1979, Reijnders et al. 1993).

Australian Fur Seals

Significant numbers of immature fur seals are shot by fishermen (Warneke 1975, 1979, Goldsworthy and Shaughnessy 1994, Reijnders et al. 1993) and around fish farms (Pemberton and Shaughnessy 1993).

New Zealand Fur Seals

Some New Zealand fur seals are shot for no apparent reason while others are shot when attacicing hooked tuna (Mattlin 1994b). The number shot is unknown but it is probably low based on anecdotal information and the recovery of wounded or dead animals (Mattlin 1994b).

8.4Mitigation Measures

To avoid pinnipeds being taken in hoki trawls, it is recommended that trawlers deploy and retrieve their nets as quickly as possible, maintain the net below 150m depth, deploya crew member to observe any seal entanglement to ensure timely assistance for the animals, and at night lights should be left on for a minimum period of time (Anon 1990c, 1991a, Mattlin and Cawthorn 1991, Woodley and Lavigne 1993). The possibility of changing the fishing method to prevent the capture of Hooker's sea lions, including escape panels in nets and having closed areas for fishing, has been discussed (Anon 1990e, 1991a). For 1993-1995 a catch limit of 63 Hooker'ssea lion deaths (32 females) was set for the southern squid fishery and the operation ofany vessel that killed 3 sea lions would be reviewed. The industry would remove any vessel that killed 4sea lions as a 57 voluntary measure (Baird 1995).

Shooting has been tried at Tasmanian fish farms but is onlyconsidered effective if- s are lcilled (Pemberton 1989, Pemberton and Shaughnessy 1993).Explosive seal crackers, protection nets, emetics, pursuit by boats, lights and acoustic scarers have been usedon seals around fish farms in Tasmania but none is completely effective although therate of attacks by seals may be reduced (Pemberton 1989, Pemberton et al. 1991, Pemberton and Shaughnessy1993). Pemberton and Shaughnessy 1993 consider the use of emetics to be worth furtherresearch. The only method of effectively reducing attacks is considered to be physically excludingseals but the cost of this must be weighed up against the losses on those farms which are distant from seal haulouts (Pemberton et al. 1991).

9. CONCLUSIONS

9.1Introduction

There are throughout the world interactions between pinnipeds and fishing operations. These vary greatly in extent and in their impact on either a fishery or pinniped population, ranges from infrequent interactions in specific areas to large-scale problems causing population declinesor substantial economic losses. Not all interactions are detrimental and it is not always the pinnipeds that seek out the fishing operations. Although seals often feed in the vicinity of fish shoals, they are attracted by fish already herded together or trapped in fishing gear, fishermen may also search for concentrations of pinnipeds as indicators of fish shoals.

9.2Quantification of Interactions

The methods of collection of data from different regions and times is extremely variable, and undertaken for various lengths of time. These range from once-off questionnaire surveys, dock-side interviews, direct observations for particular periods of time to compulsory observer programmes covering a notable proportion of the fishing effort. For example there are compulsory observer programmes in the U.S.A. (eg, Perez and Loughlin 1991) and New Zealand (eg, Mattlin 1994b) which allow for the collection of large amounts of data, while in other areas, observation data are collected for specific projects and for limited periods of time in, eg, South Africa (Wickens 1994b) and Japan (Wada et al. 1991). The accuracy of data collected using the different methods varies considerably and this huge variation in collection methods makes comparisons of interactions between areas and times difficult.

Most of the interactions have a patchy distribution, being concentrated in certain areas. Extrapolation of figures sampled from an individual local fishery to the whole fishery is invariably impossible or requires careful interpretation if it is not to be misleading. The types and extent of interactions also vary seasonally and annually, maldng evaluations during specific years, possibly relating to certain fishing conditions, difficult to utilise more generally. 58 A number of the interactions between pinnipeds and fishing operations are difficult to quantify. For example, if seal activity causes a fish shoal to disperse that had been targeted by a fishing operation, it is difficult to estimate the cost of this. If the fishery in question operates on a quota system and where the quota is likely to be filled, this lossof fish is measured in extra fishing time. Alternatively, in a non-quota fishery, the loss may be measured by the estimated value of the fish lost. Another example is the presence of a seal that is caught in a net causing tears to the net and a loss of catch. It is possible to estimate damage to nets but the loss resulting from tears is generally small when compared to catch losses during the time required for repairs. In addition, the possible loss of fish that are deterred from the net by the presence of the seal, je, the time that the net is in the water but not worldng optimally, is also difficult to estimate.

There is no substitute for direct observations of fishing operations to quantify interactions reliably because interactions are often exaggerated when detrimental to the fishery or under estimated when interactions are detrimental to the pinnipeds involved. For example, seals may be used as scapegoats for other factors such as inexperienced fishing techniques and seals may be dumped overboard and not recorded, or seals may be used as food for the fishermen, maldng it difficult to distinguishing between incidental and deliberate catches.

9.3Summary of Extent of Interactions

This review summarises cases of operational interactions between pinnipeds and fisheries or fish farms. Some of these may be severe in terms of the cost to the fishery or fish farm or in terms of mortality of a species. For others, they may be merely a record of an infrequent interaction that has taken place. In all of the seven areas reviewed here, pinnipeds have, and may still be having, a detrimental effect on fishing operations and/or the fisheries may be affecting the pinnipeds (Tables 2 and 3). From the total of 45 pinnipeds (species/subspecies), thirty-six have been recorded as having some interaction with fishing operations/fish farms. There are nine species/subspecies that have no recorded interactions with fisheries/fish farms - the Galapagos sea lion and southern elephant seal, the freshwater Ungava, Ladoga, Caspian and Baikal seals and, from the Southern Ocean, the Subantarctic fur seal, Ross and Crabeater seal.

Fourteen species or subspecies have been recorded as involved in interactions affecting themselves but not fisheries - the Guadelupe, Galapagos, Juan Fernandez and South American fur seals, the Arctic ringed, Saimaa, ribbon, hooded and Atlantic bearded seals, northern elephant seals, the Pacific and Atlantic walruses, and from the Southern Ocean, the Weddell and Antarctic fur seal. Of these, the Guadelupe, Juan Fernandez and South American and Antarctic fur seals are deliberately taken for bait, not incidentally during fishing, while the other species generally drown in fishing gear such as trawls and gill nets. There are no reported cases where pinnipeds affect fishing operations but suffer no detrimental effect as a result.

Incidental or deliberate mortality during fishing operations is considered a threat or a cause for concern for the whole, or part of the populations, of the "vulnerable" Steller's sea lion, South American sea lion, the "vulnerable" Hooker's sea lion, the northern fur seal, the Australian fur 59 seal, New Zealand fur seal, grey seal, Eastern Atlantic harbour seal,Western Pacific harbour , harp seal, the "vulnerable" Baltic ringed seal, "endangered" Saimaa seal, I3aikal ,"endangered" Mediterranean monk seal and the "endangered" Hawaiian monk seal. The impact ofpinnipeds on fisheries is of particular concern ,through depredation andgear damage during gill netting on the west coast of North America, Japan, Britain, Scandinavia and Chile; through depredation,net damage and disturbance at fish farms in the Britain and Chile, and depredation from trawls, depredation and gear loss from handlines, and disturbance of purse-seining in South Africa. During the many other forms of fishing operation interactions are generally of minor importance.

All types of passive and active fishing operations and fish farming occur throughout the different areas, with the exception of there is no fish farming in the South Atlantic/Indiane area (Tables 4 and 5).

There are some reported areas in which, although pinnipecls have a detrimental effect on fishing operations/fish farms, there are no reported parallel cases of these operations affecting pinnipecls, even through deliberate killing (eg, active line fishing and fish farming in the Canada, passive line fishing in South America and active line fishing in Australia). Likewise, not all cases of fishing operations affecting pinnipuls involve the pinnipeds in interactions detrimental to the fishing operations (eg, passive line fishing in Hawaii and New Zealand, active net fishing in Russia and South America, and active line fishing in the South America). However, it is likely that in both cases a two-way interaction does occur.

Based on the interactions summarised in this review, interactions appear to be more prevalent around passive gear than active gear; this has also been the conclusion of others authors (eg, Mate 1980, Beach et al. 1985, Gilbert and Wynne 1985, Gulland 1987, Harwood 1987).

9.4Mitigation Measures

Although many fishermen are convinced that culling is the solution to reducing problems with seals, the fact that interactions are often caused by a few seals (eg, Gulland 1987, Wickens 1994b) means that an overall reduction in the population size is not a generalsolution to relieving operational interactions (eg, Northridge 1988, Wickens 1994b). A more appropriate option is generally considered to be methods that keep seals away from specific fishing operations. However, many methods have been attempted but with limited success.

Lethal methods have been attempted, including shooting seals, killing seals with a variety of objects and methods, sometimes involving poison. It is legal to shoot seals under certainconditions in some countries, such as the Britain but illegal in South Africa, though here theshooting of is commonplace. Lethal methods have not been found to be consistentlyeffective means of lceeping seals from interacting with fishing operations. This is possibly because, if problems arecaused by a few "rogue" seals, then removal of theseanimals should eliminate the problem. However, when the problem is caused by few, as opposed to many, individuals, then whenthis method removes individuals they are then replaced by others (Harwood 1987). 60

Table 2 : Summary of reported cases, represented by X, of pinnipeds interacting with fishing operations through depredation, gear damage and disturbance either currently or historically. The shaded area indicates occurrence of the species in the area. The Southern Ocean species are given in outline text, the freshwater species in italics and the asterisks indicate the following in terms of the 1993 IUCN Red list:* = Insufficiently known,** = Rare,*** = Vulnerable and**** =Endangered.

PINNIPEDS ---> FISHING OPERATIONS Area 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: Extant pinniped species NortheastNorthwestNortheastNorthwest South South South Southern Pacific Atlantic Atlantic Pacific Pacific/ Atlantic/ Indian/ Ocean Atlantic Indian Pacific

Steller's (Northern) sea lion *** . cco California sea lion X =o Galapagos sea lion co South American (Southern) sea lion X u)a) Australian sea lion ** X Hooker's (New Zealand) sea lion*** X Northern (Pribilof) fur seal Guadalupe fur seal *** Galapagos fur seal Juan Fernandez fur seal *** (I) South American fur seal al 0 South African (Cape) fur seal u) Australian (Tasmanian) fur seal X = Li_, New Zealand fur seal X Subanrctic furseal Antarctic tur seal Grey seal X X Eastern Atlantic harbor (common) seal X Western Atlantic harbor (common) seal X Western Pacific harbor (Kuril) seal X Eastern Pacific harbor (common) seal X Ungava seal 4 Harp seal X X Larga (spotted) seal X Arctic ringed seal Okhotsk Sea ringed seal X (n Baltic ringed (Baltic) seal *4 I X CO Saimaa seal ***I' a) co Ladogaseal *4 I Caspian seal *4 4 H2 Baikalseal Ribbon seal Hooded seal Atlantic bearded seal Pacific bearded seal X Mediterranean monk seal **4 4 r Hawaiian monk seal **4 I Southern elephant seal§ Northern elephant seal Weddell s:: _Ross seal . u) 0 CrL.eater seal co 2 , Leopard seal N as Atlantic walrus Pacific walrus

§ = Also breeds in South America 61

Table 3 : Summary of reported cases, represented by X, of fishing operations/fishfarms causing mortality of pinnipeds either currently or historically. The shadedarea indicates occurrence species in the area. The Southern Ocean species are given in outline text, the freshwater species initalics and the asterisks indicate the following in terms of the 1993 IUCN Red list:* = Insufficiently known,** = Rare, *** = Vulnerable and**** = Endangered.

FISHING OPERATIONS ---> PINNIPEDS Area 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: Extant pinniped species NortheastNorthwestNortheastNorthwest South South South Southern Pacific Atlantic Atlantic Pacific Pacific/ Atlantic/ Indian/ Ocean Atlantic Indian Pacific

Steller's (Northern) sea lion *** X cU) California sea lion X ._0 Galapagos sea lion as South American (Southern) sea lion X a) u)Australian sea lion ** X Hooker's (New Zealand) sea lion *** X Northern (Pribilof) fur seal Guadalupe fur seal *** X Galapagos fur seal X (,) Juan Fernandez fur seal *** X rts South American fur seal X a) U) South African (Cape) fur seal zAustralian (Tasmanian) fur seal u_ X New Zealand fur seal X subentarctic fur seal Antarctic fur seal K Grey seal X X Eastern Atlantic harbour (common) seal X Western Atlantic harbour (common) seal X Western Pacific harbour (Kuril) seal Eastern Pacific harbour (common) seal Ungava seal * Harp seal X X Larga (spotted) seal X X. Arctic ringed seal X X Okhotsk Sea ringed seal X (i) Baltic ringed (Baltic) seal *** X al Saimaa sea/ **** a) X cn Ladogaseal *** = =a.) Caspian seal *** FtBaikal seal _ Ribbon seal X X Hooded seal X X Atlantic bearded seal X Pacific bearded seal X Mediterranean monk seal **** Hawaiian monk seal **** X Sou), ern eleph nt seal§ Northern elephant seal

. W .,,. Iseal K Rossse:, Crmbeater seal Leop:Ird8: z K Atlantic walrus Pacific walrus

§ = Also breeds in South America 62

Table 4 : Summary of reported cases of pinnipeds interacting with different types of fishing gear in different areas through depredation, gear damage/loss or disturbance either currently or historically, represented by X. The shaded area indicates the occurrence of the type of fishing in the area.

PINNIPEDS -> FISHING OPERAT ONS Area

Fishing gear type 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: N ortheas NorthwestNortheastN orthwest South South South Pacific Atlantic Atlantic Pacific Pacific / Atlantic /Indian / Atlantic Indian Pacific

Passive net and trap fishing X X X X

Active net fishing X X

Passive line fishing X X X

Active line fishing X X X

Fish farming X

Table 5 : Summary of reported cases of different types of fishing gear in different areas affecting pinnipeds through mortality/entanglement either currently or historically, represented by X. The shaded area indicates the occurrence of the type of fishing in the area.

FISHING OPERATIONS -> PINNIPEDS Area

Fishing gear type 1 : 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: N ortheas NorthwestNortheastN orthwes South South South Pacific Atlantic Atlantic Pacific Pacific / Atlantic /I ndian / Atlantic Indian Pacific

Passive net and trap fishing X X

Active net fishing X X X X

Passive line fishing X X

Active line fishing X

Fish farrning X 63 Non-lethal methods that have been attempted have included the use of acoustic harassment devices, many of which have been tested in various countries but with no lastingsuccess. In addition various visual signals and chemical deterrents have been tested as a means of behaviourial conditioning to teach seals to avoid fishing gear.

The most successful mitigation measures that have been used are changes fishing gears or fishing methods where a particular change may reduce or exclude problems, thereby resulting in a permanent solution. These apply to some forms of interactions and have been used successfully in, for example, the change to synthetic twine in gill nets which reduced damage by seals or the implementation of anti-predator cages around fish farms. In some areas seals are seen as a nuisanc,e but tolerated as an acceptable part of the risks involved in fishing, whereas in other places there is a gre,at demand for solutions to be found. Likewise, in some cases incidental catches of seals are unimportant in terms of the impact this may have on the population whereas in other cases the levels of mortality may be unacceptable.

AC OWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Michael Earle () for the motivation for this project and Ross Shotton (FAO) for making the project possible. I am grateful to the various people who gave personal communications regarding the population estimates for different species - J. Gallo, A. Ponce de Leon, J. Francis, P. Majluf, M. Lima. Logistic support given by the Zoology Department of the University of Cape Town is gratefully acknowledged. 64 10. LITERA CITED

Alderdice, D.F., J.R. Brett, D.R. Idler and U. Fagerlund, 1954. Further observations on the olfactory perception in migrating adult coho and spring salmon.Fish.Res. Bd Canada, Pacific coast station, Prog. Rep. 98:10-12. Almlcvist, L., M. Olsson and S. Soderberg, 1980.Salar i Sverige. Svenslca Naturskydds- foreningen, Stockholm. 8Opp. Anderson, S.S. and A.D. Hawkins, 1978. Scaring seals by sound. . Rev. 8:20-25. Anonymous, 1972. Crackers a deterrent for seals.S. Afr. Shi News Fishg Ind. Rev. 27(11): 47-49. Anonymous, 1975a. Phantom killer whales.S. Afr. Shi News Fishg Ind. Rev. 30(7):50 -53. Anonymous, 1975b.Pressure mounts on seal problem; killer whale results inconclusive.S. Afr. Shi News Fishg Ind. Rev. 30(10):47. Anonymous, 1975c. Seals and Scottish Fisheries, 1975. The Salmon Net 10:26-31. Anonymous, 1976. No more crackers.S. Afr. Shi News Fishg Ind. Rev. 30(10):45. Anonymous, 1977. South Africa eyes seal repellents to save their nets. Mar. Fish. Rev. 39(7): 27-28. Anonymous, 1978a.Full-scale trials soon for seal deterrent device.S. Afr. Shi News Fish. Ind. Rev. 33(4):31. Anonymous, 1978b.Report of the FAO ACMRR worlcing party on marine mammals.In, Mammals in the seas. FAO Fish. Ser. 5(1):264pp. Anonymous, 1980.Seals. In, Sea and Inland Fisheries Report for 1980, Department of Fisheries and , . No. 37. Anonymous, 1981.Seals.In, Sea and Inland Fisheries Report for 1981.Department of Fisheries and Forestry, Dublin p36-37. Anonymous, 1983. Barking at seals.Oceans 16(1):54. Anonymous, 1987.Technical guidelines for the development of an S.P.C.A. policy on the management of the Cape fur seal. Head Office, S.P.C.A., Cape Town.14pp. Anonymous, 1988a.Analyse descriptive et projet pilote preparatoire a une strategie pour la conservation du phoque moine en Mediterranee (Monachus monachus). Rapport Final a la Direction General de l'Environnement EC. Contract 6611/28. Anonymous, 1988b. Report of the Secretary to the Congress of the United States on the nature, extent, and effects of driftnet fishing in waters of the North Pacific Ocean, Pursuant to section 4005 of Public Law 100-220, the "driftnet impact monitoring, assessment and control act of 1987". Anonymous, 1988c. Seals bite into revenues from fish farming. New Scientist. 24 March 1988 :26. Anonymous, 1990a. Handliners loses (sic) half their catch to seals.S. Afr. Shi News. Fish. Ind. Rev. 45(4):31. Anonymous, 1990b. Listing of Steller's sea lions as threatened under Act with protective regulations.Rules and regulations, April 5 1990. US Federal register 55(66): 12645-12662. Anonymous, 1990c. Report of the fur seal - hold fishery technical working group. MAF Fish., Wellington. 25pp. Anonymous, 1990d. Urgent Action meeting for safeguarding the Mediterranean monk sealas a species.Texel, The Netherlands 10-11 December 1990. Unpubl. MS, llpp. 65

Anonymous, 1991a. Report of the seals/fisheries interactions technical worldnggroup on the Hooker's sea lion- Aucklands shelf trawl squid fishery interaction.MAF Fisheries, Wellington. 26pp. Anonymous, 1991b. Scientific review of North Pacific high seas driftnet fisheries, Sidney B.C., June 11-14, 1991.Report for presentation to the United Nations Pursuant to resolutions 44/225 and 45/197. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Sidney, Canada. 86pp. Avella, F.J., 1979.The status of the monk seal on the Spanish Mediterranean.In, The Mediterranean monk seal, Ronald, K. and R. Duguy (eds.).Proc. Int. Conf. on Monk Seal, 1st Rhodes, Greece, 2-5 May 1978. UNEP Tech. Rep. 1 Pergamon Press, Oxford 95-98. Avella, F.J., 1987. Man versus the monk seal in North Africa : a preliminary report.Proc. Int. Conf. on the Mediterranean monk seal, 3rd, Antalya. Turkey, 2- 6 Nov. 1987. Awbrey, F.T. and J. A. Thomas, 1987.Measurements of sound propagation from several acoustic harassment devices.In Mate B.R. and J.T. Harvey (eds.), Acoustical deterrents in conflicts with fisheries. A workshop held Feb 17-18, 1986 at Newport Oregon. p85-104. Baba, N., H. Hatanaka, A. Nitta, 1991.Effects of the Japanese squid driftnet fishery on northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) populations. Scientific Review of North Pacific High Seas Driftnet Fisheries, Sidney, B.C., June 11-14, 1991. Paper J013. Bahari, R., 1974. Epargnez les derniers Phoques de la Mediterranee. Algerie Actualite 467:24. Baird,S.J., 1995.Nonfish species and fisheries interactions Worldng Group Report.NZ Fisheries Assessment Working Group Report 95/1. 24pp. Barlow, J, R.W. Baird, J.E. Heyning, K. Wynne, A.M. Manville, L.F. Lowry, D. Hanan and J, Sease, 1990. A review of cetacean mortality in coastal fisheries of the eastern North Pacific and USSR far east. Paper SC/90/G28 presented to IWC workshop on mortality of cetaceans in passive fishing nets and traps, La Jolla, California Oct 22-25, 1990, 48pp. Barlow, J., P. Boveng, M.S. Lowry, B.S. Stewart, B. J. Le Boeuf, W.J. Sydeman, R.J. Jameson, S.G. Allen and C.W. Oliver, 1993.Status of the northern elephant seal population along the U.S. west coast in 1992. NOAA/NMFS SWFC Admin. Rep. U-93- 01. 32pp. Barlow, J., R.W. Baird, J.E. Heyning, K. Wynne, A.M. Manville, L.F. Lowry, D.Hanan, J. Sease, V.N. Burkanov, In press. A review of cetacean and pinniped mortality in coastal fisheries along the west coast of the USA and Canada and the East coast of the Russian Federation. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn Special Issue. Barocchi, M., L.E. Morgan and K.D. Hanni, 1993. Frequency of fishery interactions among live stranded pinnipeds in central and northern California. In, Abstracts of the 10thbiennial conference on the biology of marine mammals. Beach, R.I., A.C. Geiger, S.J. Jeffries and S.D. Treacy, 1981.Marine mammal-fishery interactions on the Columbia River and adjacent waters, 1981. NOAA/NMFSNWAFC Processed Rep. 82-04, 186pp. Beach, R.J., A.C. Geiger, S.J. Jeffries, S.D. Treacy and B.L. Troutman, 1985.Marine mammals and their interactions with fisheries of the Columbia River andadjacent waters, 1980-82. NOAA/NMFS NWAFC Processed Rep. 85-04:316pp. Beddington, J.R., R.J.H. Beverton and D.M. Lavigne (eds), 1985.Marine Mammals and Fisheries.George Allen & Unwin; London, 354pp. Bell, F.H., 1961.Sea lion predation on halibut.International Pacific Halibut Commission. Preliminary statement. 66 Berkes, F., 1976. Monk seals on the southwest coast of Turkey. FAO Advisory Commission on Marine Research.Scientific Consultation on Sea Mammals. Bergen, Norway. Doc SC/109. Berkes, F., 1982. Monk seals on the southwest coast of Turkey.In, Mammals in the seas. FAO Fisheries Series 5(4):237-242. Berkes, F., H. Anat, M. Esenel and M. Kislalioglu, 1979. Distribution and ecology of Monachus monachus on Turkish coasts.In, Ronald, K. and R. Duguy (eds.) The Mediterranean monk seal.Proc. Int. Conf. on Monk Seal, 1st Rhodes, Greece, 2-5 May 1978. UNEP Tech. Rep. 1 Pergamon Press, Oxford 113-127. Bernard, F.R., 1986. Data record : Flying squid drift-net and oceanographic cruise by W.E. Ricker, August-September 1986.Document submitted to the annual meeting of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Anchorage, Alaska, November 1986. Dept. Fish. Oceans, Nanaimo. Beverton, R.J.H., 1985.Analysis of marine mammal-fisheries interactions.In, Beddington, J.R., R.J.H. Beverton and D.M. Lavigne (als). Marine Mammals and Fisheries. George Allen & Unwin; London: 3-33. Bjorge, A., I. Christensen and T. Oritsland, 1981.Current problems and research related to interactions between marine mammals and fisheries in Norwegian coastal and adjacent waters. ICES C.M. 1981/N:18: lOpp. Blix, A.S., 1991.On marine mammals and fish of the northeast Atlantic Ocean. In, Butterworth, D.S. and J. Harwood (rapporteurs).Report on the Benguela Ecology Programme workshop on seal-fishery biological interactions. Rep. Benguela. Ecol. Prog. S. Afr. 22:39-40. Boetgger, C.R., 1951.Notizen zur Verbreitung und uber Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen der Monchsrobbe (Monachus albiventer Boddaert). Zool Anz. 147:303-310. Bonner, W.N., 1969.British seals - a pest, resource or amenity ? The Salmon Net 5:32- 37. Bonner, W.N., 1972. The grey seal and common seal in European waters.Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 10:461-507. Bonner, W.N., 1979. Grey seal.In, Mammals in the seas. FAO Fisheries Series 5(2):90-94. Bonner, W.N., 1982.Seals and Man : a study of interactions. Washington University Press, Seattle 170pp. Bonner, W.N., 1989. The Natural History of seals.Christopher Helm, London 196pp. Bougazelli, N., 1979. Some observations on the monk seal (Monachus monachus) from Algeria. In, Ronald, K. and R. Duguy (eds.) The Mediterranean monk seal.Proc. Int. Conf. on Monk Seal, 1st Rhodes, Greece, 2-5 May 1978. UNEP Tech. Rep. 1 Pergamon Press, Oxford 175-178. Boulva, J., 1975. Survey of the Mediterranean monk seal, Monachus monachus, in the western Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic. Report to IFAW and IUCN, Jan 1975.16pp. Boulva, J., 1979. Mediterranean monk seal..In, Mammals in the Seas FAO Fisheries Series 5(2):95-100. Boveng, P., 1988a. Status of the northern elephant seal population on the U.S. west coast. NOAA/MNFS SVVFC Admin Rep. U-88-05, 35pp. Boveng, P., 1988b.Status of the Pacific harbour seal population on the U.S. west coast. NOAA/MNFS SWFC Admin Rep. U-88-06, 43pp. Boyd,I.L.,1993. Pup production and distribution of breeding Antarctic furseals (Arctocephalus gazella) at South Georgia.Antarctic Science 5(1):17-24. 67

Briggs, K.T. and C.W. Davis, 1972. A study of predation bysea lions on salmon in Monterey Bay. California Fish. Game. 58:37-43. Brooks, J.W., 1979. Status of marine mammal stocks in Alaska. In, Metleff, B.R. (ed.) Alaska Fisheries : 200 years and 200 miles of change.Proceedings of the 29th Alaska Science Conference, University of Alaska, Fairbanks Sea grant Report 79-6: 56-69. Brothers, N. and D. Pemberton, 1990.Status of Australian and New Zealand fur seals at , Southwestern Tasmania. Australian Wildlife Research 17:563-569. Brown, R.F., 1988. Assessment of pinniped populations in Oregon. NOAA/NMFS NWAFC Processe,d report 88-05. Burkanov, V.N., 1990.Fishing operations and death of marine mammals in the waters off KamchatIca. IWC symposium on mortality of cetaceans in passive fishing nets and traps. La Jolla California, October 20 - 21, 1990, SC/90/G31:3pp. Butterworth, D.S. and J. Harwood, 1991.Report on the Benguela Ecology Programme Workshop on seal-fishery biological interactions. Rep. Benguela Ecol. Progm. S. Afr. 22: 65pp. Butterworth, D.S., A.E. Punt and P.A. Wickens, 1991. An updated assessment of the fur seal population in southern Africa.Benguela Ecology Programme workshop on seal-fishery biological interactions, 16-20 Sept, 1991, University of Cape Town.Working paper BEP/SW91/A7:33pp. Canadian Atlantic Advisory Committee (CAFSAC), 1991. Status of harp seal populations in the Northwest Atlantic.Can. Atl. Fish. Sci. Advis. Comm. Advisory Document 91/12. 3p. Cardenas, J. C., J. Oporto, M. Stutzin and J. Gibbons, 1987.Impacto de la Pesqueria de Centolla (Lithodes antartica) y centollon (Paralomis granulosa) sobre las poblaciones de cetaceos y pinipedos de Magallanes, Chile. Proposciones para una politica deconservacion y manejo. Anais da 2a Reuniao de Trabalhode Especialistas em Mamiferos Aquaticos de America do Sul. p32-36. Cawthorn, M.W., 1985. Research on pinnipeds in New Zealand. Wildlife Liaison Group,Wild Life Research Review 7pp. Cebrian, D., H. Fatsea and C. Mytlineou, 1990. Some data on biometry and stomach content of a Mediterranean monk seal found in Santorini Island (Greece). Ra Comm.int. Mer. Medit.32(1):237. Cheylan, G., 1974. Quand il y avait des Phoques en Provence. LeChasseur Français, April 1974. 926:48. Christensen, O. and W.H. Lear, 1977.Bycatches in salmon drift nets at west Greenland in 1972. Medd. om. Grnl. 205:1-83. Cochrane, K.L. and P.A. Wickens, 1990.Impacts of seals on fisheries.In, Report of the Subcommittee of the Sea Fisheries Advisory committe,e appointedby the Minister of Environment Affairs and of Water Affairs, to advise the Ministerin scientific aspects of sealing.Stellenbosch; Southern African Nature Foundation, Annex9:88-99. Colbourne, P.L. and J.M. Terhune, 1991. Harbour seals(Phoca vitulina) do not follow herring movements in the Bay of Fundy, Canada.Ophelia 33(2):105-112. Collins, R.A., M.M. Vojkovich, A.R. Hartmann and R.J.Reed, 1984.Progress Report Southern California nearshore gill and trammel netstudy 1983. Calif. Dept. Fish. Game., Long Beach. 33pp. Collins, R.A., M.M. Vojkovich and R.J. Reed, 1985. ProgressReport : Southern California nearshore gill and trammel net study 1984.Calif. Dept. Fish. Game., Long Beach. 4Opp. 68 Collins, R.A., M.M. Vojkovich, R.J. Reed and K.A. Hieb, 1986. Progress Report : Southern California nearshore gill and trammel net study 1985.Calif. Dept. Fish. Game., Long Beach. 5Opp. Collins, M.A., C. Crummey, D. Neal and R.D. Fitzgerald, 1993. Predator damage to net caught angler fish (Lophius piscatorius and L. budegassa) off the south coast of Ireland. ICES Marine Mammals Committee C.M. 1993 N:17 : 6pp. Condit, R.S. and B.J. Le Beouf, 1984.Feeding habits and feeding grounds of the northern elephant seal.J. Mammal. 65(2):281-290. Contos, S.M., 1982.Workshop on marine mammal-fisheries interactions.Final report for Marine Mammal Commission MM2079341-0.National Technical Information Service, Virginia 22161. PB82-189507. 64pp. Corcuera, J., F. Monzon, E.A. Crespo, A. Aguilar and J.A. Raga, 1990. Interactions between marine mammals and coastal fisheries of Necochea and Claromeco (Buenos Aires Province, Argentina). Abstract, IWC symposium on mortality of cetaceans in passive fishing nets and traps. La Jolla California, October 20-21,1990:9. Craig, P. and D. Owen, 1988. Incidental catch of marine mammals and by domestic groundfish vessels in Alaska. Alaska Dept Fish & Game, Regional Information Rep. No. 4K88-33. pp 1769-1777. Craig, M.P., D.J. Alcorn, R.G. Forsyth, T. Gerrodette, M.A. Brown, B.K. Choy, L. Dean, L.M. Dennlinger, L.E. Gill, S.S. Keefer, M.M. Lee, J.S. Lennox, C.R. Lorence, G.L. Nalcai and K.R. Niethammer, 1993. The Hawaiian monk seal at French Frigate Shoals, 1988-1989. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-178, 83pp. Cranmore, G. (ed.), 1988. Status report on marine mammals involved in commercial fisheries. NOAA/NMFS report. Cranmore, G. (ed.), 1990. Status report on marine mammals involved in commercial fisheries. NOAA/NMFS SWFC Admin. Rep. U-90-19. 153pp. Crawley, M.C. and R. Warneke, 1979. New Zealand fur seal.In, Mammals in the seas. FAO Fisheries Series 5(2):45-48. Crespo, E.A., 1992. Summary of interactions between marine mammals and fisheries in the southwestern Atlantic with special reference to pinnipeds and their status. Second Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Marine Mammal Action Plan, UNEP, Liege 1992. Working paper SAC92/WP4 ;14pp. Crespo, E.A. and Corcuera, J.F., 1990.Interactions between marine mammals and fisheries in some fishing areas of the coast of Argentina and Uruguay. IWC symposiumon mortality of cetaceans in passive fishing nets and traps.La Jolla California, October 20-21, 1990, SC/090/G2. 49pp. Crespo, E.A., L. Reyes, N. Garcia, S. Dans, M. Koen Alonso and S.N. Pedraza, 1992. Avances en el estudio de las interacciones entre mamiferos marinos y pesqueriasen el litoral norpatagonico. Abstracts of the 5th Reu. Trab. Esp. Mam. Acuat. A. Sur. Buenos Aires, September 1992. Croxall, J.P. and R.L. Gentry (eds),1987. Status, biology, and ecology of fur seals. Proceedings of an international symposium and workshop.Cambridge, England, 23-27 April 1984. 212pp. Croxall, J.P., S. Rodwell and I.L. Boyd, 1990. Entanglement in man-made debris of Antarctic fur seals at Bird Island, South Georgia. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 6(3): 221-233. 69 David, J.H.M.,1987.Diet of the South African fur seal (1974-1985) and an assessment of competitionwith fisheries in southern Africa.In, Payne, A.I.L., J.A. Gulland and K.H. Brink (eds).The Benguela and Comparable Ecosystems. S. Afr. J. mar. Sci. 5:693-713. DeMaster, D.P., Miller, D.J., Goodman, D., DeLong, R.L. and B.S. Stewart,1982. Assessmentof California sea lion fishery interactions.Trans. 47 N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. 253-264. DeMaster, D., D. Miller, J.R. Henderson and J.M. Coe, 1985. Conflicts between marine mammals and fisheries off the coast of California. In, Beddington, J.R., Beverton, R.J.H. and Lavigne, D.M. (eds).Marine Mammals and Fisheries. George Allen & Unwin; London: 111-118. DeMaster, D.P. and J.E. Sisson, 1992. Pros and cons of pinniped management along the North American coast to abet . In, McCullough, D.R. and R.H. Barrett (eds). Wildlife 2001 : Populations. Elsevier Applied Science, London. 321-330. Di Natale A. and G. Notarbartolo-di-Sciara, 1990. Mediterranean passive fishing nets and traps and their cetacean by-catch. IWC symposium on mortality of cetaceans in passive fishing nets and traps. La Jolla California, October 20-21, 1990. Paper SC/090/34. 42pp. Diamond, S., D. Hanan and J. Scholl, 1986a.Drift gill net observations for the 1983-1984 fishing season. NOAA/NMFS SWFC Admin Rep. LJ-86-16. Diamond, S., D. Hanan and J. Scholl, 1986b.Drift gill net observations for the 1984-1985 fishing season. NOAA/NMFS SWFC Admin Rep. LJ-86-25c. Diamond, S.L., J.P. Scholl and D.A. Hanan, 1987. Drift gill net observations for the 1985-86 fishing season. NOAA/NMFS, SWR Admin Rep. 87-4. 21pp. Donoghue, M., 1985.Final report on status of Hooker's sea lion and incidental catch in the Aucldands Islands squid fishery. WWF/IUCN Project Report 3618. 34pp. Doonan, I.J. and M.W. Cawthorn, 1984.Impact of incidental mortality on the Hooker sea lions. MAFFish Internal report 6.33pp. Durant, S. and J. Harwood, 1986. The effects of hunting on ringed seals (Phoca hispida) inthe Baltic. ICES, CM 1986/N:10. 18pp. Erickson, A.W. and M.B. Hanson, 1990.Continental estimates and population trends of Antarctic ice seals.In, K.R. Kerry and G. Hempel (eds.) Antarctic Ecosystems. Ecological change and conservation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 253-264. Everitt, R., R. Beach, A. Geiger, S. Jeffries and S. Treacy, 1981. Marinemammal-fisheries interactions on the Columbia River and adjacent waters, 1980.Wash. Dept Game, Olympia. 109pp. Everitt, R.D. and R.J. Beach, 1982.Marine mammal-fisheries interactions in Oregon and Washington: an overview. Trans. 47 N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. 265-277. Farmer, P. and A. Billard, 1984. Gear damage in the NovaScotia inshore fishery. Can. Ind. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 156. 43pp. Fay, F.H., B.P. Kelly and B.A. Fay, 1990.The ecology and management of walrus populations.Rep. of an international workshop, 26-30 March 1990, Seattle,USA, US. Mar. Mam. Comm., Washington, DC, USA. Fiscus, C.H., 1980. Marine mammal-salmonid interactions: areview.In, McNeil, W.J. and D.C. Himsworth (eds). Salmonid Ecosystems of the NorthPacific. Oregon State University Press, 121-132. Fisher, H.D., 1952.The status of the harbour seal in British Columbia, withparticular reference to the Skeena River.Bull. Fish. Res. Board. Can. 93. 58pp. 70 Fisheries Agency of Japan (FM), 1986. Catch statistics of salmon and marine mammals caught in gillnets of Japanese research vessels in 1985. Document submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission. Fisheries Agency of Japan, Tokyo. Fisheries Agency of Japan (FAJ), 1987. Catch statistics of salmon and marine mammals caught in gillnets of Japanese research vessels in 1986. Document submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission. Fisheries Agency of Japan, Tokyo. Fisheries Agency of Japan (FAJ), 1988. Catch statistics of salmon and marine mammals caught in gillnets of Japanese research vessels in 1987. Document submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission. Fisheries Agency of Japan, ToIcy°. Fisheries Agency of Japan (FAJ), 1989. Summary of observation for Japanese squid driftnet fishery in the North Pacific in 1988. Document submitted to the annual meeting of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Seattle, 1989 October. Fisheries Agency of Japan, Tokyo. 24pp. Fowler, C.W., 1982. Interactions of northern fur seals and commercial fisheries. Trans. 47 N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. 278-292. Fowler, C.W., 1987. Marine debris and northern fur seals: a case study. Mar. Poll. Bull. 18: 326-335. Fukuhara, F.M., 1974.Estimated mortality of seabirds, fur seal and porpoise in Japanese salmon drift net fisheries and sea lions in the eastern Bering Sea trawl fishery. NOAA/NMFS NVVFC 12pp. Gearin, P.J., M.A. Johnson, and S. Joner, 1990. interactions with the Malcah chinook salmon set net fishery,1988-89.In, H. Kajimura (ed).Harbor porpoise interactions with Malcah salmon set net fishery in coastal Washington waters, 1988-89, NOAA/NMFS NMML, Seattle. 1-19. Geiger, A.C., 1985. Documentation of marine mammal interactions with coastal salmon gillnet and other fisheries.In, Beach, R.J., A.C. Geiger, S.J. Jeffries, S.D. Treacy and B.L. Troutman. Marine mammals and their interactions with fisheries of the Columbia River and adjacent waters, 1980-1982. NOAA/NMFS NWAFC, Proc. Rep. 85-04. 316pp. Geiger, A.C. and S. J. Jeffries, 1987. Evaluation of seal harassment techniques to protect gill netted salmon.In, Mate, B.R. and J.T. Harvey (eds.).Acoustical deterrents in marine mammal conflicts with fisheries. A workshop held Feb 17-18, 1986 at Newport Oregon :37-55. Gibson, D.M., 1995. Incidental catch of the New Zealand fur seal (Arctocephalus forsteri) in trawl fisheries in the New Zealand Exclusive Econoimc Zone, 1990-1993.N.Z. Fish. Assess. Work. Group Report 95/-- MAF Fisheries, N.Z. MAF. 66pp. In press. Gilbert, J.R., 1989. Aerial census of Pacific walruses in the , 1985. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 5:17-28. Gilbert, J.R. and K.M. Wynne, 1985. Harbour seal populations and fisheries interactions with marine mammals in , 1984. Fourth Annual Report to NOAA/NMFS NEFC. Gilbert, J.R. and K.M. Wynne, 1988. Marine mammal interactions with New England gillnet fisheries.Final Rep. Contract no. NA-84-EAC-00070, NOAA/NMFS NEFC. Gjernes, T., S. McKinnell, A. Yatsu, S. Hayase, J. Ito, K. Nagao, H. Hatanaka, H. Ogi, M. Dahlberg, L. Jones, J. Wetherall and P. Gould, 1990. Final report of squid and bycatch observations in the Japanese driftnet fishery for neon flying squid (Ommastrephes bartram) June-December 1989 observer program.Joint report of the Fisheries Agency of Japan, Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, US National Marine Fisheries Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, 114pp. 71

Goldsworthy, S. and P. Shaughnessy, 1994. Status report on seals in Australianwaters.In, Mattlin, R.H. (ed.) Seals and sea birds- fisheries interactions : report of a workshop, Wellington, 1992. Appendix 5.12pp. Gooder, P., 1989. Observations on board the Korean squid driftnet vessel, Oyang 53, June 9- August 8, 1988. NOAA/NMFS NWAFC Processed Rep. 89-03. Greenke, T.K. and D. VanSlyke, 1987. The use of acoustic harassment devices in Coos bay at the Anadromous, Inc. Saltwater Recapture Facilities. In, Mate B.R. and J.T. Harvey (eds.) Acoustical deterrents in marine mammal conflicts with fisheries. A workshop held Feb 17- 18, 1986 at Newport Oregon. p81-84. Greenlaw, C.F., 1987. The design and operation of acoustic aversion devices : some notes. In, Mate B.R. and J.T. Harvey (eds.) Acoustical deterrents in marine mammal conflicts with fisheries. A workshop held Feb 17-18, 1986 at Newport Oregon. p111-113. Greenwood, J.J.D., 1981.Grey seals in Scotland :the management controversy.Working Paper 12, IUCN Workshop on Marine Mammal/fishery interactions, La Jolla, California 30 March - 2 April, 1981. IUCN, Gland Switzerland. Gulland, J.A., 1987. The impact of seals on fisheries. Marine Policy July 1987. p196-204. Hanan, D.A., 1985. California Department of Fish and game, Coastal Marine Mammal Study, Annual Report for the period July 1, 1982 - June 30, 1983. NOAA/NMFS, SWFC Admin. Rep. LJ-85-10C, 76pp. Hanan, D.A., 1992.Status of the Pacific population on the coast of California in 1992. Final Rep. Cooperative agreement No NA17FX0304-01 and NA27FX0271-1 NOAA/NMFS SWR. Hanan, D. and J. Scholl, 1987a.Acoustic harassment testing in the Klamath River Salmon fishery.In, Mate B.R. and J.T. Harvey (eds.) Acoustical deterrents in marine mammal conflicts with fisheries. A workshop held Feb 17-18, 1986 at Newport Oregon. p60-65. Hanan, D. and J. Scholl, 1987b. Acoustic harassment testing in the San Francisco bay Pacific herring, Clupea harengus, gill net and purse-seine fisheries.In, Mate B.R. and J.T. Harvey (eds.) Acoustical deterrents in marine mammal conflicts with fisheries. A workshop held Feb 17-18, 1986 at Newport Oregon. p56-57. Hanan, D.A., S.L. Diamond and J.P. Scholl, 1985. An estimate of harbour seal mortalities in California set net fisheries for the fishing season (April 1 to March 31). NOAA/NMFS SWR. Hanan, D.A., S.L. Diamond and J.P. Scholl, 1988.Estimates of sea lion and harbour seal mortalities in California set net fisheries for 1983, 1984 and 1985. Final report to NMFS in partial fulfilment of cooperative agreement NA86ABH00018, lOpp. Hanan, D.A. and S.L. Diamond, 1989.Estimates of sea lion, harbour seal and harbour porpoise mortalities in California set net fisheries for the 1986-87 fishing year. Final report to NMFS in partial fulfilment of cooperative agreement NA86ABH00018, lOpp. Hanan, D.A., L.M. Jones and R.B. Read, 1989. California sea lion interaction and depredation rates with the commercial passenger fishing vessel fleet near San Diego. Rep.CCOFI 30:122-126. Hanan, D.A., D.B. Holts, and A.L. Coan, 1993. The California drift gill net fisheryfor sharks and swordfish, 1981-82 through 1990-91.California Dept Fish and Game Fish Bulletin 175:95pp. 72 Hanks, J. (chair), 1990. Report of the Subcommittee of the Sea Fisheries Advisory committee appointe,d by the Minister of Environment Affairs and of Water Affairs, to advise the Minister on scientificaspects of sealing Stellenbosch; Southern African Nature Foundation. 112pp. Hanni, K.D., D.J. Long and L.E. Morgan, 1993.Recent stranding of Guadalupe fur seals (Arctocephalus townsendi) from central California.In, Abstracts of the 10th biennial conference on the biology of marine mammals. Hansen, E.B., 1987. The changed damage level of Danish common seals on the fishing industry after total protection.Coastal Seals Symposium, Oslo April 1987. 9pp. Hardy, E., 1953. Predatory seals and the commercial fishing industry. World Fishing. August, 1953. 310-313. Hardy, E., 1961. Seals and salmon. Salmon and Trout Magazine 150:32-40. Harvey, J.T., B.R. Mate and R.F. Brown, 1987. The feasibility and effectiveness on using an acoustic barrier to restrict the movements of seals into Netarts Bay, Oregon. In, Mate B.R. and J.T. Harvey (eds.) Acoustical deterrents in marine mammal conflicts with fisheries. A workshop held Feb 17-18, 1986 in Newport, Oregon. p75-78. Harwood, J., 1984.Seals and fisheries. Mar. Poll. Bull. 15: 426-429. Harwood, J., 1987. Competition between seals and fisheries.Sci. Prog., Oxf 71:429-437. Harwood, J., 1991. A review of seal-fishery interactions in .In, Butterworth, D.S. and J. Harwood (rapporteurs). Report on the Benguela Ecology Programme workshop on seal-fishery biological interactions. Rep. Benguela. Ecol. Progm. S. Afr. 22: 41-43. Harwood, J. and J.J.D. Greenwood, 1985.Competition between British grey seals and fisheries. In, Beddington, J.R., R.J.H. Beverton, and D.M. Lavigne, (eds).Marine Mammals and Fisheries.George Allen & Unwin; London: 153-169. Haug, T., A.B. Kroyer, K.T. Nilssen and K.I. Ugland, 1990. Harp seal (Phoca groenlandica) invasions in North Norwegian coastal waters : a preliminary report on age composition and feeding habits. ICES Mar. Mamm. Comm. C.M. 19901N:6. 24pp. Haug, T., A.B. Kroyer, K.T. Nilssen, K.I. Ugland and P.E. Aspholm, 1991. Harp seal (Phoca groenlandica) invasions in Norwegian coastal waters : age composition and feeding habits. ICES J. mar. Sci. 48:363-371. Hayama, S-I., 1988. Kuril seal - present status in Japan. Ambio 17:75-78. Heap, S.P., R.F. Uglow, E.C.E. Potter and J. Hateley, 1986.Interactions between seals and the fixed net whitefish fishery on the English north-east coast.Report to the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (unpublished): 15pp. Helle, E., 1979. Structure and numbers of seal populations in the northern Baltic Sea: study based on Finnish bounty statistics 1956-1975. Aquilo Ser. Zool. 19:65-71. HeIle, E. H. Hyvarinen & T. Sipilia, 1981. The last chance to save the Saimaa ringed seal (In Finnish with English summary). Suomen Luonto 8:423-425. HeIle, E. and O. Stenman, 1990.Baltic seal populations (in Finnish with English summary). Maailmn Luonnon Station WWF Suomen Rahaston Raportteja Nro 1.Helsinki. 76pp. Henderson, J.R., 1984.Encounters of Hawaiian monk seals with fishing gear at Lisianski Island, 1982. Mar. Fish. Rev.46(3): 59-61. Herder, M.J., 1983.Pinniped fishery interactions in the Klamath River System July 1979 to October 1980. NOAA/NMFS SWFC Admin Rep. LJ-83-12C, 71pp. Herrick, S.F. and D. Hanan, 1988. A review of California entangling net fisheries, 1981-1986. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-108, 38pp. Hickling, G., 1964. Fisheries and the Grey seals.Oryx 7:172-176. 73

Hirose, P., 1977. Incidence of seas-damaged salmonids sampledfrom the lower Columbia River gillnet fishery, 1972-1976. Oregon Dept of Fish and Wildlife, Portland,Information Report 77-4, 6pp. Hoover, A.A., 1988.Harbour seal.In, Lentfer J.W. (ed).Selected marine mammals of Alaska : Species accounts with research and management recommendations.Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 125-157. Hubbs, C.L. and K.S. Norris,1971.Original teeming abundance, supposed extinction and survival of the Juan Fernandez fur seal.Antarct. Res. Ser. 18:35-52. Humphreys, R.L., 1981. Hawaiian monk seals and sea turtles- sightings and direct interactions with fishing operations in the northwestern Hawaiian islands. NOAA/NMFS SWFC Admin. Rep. H-81-6.18pp. Hyvarinen, H. and T. Sipila, 1983. The Saimaa seal (in Finnish with English summary). Tiede 2000. Hyvarinen, H. and T. Sipila, 1984. Heavy metals and high pup mortality in the Saimaa ringed seal population in eastern Finland. Mar. Poll. Bull. 15(9):335-337. Imler, R.H. and H.R. Sarber, 1947. Harbour seals and sea lions in Alaska. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. 28:23pp. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), 1979. Ad hoc worldng group on interaction between grey seals populations and fish species ICES CM 19791N:5. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), 1990. Report of the working group on harp and hooded seals, Bergen, October 1989. C.M. 1990/Assess 8:25pp. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), 1992a. Report of ICES study group on seals and small cetaceans in northern European seas. C.M. 1992/N:4.19pp. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), 1992b. Report of the joint ICES/NAFO working group on harp and hooded seals, Copenhagen 14-18 October, 1991. ICES CM 1992/Assess:5. 31pp. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) / Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO), 1991.Report of the working group on harp and hooded seals, Copenhagen, October 1991. Coop. Res. Rep. 148pp. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), 1981. Report of IUCN workshop on marine mammal/fishery interactions. La Jolla, California 30 March-2 April, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland 68pp. Ito, J., 1986. Seasonal and geographic features of incidental take of Dall's porpoise by salmon gillnet and examination of take rate by fishing area. Document submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Fisheries Agency of Japan, Tokyo, lOpp. Itoo, T. and T. Shikunobe, 1986. Number and present status of the Kuril seals.In, Wada, K, T. Itoo, A. Niizuma, S. Hayama and M. Suzuki (eds). Proceedings of the Symposium on ecology and protection of the Kuril Sea, 1985. Tolcyo University Press, Tokyo. p18-58. Jacobs, J. and A. Panou, 1988.Conservation of the mediterranean monk seal, Monachus monachus, in Kefalonia, Ithaka and Lefkada Isl., Ionian Sea, Greece.Report to the Institute Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Project A.C.E. 6611/28. Jamieson, G.S. and G.D. Heritage, 1988.Experimental flying squid fishery off British Columbia, 1987. Can. Ind. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 186. 79pp. Jones, L.L., 1980. Estimates of the incidental take of northern fur seals in Japanese salmon gillnets in the northern Pacific, 1975-1979. Background paper submitted to the 23rd annual meeting of the scientific standing committee of the North Pacific fur seal commission, 15pp. 74 Jones, L.L., 1981. Incidental take of northern fur seals in Japanese salmon gillnets in the North Pacific Ocean, 1980.Background paper submitted to the 24th annual meeting of the standing scientific committee of the North Pacific fur seal commission, 6pp. Jones, L.L., 1982. Incidental take of northern fur seals in Japanese gillnets in the North Pacific Ocean in 1981. Background paper submitted to the 25th annual meeting of the standing scientific committee of the North Pacific fur seal commission, 16pp. Jones, L.L., 1988. Distribution and incidental take of marine mammals in the area of the high seas squid driftnet fishery. Document submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission. Fisheries Agency of Japan, Tokyo. 22pp. Julian, F., 1993. Pinnipal and cetacean mortality in California gillnet fisheries: preliminary estimates for 1992. Paper SC/45/022 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, April 1993. 26pp. Julian, F., 1994. Pinniped and cetacean mortality in California gillnet fisheries: preliminary estimates for 1993. Rep. int. Whal. Commn (special issue) Paper SC/46/011 presented to the IVVC Scientific Committee, May 1994. 28pp. Kawasaki, S., J. Ito and K. Yamanaka, 1989. Cruise report of flying squid survey by the Shoyu Maru in 1989. Document submitted to the annual meeting of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Seattle, Washington, October 1989.Fisheries Agency of Japan, Shizuoka. 5pp. Kelly, B.P., 1988a. Ribbon seal.In, Lentfer J.W. (ed). Selected marine mammals of Alaska :Species accounts with research and management recommendations.Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 95-106. Kelly, B.P., 1988b. Ringed seal.In, Lentfer J.W. (ed). Selected marine mammals of Alaska :Species accounts with research and management recommendations.Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 57-75. Kenyon, K.W., 1981. Monk seals Monachus Fleming 1822. In, Handbook of marine mammals Volume 2 :Seals, Ridgeway, S.H. and R.J. Harrison (eds).Academic press Inc., , 195-220. King, J.B. and B.J. Marlow, 1979.Australian sea lion. In, Mammals in the seas.FAO Fisheries Series 5(2):13-15. Kirkwood, R., D. Pemberton and G. Copson, 1992. The conservation and management of seals in Tasmania. Report, Department of Parks, Wildlife And Heritage, Tasmania, lOpp. Konno, E.S., In press.Estimates of sea lion, harbor seal and harbor porpoise mortalities in California set net fisheries for the 1987-88 fishing year.California Dept. Fish & Game. Kuljis, B.A., 1985. Report on food aversion conditioning in sea lions, Zalophus californianus. NOAA/NMFS SWFC Contract report 84-ABC-00167. 18pp. Kuzin, A.E., M.K. Maminov and E.A. Tihomirov, 1974. Present distribution and number of seals in Kuril Islands (in Russian).Bull. Pac. Res. Inst. Fish. Oceanogr. 92:158-167. Lander, R.H., 1979. Alaskan or Northern fur seal. FAO Fisheries Series 5(2):19-23. Lander, R.H. and H. Kajimura, 1982. Status of northern fur seals.In, Mammals in the Seas. FAO Fisheries Series 5(4):319-346. Larntz, K.and R.A. Garrott, 1991.Analysis of bycatch of selected bird and mammal species in the 1989 Japanese neon squid fishery.Scientific Review of North Pacific High Seas Driftnet Fisheries, Sidney, B.C., June 11-14, 1991. Paper U007. LeBoeuf, B.J., D. Aurioles, R. Condit, C. , R. Gisiner, R. Romero and F. Sinsel, 1983. Size and distribution of the Californian sea lion population in Mexico.Proc. de Calif. Acad. of Sci. 43:77-85. 75

LeBrasseur, R.J., B. Riddell and T. Gjernes, 1987.Ocean salmon studies in the Pacific Subarctic boundary area. Document submittedto the annual meeting of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Vancouver,Canada, October 1987. Dept. Fish. Oceans, Nanaimo. 16pp. LeBrasseur, R.J., N.B. Hargreaves and T. Gjernes, 1988. Canadianmid-Ocean salmon studies. W.E. Ricker, 1 June-12th July, 1988. Document submittedto the annual meeting of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Tolcyo, Japan,October 1988. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Nanaimo. 19pp. Lennert, C., S. Kruse and M. Beeson, 1991. Preliminaryreport on incidental marine mammal bycatch in California gillnet fisheries.Rep. Intl. Whaling Commn. Working paper SC143103. 4Opp. Lentfer, J.W., 1988. Selected marine mammals of Alaska. Speciesaccounts with research and management recommendations. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C., 275pp. Lescrauwaet, A.K., 1990. Mortalidad de Mamiferos Marinos en lapesca y caza comercial en la XIIa Region, Chile.Abstract IV RT de Especialistas en Mamiferos Acuaticos de America del Sur, Valdivia, Chile. 36pp. Lien, J., 1988. Problems of Newfoundland fishermen with large whales and sharks during 1987 and a review of incidental entrapment in inshore fishing gear during the past decade. The Osprey, January 1988. 1 lpp. Lien, J., L. Dix, E. Lee and H. Walters, 1984. Whale and shark entrapments in inshore fishing gear during 1984.A preliminary report to Fisheries and Oce,ans Canada. N.I.C.O.S. contribution no. 79. 2Opp. Lien, J., H. Walter and C. Harvey-Clark, 1985.Whale and shark entrapments in inshore fishing gear during 1985.A preliminary report to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. N.I.C.O.S. contribution no. 110.18pp. Lien, J., J. Papineau and L. Dugan, 1987.Incidental entrapments of cetaceans, sharks and marine turtles in inshore fishing gear reported during 1987 in Newfoundland and Labrador. Unpubl. MS, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 10 October 1987. 43pp. Lien, J., G.B. Stenson and I-H Ni, 1988a. A review of incidental entrapment of seabirds, seals and whales in inshore fishing gear in Newfoundland and Labrador: A problem for fishermen and fishing gear designers. In, Proceedings of the World Symposium on Fishing gear and fishing vessel design. Marine Institute, St John's, Newfoundland, 67-91. Lien, J., W. Ledwell and J. Nauen, 1988b.Incidental entrapments in inshore fishing gear during 1988.A preliminary report to the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada - Newfoundland region. Unpubl. MS, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 15 December 1988. 3Opp. Lien, J., G.B. Stenson, S. Todd and I. Ni, 1989.Incidental catches of marine mammals in inshore waters of Newfoundland and Labrador (1979-1989).In, Abstracts of the 8th biennial conference on the biology of marine mammals, 7-11 December, Pacific Grove, California: 38. Lien, J., W. Ledwell and J. Huntington, 1990a. Incidental entrapments by inshore fishing gear reported in 1989. A preliminary report to the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and Fisheries and Oceans Canada - Newfoundland region.Unpubl. MS, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 10 January 1990. 34pp. 76 Lien, J., J. Huntington, W. Ledwell and T. Huntsman, 1990b. Whale entrapments in inshore fishing gear and a summary of the Entrapment Assistance Program in Newfoundland and Labrador during 1990. Unpubl. MS, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 21 December 1990. 35pp. Lister-Kaye, J., 1979. Seal cull. The grey seal controversy. , Middelsex. 174pp. Lockie, J.D., 1959. Grey seals and salmon fisheries on the Northumberland and Berwickshire coast. Salmon and Trout Magazine 157:165-175. Locicie, J.D., 1962. Grey seals as competitors with man for salmon. BES symposium 2:316- 322. Loughlin, T.R., 1989. Effects of fisheries on the abundance of three pinniped spe,cies in Alaska. In, Abstracts of the 8th biennial conference on the biology of marine mammals, 7-11 December, Pacific Grove, California.39pp. Loughlin, T.R., 1990. Incidental take summary. Memorandum 31 January 1990, US Dept of Commerce, NOAA/NMFS. Loughlin, T.R., 1991. Marine mammals and fisheries in Alaska. In, Butterworth, D.S. and J. Harwood (rapporteurs). Report on the Benguela Ecology Programme workshop on seal- fishery biological interactions. Rep. Benguela. Ecol. Progm. S. Afr. 22:44-47. Loughlin, T.R., L. Consiglieri, R.L. DeLong and A.T. Actor, 1983. Incidental catch of marine mammals by foreign fishing vessels, 1978-81. Marine Fisheries Review 45(7-9):44-49. Loughlin, T.R. and R. Nelson, 1986.Incidental mortality of northern sea lions in Shelikof Strait, Alaska. Marine Mammal Science 2(1):14-33. Lowry, M.S. and R.L. Folk, 1987. Feeding habits of California sea lions from stranded carcasses collected at San Diego County and Catalina Island, California. NOAA/NMFS SWFC Admin. Rep. U-87-15. 33pp. Lowry, M.S., P. Boveng, R.J. DeLong, C.W. Oliver, B.S. Stewart, H. DeAnda and J. Barlow, 1992.Status of the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus californianus) population in 1992. NOAA/NMFS SWFC Adin. Rep. LJ-92-32, 34pp. Maigret, J., 1990. Relationship between marine mammals and the fisheries on the West African coasts.Paper SC/090/G5 presented to the IWC Workshop on mortality of cetaceans in passive fishing nets and traps, La Jolla, California, October 22-25, 1990:16pp. Malouf, A.H. (chair), 1986. Seals and sealing in Canada. Rep. Roy. Comm. Can. Gov. Publ. Centre. 1:65, 2:622, 3:679pp. Mansfield, A.W. and B. Beck, 1977. The grey seal in eastern Canada. Can. Fish. Mar. Ser. Tech. rep. 704. Marchessaux, D. and R. Duguy, 1977. Le phoque moine Monachus monachus (Hermann 1799) en Grèce. Mammalia 41:419-440. Marine Mammal Commission, 1991.Annual report to congress 1990.Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 270pp. Marine Mammal Commission, 1993.Annual report to congress 1992.Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 226pp. Marlow, B.J. and J.B. King, 1979. Hooker's (New Zealand) sea lion. FAO Fish. Ser. 5(2) :16-18. Masuda, H., 1986. An economic estimation to the salmon trap net fishery by seals.In, Wada, K, T. Itoo, A. Niizuma, S. Hayama and M. Suzuld (eds). Proceedings of the Symposium on ecology and protection of the Kuril Sea, 1985 Tokyo University Press, Tokyo : 371. Mate, B., 1979. California sea lion. In, Mammals in the Seas. FAO Fisheries Series 5(2):5-8. 77 Mate, B.R., 1980.Workshop on marine mammal-fisheries interactions in the north-eastern Pacific.Final report for Marine Mammal Commission Contract MM8AC003. National Te-chnical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. PB80-175144. 48pp. Mate, B.R.,1982a. History and present status of the California sea lion, Zalophus californianus. In, Mammals in the Seas. FAO Fisheries Series 5(4):303-310. Mate, B.R., 1982b.History and present status of the northern (Steller) sea lion, Eumetopias jubatus. In, Mammals in the Seas. FAO Fisheries Series 5(4):311-318. Mate, B. and R.L. Gentry, 1979. Northern (Steller) sea lion.In, Mammals in the Seas FAO Fisheries Series 5(2):1-4. Mate, B. and D. Miller, 1983.Acoustic harassment experiments on harbour seals in the Klamath River, 1981. In, Miller 1983. Coastal marine mammal study, annual report for the period of July 1, 1981 - June 30, 1982. NOAA/NMFS, SWFC Admin Rep. LJ-83-21C, 51-56. Mate, B.R., R.F. Brown, C.F. Greenlaw, J.T. Harvey and J. Temte, 1987.An acoustic harassment technique to reduce seal predation on salmon. In, Mate, B.R. and J.T. Harvey (eds.). Acoustical deterrents in marine mammal conflicts with fisheries. A workshop held Feb 17-18, 1986 at Newport Oregon. p23-36. Mate, B.R. and J.T. Harvey, (eds). 1987.Acoustical deterrents in marine mammal conflicts with fisheries. A workshop held Feb 17-18, 1986 at Newport Oregon, 116pp. Matkin, C.O., 1978. A preliminary evaluation of fishery depredations by marine mammals on the Copper River Flats, Alaska, spring 1977.In, Matkin, C.O. and Fay, F.H. (eds.) Marine Mammal-fishery interactions on the Copper River and in Prince William Sound, Alaska, 1978. Mar. Mamm. Comm. : 6276. Matkin, C.O. and Fay, F.H., 1980. Marine mammal-fishery interactions on the Copper River and in Prince William Sound, Alaska, 1978. Final report to the US Marine Mammal Commission for contract MM8AC-013. 7Opp. Mattlin, R.H., 1994a.Incidental catch of fur seals in the west coast South Island hoki trawl fishery, 1989-92. N.Z. Fisheries Assess. Res. Doc. 93/19.18pp. Mattlin, R.H. (ed.), 1994b. Seals & sea birds - fisheries interactions : report of the workshop, Wellington, 1992. N.Z. Fisheries Occasional Publication 8.130pp. Mattlin, R. and M.W. Cawthorn, 1991. A review of seal-fisheries interactions in New Zealand. In, Butterworth, D.S. and J. Harwood (rapporteurs).Report on the Benguela Ecology Programme workshop on seal-fishery biological interactions. Rep. Benguela. Ecol. Progm. S. Afr. 22:36-38. McCarthy, D.T., 1985. Interaction between seals and salmon drift net fisheries in the west of Ireland. Dep. Fish. For. Dublin . Fish. Leafl. 126. 6pp. McKinnell, S.M., T. Gjernes, W. Shaw and S. Whiteaker, 1989.Canadian North Pacific Pelagic study, Arctic Harvester, July 12 - August 22, Document submitted to the annual meeting of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., October 1989. Dept. Fish. Oceans, Nanaimo. 19pp. Melteff, B.R. and D.H. Rosenberg, 1984.Proceedings of the workshop on biological interactions among marine mammals and commercial fisheries in the south-eastern Bering Sea. Alaska Sea Grant Report 84-1. University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 300pp. Merrick, R.L., T.R. Loughlin and D.G. Calkins, 1987.Decline in the abundance of the northern sea lion, Eumatopias jubatus.In, Alaska, 1956-86. Fish. Bull. 85:351-365. 78 Meyer, M.A., P.G.H. Kotze, and G.W. Brill, 1992.Consumption of catch and interference with linefishing by South African (Cape) fur seals Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus.South African Journal of marine Science 12:835-842. Miller, D.J., 1981. Marine mammal-fisheries interaction study. NOAA/NMFS SWFC Admin. Rep. LT-81-01C. Miller, D.J., M.J. Herder and J.P. Scholl, 1983. California marine mammal-fishery interaction story, 1979-1981. NOAA/NMFS, SWFC Admin. Rep. LJ-83-13C. 233pp. Montgomery, S., 1986. Workshop on measures to address marine mammal/fisheries interactions in California. Final Report to Marine Mammal Commission for contract MM3309746-2, 123pp. Mountford, M.D. and E.A. Smith, 1963. Damage to fixed net salmon fisheries. report of the Consult. Comm. on grey seals and fisheries. Nature Conservancy London, HMSO. Muller, H.P., 1975. Les phoques des Iles de la Galit.Jardin Zoologique de Tunis, rec. per. M. Bjorklund, 27 February 1975. Manuscript. Murata, M., 1987. Report on fishing survey on flying squid by the drift gillnetters Shoyo Maru, Kuromori Maru No 38 and Kanki Maru No 58 in the North Pacific in 1986. Document submitted to the annual meeting of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Vancouver, Canada, October 1987. Fisheries Agency of Japan, ToIcyo. 20pp. Murata, M., Y. Nakamura and H. Saito, 1988.Report on fishing survey on flying squid by Shoyo-Maru, Kanki-Maru No 58 and Hokuho-Maru in the North Pacific in 1987. Document submitted to the annual meeting of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Tokyo, Japan, October 1988. Fisheries Agency of Japan, Hokkaido. 4Opp. Murata, M., Y. Nakamura and H. Salto, 1989.Report on fishing survey on flying squid by Shoyo-Maru, Kanki-Maru No 3 and Hokuho-Maru No 78 in the North Pacific in 1988. Document submitted to the annual meeting of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Seattle, Washington, October 1989. Fisheries Agency of Japan, Hokkaido. 25pp. Naito, Y., 1976. The occurrence of phocid seals along the coast of Japan and possible dispersal of pups.Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. 28:175-185. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 1978.Final environmental impact statement. Consideration of a waiver of the moratorium and return of management of certain marine mammals to the State of Alaka. 151pp. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 1981. Draft environmental impact statement on the incidental taken of Da11 porpoise in the Japanese salmon fishery. NMFS/NOAA, US Dept. Commerc., Washington, 37pp. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 1992.Proposed regime to govern interactions between marine mammals and commercial fishingoperations : Draftlegislative environmental impact statement. Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), 1984.Interactions between grey seals and UK fisheries. A report on research conducted for the Dept. of Agriculture and Fisheries, Scotland by the Natural Environment Research Council's Sea Mammal Research Unit 1980 to 1983, 241pp. Natural Resource Consultants (NRC), 1989. Marine mammal/fishery interactions 1978 through 1987. Natural Resource Consultants Inc, Seattle, WA 98199. 24pp. Nepgen, C.S. deV., 1970.Exploratory. fishing for tuna off the South African west coast. investl. Rep. Div. S. Fish. 87: 26pp. 79

Niizuma, A., 1986. Estimation of damage by Kuril seals toa salmon trap net fishery near by a haulout site of Daikoku Island.In, Wada, K, T. Itoo, A. Niizuma, S. Hayama and M. Suzuki (eds). Proceedings of the Symposium on ecology and protection of the Kuril Sea, 1985. ToIcy° University Press, Tokyo:255-256. Nilssen, K.T., P.E. Grotnes and T. Haug, 1990. The effect of invading harp seals (Phoca groenlandica) on local stocks of North Norway. ICES C.M. 1990/N:11. 18pp. Nilssen, K.T., P.E. Grotnes and T. Haug, 1992. The effect of invading harp seals (Phoca groenlandica) on local coastal fish stocks of North Norway. Fish. Res. 13:25-37. Nitta, E.G., 1990. A review of gillnet and trap fisheries in Micronesia and the central Pacific. Paper SC/0901G33 presented to the IWC workshop on mortality of cetaceans in passive fishing nets and traps, La Jolla, California, October 22-25, 1990, 37pp. Northridge, S.P., 1984. World review of interactions between marine mammals and fisheries. FAO Fish. Pap 251.190pp. Northridge, S.P, 1988. Marine mammals and fisheries. A study of conflicts with fishing gear in British waters. Rep. to Wildlife Link. 140pp. Northridge, S.P., 1991a. An updated world review of interactions between marine mammals and fisheries. FAO Fish. Tech. Paper 251 suppl. 1. I-VI. 1-58. Northridge, S.P., 1991b.Driftnet fisheries and their impacts on non-target species : a worldwide review. FAO Tech. Pap. 320.115pp. O'Hara, K., N. Aticins and S. Iudicello, 1986. Marine wildlife entanglement in North America. Centre for Environmental , Washington, D.C. Obee, B., 1987. Seal-salmon controversy escalates in B.C. Oceans 20. p8-9. Oporto, J.A., 1990. La actividad pesquera en Chile y sus efectos sobre los mamiferos marinos. Primeros antecedentes.Abstract IV RT de Especialistas en Mamiferos Acuaticos de America del Sur, Valdivia, Chile, 52pp. Oporto, J.A. and L.M. Brieva, 1986. Presencia de foca leopardo Hydrurga leptonyx en la Bahia de Corral, X Region-Chile. Abstract VII Jornadas de Ciencias del Mar, Concepcion Chile. Oporto, J.A. and J. Leal, 1990. Estudio sobre la interaccion entre cultivo de salmones (Balsas jaulas) y los pinipedos en el sur de Chile. Abstract IV RT de Especialistas en Mamiferos Acaticos de America del Sur, Valdivia, Chile. 51pp. Oporto, J.A.,C.L. Mercado, and L.M. Brieva, 1991. Conflicting interactions between coastal fisheries and pinnipeds in southern Chile. Benguela Ecology Programme workshop on seal- fishery biological interactions, 16-20 Sept, 1991, University of Cape Town. Working paper BEP/SW91/R2. 22pp. Oritsland, T., 1990.Seals in the northeast Atlantic and interactions with fisheries. Comite Arctique International (CAI). Commentary 2:10-13. Oritsland, T. and A. Bjorge, 1981.Seals on the Norwegian coast from Stadt to Lofoten and their interactions with inshore fisheries. Working Paper 16, IUCN Workshop on Marine Mammal/fishery interactions, La Jolla, California 30 March - 2 April, 1981. IUCN, Gland Switzerland. Othman, S. B., F. Mokhtar and J-P. Quignard, 1971. Presence d'un phoque moine Monachus monachus (Hermann 1779) dans le golfe de Tunis. Bull. Inst. Oceanogr. Péche, Salammbo 2(2):267. Panou, A., J. Jacobs, and D. Panos, 1993. The endangered Mediterraneanmonk seal Monachus monachus n the Ionian Sea, Greece.Biol. Conserv. 64:129-140. Parrish, B.B. and W.M. Shearer, 1977. Effects of seals on fisheries. ICES CM1977/M:14:6. 80

Pastukhov, V.D., 1990. Biological basis of rational management and protection of Baikal seals. D.Sc. dissertation. Institute of Evolution, Morphology and Ecology of Animals, Moscow, U.S.S.R. 383pp. Pemberton, D., 1989. The interaction between seals and fish farms in Tasmania. Report to the Department of Land Parks and Wildlife, Tasmania. 96pp. Pemberton, D., N. Brothers and G. Copson, 1991. Predators on marine fish farms in Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania. 125:33-35. Pemberton, D., N.P. Brothers and R. Kirkwood, 1992. Entanglement of Australian fur seals in man-made debris in Tasmanian waters.Wildl. Res. 19:151-159. Pemberton, D. and P.D. Shaughnessy, 1993. Interaction between seals and marine fish-farms

in Tasmania, and management of the problem.Aquatic Conservation : Marine and Freshwater ecosystems. 3:149-158. Pemberton, D., B. Merdsoy, R. Gales and D. Renouf, 1994. The interaction between offshore cod trawlers and harp Phoca groenlandica and hooded Cystophora cristata seals off Newfoundland, Canada.Biol. Conserv. 68:123-127. Perez, M.A. and T.R. Loughlin, 1989.Incidental catch of northern sea lions by foreign and joint-venture trawl fishing vessels in Alaska, 1973-87. In, Abstracts of the 8th biennial conference on the biology of marine mammals, 7-11 December, Pacific Grove, California: 87. Perez, M.A. and T.R. Loughlin, 1991.Incidental catch of marine mammals by foreign and joint venture trawl vessels in the U.S. EEZ of the North Pacific, 1973-88. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 104. 57pp. Perkins, P.J., J. Barlow & M. Beeson, 1992.Pinniped and cetacean mortality in California gillnet fisheries : 1991. Rep. Intl. Whaling Commn. Working paper SC/44/SM14. 32pp. Piatt, J.F. and D.N. Nettleship, 1987. Incidental catch of marine birds and mammals in fishing nets off Newfoundland, Canada. Mar. Poll. Bull. 18: 344-349. Pilats, V., 1989. Seal distribution and seal-fishery interactions in the east Baltic. Norddeutsche Naturschutzakademie Berichte 2/2: 107-114. Pinedo, M.C., 1984.Mortalidade de Pontoporia blainvillei, Tursiops gephyreus, Otaria flavescens e Arctocephalus australis na costa do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, 1976-1983. paper presented at the Primera Reunion de Trabajo de Expertos en Mamiferos Acuaticos de America del Sud, 25-29 June, 1984, Buenos Aires. Resumos 33. Pinedo, M.C., 1986.Mortalidade de Pontoporia blainvillei, Tursiops gephyreus, Otaria flavescens e Arctocephalus australis na costa do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil, 1976-1983. In: Actas la. reunion de Trabajo de Expertos en Mamiferos Acuaticos de America del Sur, Buenos Aires, 1984:187-199. Popov, L.A., 1982.Status of the main ice-living seals inhabiting inland waters and coastal marine areas of the U.S.S.R. In, Mammals in the Seas, FAO Fisheries series 4 (5):361- 381. Potter, E.C.E. and A. Swain, 1979. Seal predation in the North-east England coastal salmon fishery. ICES CM 1979/N:9. 4pp. Power, G. and J. Gregoire, 1978.Predation by freshwater seals on the fish community of Lower Seal Lake, Quebec.J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 35:844-850. Pryor, K., 1987. Behavioural conditioning. In, Mate, B.R. and J.T. Harvey (eds.). Acoustical deterrents in marine mammal conflicts with fisheries. A workshop held Feb 17-18, 1986, in Newport, Oregon. p105-110. 81

Rae, B.B., 1960.Seals and Scottish fisheries.Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, Marine Research 1960 (2):23pp. Rae, B.B., 1968. The food of seals in Scottish waters. Department ofAgriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, Marine Research 1968 (2):39pp. Rae, B.B., 1969. More seal damage. Scot. Fish. Bull. 31:16-17. Rae, B.B., 1973. Further observations on the food of seals. J. Zool. London169:287-297. Rae, B.B. and W.M. Shearer, 1965.Seal damage to salmon fisheries.Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, Marine Research 1965 (2):39pp. Ragen, T.J., 1993. Status of the Hawaiian monk seal in 1992. NOAA/NMFS SWFC Admin. Rep. H-93-05. 79pp. Rand, R.W., 1959. The Cape fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus ). Distribution, abundance and feeding habits off the south western coast of the Cape Province.Investl Rep. Div. Sea Fish. S. Afr.34: 75pp. Reddy, M.L. and C.A. Griffith, 1988. Hawaiian monk seal population monitoring, pup captive maintenance program, and incidental observations of the green turtle at Kure Atoll, 1985. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFC-101, 35pp. Reijnders, P.J.H., 1985. Verdrinking van seehonden in fuiken. RIN-rapport 85/19.lOpp. Reijnders, P.J.H., M.N. de Visscher and E.H. Ries (eds), 1988. The Mediterranean monk seal. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 59pp. Reijnders, P.J.H. and K. Lankester, 1990.Status of marine mammals in the . Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 26(2-4):427-435. Reijnders, P., S. Brasseur, S., J. van der Toorn, P. van der , I. Boyd, J. Harwood, D. Lavigne and L. Lowry, 1993. Seals, fur seals, sea lions, and walrus. Status survey and conservation plan. IUCN/SSC Seal Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland, 88pp. Reyes, J.C. and J.A. Oporto, 1990.Gillnets, trap fisheries and cetaceans in the South Ea.st Pacific. Paper SC/090/G11 presented to the IWC workshop on mortality of cetaceans in passive fishing nets and traps, La Jolla, California, October 22-25 1990, 19pp. Rivinus, A., 1987. Oregon Aquafood's experience with a seal avoidance system. In, Mate, B.R. and J.T. Harvey (eds.).Acoustical deterrents in marine mammal conflicts with fisheries. A workshop held Feb 17-18, 1986 in Newport, Oregon. p79-80. Robinson, A.C. and T.E. Dennis, 1988.The status and management of seal populations in South Australia.In, Augee, M.L. (ed) Marine Mammals of Australia, filed biology and captive management. The Royal Zoological Soc. New S. . Ronald, K. and P. Healey, 1974. Present status of the Mediterranean monk seal.University of Guelph College of Biol. Sci. Migr. Ser. 100.36pp. Ronald, K. and R. Duguy, 1979.The Mediterranean monk seal. Proceedings of the First International Conference, 2 -5 May 1978, Rhodos, Greece. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Ronald, K. and P.J. Healey, 1982. The monk seal (Monachus monachus). In, Mammals in the Seas 5(4):243-252. Rosas, F.C.W., 1989.Aspectos da dinamica populacional e interacoes com a pesca do leao marinho do sul, Otaria flavescens (Shaw) (Pinnipedia, Otariidae), no litoral sul do Rio grande do Sul, Brasil. Tese de Mestrado, Universidade do Rio Grande, Brasil, 88pp. Ross, A., 1988.Controlling nature's predators on fish farms. Society, Ross-on-Wye, 96pp. Ryan, P.G. and C.L. Moloney, 1988.Effect of trawling on bird and seal distributions in the southern Benguela region. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 45: 1-11. 82 Sasalcawa, Y., 1989. The damage of submerged bottom setnets by northern sea lions and its encounter plan. Bull. Fac. Fish.Holckaido Univ. 40:116-124 (in Japanese with English summary). Scheffer, V.B. and J.W Slipp, 1944. The harbour seal in Washington State. Amer. Midl. Nat. 32:373-416. Schnapp, B., S. Hellwing and G. Ghizelea, 1962. Contributions to the lcnowledge of the seal (Monachus monachus). Herm. Bucaresti Muzeum national de istorie naturala "Gr Antipa" 3:383-400. Scholl, J., 1983. Aesthetic values of marine mammal derived from partyboat fishermen surveys. In, Miller 1983. Coastal marine mammal study, annual report for the period of July 1, 1981 - June 30, 1982. NOAA/NMFS SWFCAdmin Rep. LT-83-21C, 57-65. Scholl, J.,1987.Acoustic harassment and cracker shell tests in the southern California partyboat fishery. In, Mate, B.R. and J.T. Harvey (eds.), Acoustical deterrents in marine mammal conflicts with fisheries. A workshop held Feb 17-18, 1986 in Newport, Oregon : 66. Scholl, J. and D. Hanan, 1987a.Acoustic harassment devices tested in combination with cracker shells on pinnipeds interacting with the southern California partyboat fishery. In, Mate, B.R. and J.T. Harvey (eds.) Acoustical deterrents in marine mammal conflicts with fisheries. A workshop held Feb 17-18, 1986 in Newport, Oregon. p67-74. Scholl, J. and D. Hanan, 1987b.Effects of cracker shells on California sea lions, Zalophus californianus, interacting with the southern California partyboat fishery. In, Mate, B.R. and J.T. Harvey (eds.).Acoustical deterrents in marine mammal conflicts with fisheries. A workshop held Feb 17-18, 1986 in Newport, Oregon. p58-59. Schultze-Westrum, T., 1976. Monk seal investigations in Greece. Nature Newsletter, Hellenic Society for the Protection of Nature 8: 24. Scialabba, N., 1989. World review of marine mammal entanglement in fishing gear and plastic marine debris. FAO, manuscript. Sergeant, D., K. Ronald, J. Boulva and F. Berkes, 1978.The recent status of Monachus monachus, the Mediterranean monk seal.Biol. Conserv. 14:259-287. Shaughnessy, P.D., 1979.Cape (South African) fur seal. In, Mammals in the Seas. FAO Fisheries Series 5(2):37-40. Shaughnessy, P.D., 1980. Entanglement of Cape fur seals with man-made objects. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 11(11): 332-336. Shaughnessy, P. D., 1981. Interactions between fisheries and Cape fur seals in southern Africa. Worlcing Paper 4, IUCN Workshop on Marine Mammal/fishery interactions, La Jolla, California 30 March - 2 April, 1981. IUCN, Gland Switzerland. Shaughnessy, P.D., 1982. The status of seals in South Africa and Namibia. In, Mammals in the Seas. FAO Fisheries Series 5(4):383-410. Shaughnessy, P.D., 1985. Interactions between fisheries and Cape fur seals in southern Africa. In, Beddington, J.R., R.J.H. Beverton and D.M. Lavigne (eds).Marine Mammals and Fisheries. George Allen & Unwin, London: 119-134. Shaughnessy, P.D. and A.I.L. Payne, 1979. Incidental mortality of Cape fur seals during trawl fishing activities in South African waters. Fish. Bull. S. Afr. 12: 20-25. Shaughnessy, P.D., A. Semmelink, J. Cooper and P.G.H. Frost, 1981.Attempts to develop acoustic methods of keeping Cape fur seals Arctocephalus pusillus from fishing nets. Biol. Conserv. 21: 141-158. 83 Shaughnessy, P.D. and R.M. Warneke, 1987.Australian fur seal, Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus.In, Croxall, J.P. and R.L. Gentry (ecls). Status, biology and ecology of fur seals. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 51:73-77. Shaughnessy, P. D., Gales, N. J., Dennis, T. E., and Goldsworthy, S. D., 1994. Distribution and abundance of New Zealand fur seals, Arctocephalus forsteri, in South Australia and . Wildlife Research 21(6):667-95. Shomura, R.S. and M.L. Godfrey (eds.), 1990.Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC 154.1273pp. Sipila,T.,1991. Saimaanhyljealuiden suojelutavoiteet (English summary; Proposal for protection of Saimaa ringed seal breeding areas) WWF, Finland. Rapport No 5.83pp. Sjoasen, T., 1986. The cause of death among grey seal yearlings in the Baltic 1974-1985. ICES C.M. 1986/N:14. 4pp. Soderberg, S.,1975. Feeding habits and commercial damage of seals in the Baltic. In, Proceedings of the Symposium, The Seal in the Baltic.National Swedish Environmental Protection Board. PM 591. p66-78. Soriguer, R.C., 1977. Mortality of the monk seals, Monachus monachus Hermann, of La Cuera (). ICES C.M. 1977/N. 3pp. Stenman, 0., 1978.Damage caused by seals to salmon fisheries in Finland in 1974-1976. Finnish Game Res. 37:48-53. Stewart, B.S. and W.T. Everett, 1983. Incidental catch of a ribbon seal (Phoca fasciata) in the central North Pacific.Arctic 36(4):369. Stewart, B.S. and P.K. Yochem, 1987.Entanglement of Pinnipals in synthetic debris and and line fragments at San Nicolas and San Miguel Islands, California, 1978- 1986. Bulletin 18(6B): 336-339. Storr, G.M., 1965. Notes on Bald Island and the adjacent mainland. West. Aust. Nat. 9:187- 196. Tanahashi, K. and T. Itoo, 1986.Estimation of damage by Kuril seals to salmon trap net fisheries at Cape Erimo.In, Wada, K, T. Itoo, A. Niizuma, S. Hayama and M. Suzuki (eds).Proceedings of the Symposium on ecology and protection of the Kuril Sea, 1985. Tokyo University Press, Tokyo. p272-273. Tasunoda, L.M., 1989. Observations on board a Japanese high-seas, squid gillnet vessel in the North Pacific Ocean, July 1 - August 14, 1986. NOAA/NMFS NWAFC Processed Rep. 89-02. Taylor, R.H., 1990. Records of subantarctic fur seals in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 24:499-502. Thomas, R.M. and F.H. Schulein, 1988.The shoaling behaviour of and the distribution of seals and gannets off Namibia as deduced from routine fishing reports, 1982- 1985. S. Afr. J. mar. Sci. 7: 179-191. Thompson, D., A.R. Hiby and S.S. Anderson, 1984.Interactions between grey seals and salmon fisheries 46-128. In, Interactions between grey seals and U.K. fisheries. NERC, Sea Mamm. Res. Unit., Cambridge. Torres, D., J.A. Oporto and J.C. Cardenas, 1990.Antecedentes y proposiciones para la conservacion de los mamiferos marinos en Chile. Ser. Cient. INACH 40:103-115. Trillmich, F., 1979. Noticias de Galapagos. 29:8-14. Trillmich, F and K.O. Ono, 1991.Pinnipeds and El Nino; responses to the environment. Springer, Berlin. 84 Ulltang, O., 1981. Harp seals in the (White Sea harp seals) and the fishery for cod. Worlcing Paper 17, IUCN Workshop on Marine Mammal/fishery interactions, La Jolla, California 30 March - 2 April, 1981. IUCN, Gland Switzerland. UlRang, O., 1989. A note on stock size development of harp seals in the Barents Sea and White Sea. Institute of Marine Research,Sea Mammal Section, Bergen, Norway. Report SPS 8910. 7pp. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 1990.Action plan for the management of the Mediterranean monk seal. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 1992. Marine Mammal/fisheries interactions

: analysis of cull proposals.Report of the 2nd Scientific Advisory Committee of the Marine Mammal Action Plan, Liege 27 Nov-1 Dec 1992. 3Opp. Vaz-Ferreira, R., 1979. South American sea lion.In, Mammals in the Seas. FAO Fisheries Series 5(2):9-12. Vaz-Ferreira, R., 1982. Otaria flavescens (Shaw), South American sea lion. Mammals in the Seas. FAO Fisheries Series 4:477-496. Wada, K., S-I Hayama, T. Nalcaoka, H. Uno and K. Shimazaki, 1986. On the interactions between Kuril seals and salmon trap net fisheries along the coastal waters of south-eastern Hokkaido. In, Wada, K, T.Itoo, A. Niizuma, S. Hayama and M. Suzuki (eds). Proceedings of the Symposium on ecology and protection of the Kuril Sea, 1985. Tokyo University Press, Tokyo. p243-244. Wada, K., S-I. Hayama, T. Nakaoka and H. Uno, 1991. Interactions between Kuril seals and salmon trap net fishery in the coastal waters of southeastern Hoklcaido. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 7: 75-84. Warneke, R.M., 1975.Dispersal and mortality of juvenile fur seals Arctocephalus pusillus donferus in , Southeast Australia.Rapp. P-v. Reun. Cons. inExplor. Mer. 169 :296-302. Warneke, R.M., 1979. Australian fur seal.In, Mammals in the seas. FAO Fish. Ser. 5(2):41- 44. Warneke, R.M., 1982. The distribution and abundance of seals in the Australasian region with summaries of biology and current researchIn, Mammals in the seas. FAO Fish. Ser. 5(4):431-476. Wickens, P.A., 1989.Interactions of the South African fur seal and fisheries in the Benguela Ecosystem. PhD Thesis, University of Cape Town. 288pp. Wickens, P., 1991.Seals and fisheries.A further look at the interactions. South African Commercial Fisherman and marine conservationist 3(4):12-13. Wickens, P.A., 1993. An evaluation of operational interactions between seals and fisheries in South Africa. Report to the Department of Environment Affairs, South Africa. 146pp. Wickens, P.A., 1994(a). Interactions between South African fur seals and pelagic purse-seining operations. Marine Mammal Science 10(4):5-21. Wickens, P., 1994(b).Operational interactions between seals and fisheries in South Africa. Cape Town; S.A. Dept. Environ. Aff./ South. Afr. Nat. Found. 162pp. Wickens, P., 1994(c). Seal debate. The problem : just how severe. South African Commercial Marine Magazine. 3(1):10-11. Wickens, P., 1994(d).Seals. Gourmet seals - light on lobster ? South African Commercial Marine Magazine. 3(1):6-7. Wickens, P., 1994(e).Seals versus fishermen. African Wildlife 48(4):23-26. 85

Wickens, P., 1994(f). The Cape fur seal- A management quandary. Africa. Environment and Wildlife.5:68-78. Wickens, P.A.,Submitted (a). Conflict between South African fur seals and line-fishing operations. Wildlife Research, Australia. Wickens, P.A.,Submitted (b). Fur seals and lobster fishing in South Africa. Aquatic Conservation : Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. Wickens, P.A., Submitted (c). Seals and artisanal net fishing :interactions on the west coast of South Africa. Wickens, P.A., J.H.M. David, P.A. Shelton and J.G. Field, 1991. Trends in harvests and pup numbers of the South African fur seal : implications for management. South African Journal of marine Science 11:307-326. Wickens, P.A., D.W. Japp, P.A. Shelton, F. Kriel, P.C. Goosen, B. Rose, C.J. Augustyn, C.A.R. Bross, A.J. Penney and R.G. Krohn, 1992. Seals and fisheries: competition and conflict. In, Payne, A.I.L., K.H. Brink, K.H. Mann and R. Hilborn (eds).Benguela Trophic Functioning. South African Journal of marine Science 12:773-789. Wickens, P.A. and P. Sims, In press. Trawling operations and South African fur seals. Marine Fisheries Review. Wiig, O., 1988. Groenlandssel og selinvasjon Hva vet vi - hva tror vi ? Naturen 2:35-41. Wild, P.A., 1985.Progress report:Central California gill and trammel net investigations (northern area), 1984.California Dept. Fish and Game, Monterey. Wild, P.A., 1986.Progress report: Central California gill and trammel net investigations (northern area), 1985. California Dept. Fish and Game, Monterey. Wild, P.A., 1987.Progress report: Central California gill and trammel net investigations (northern area), 1986. California Dept. Fish and Game, Monterey. Wild. P.A., 1990. The central California experience : A case history of California halibut set net laws and regulations. In, Haugen, C.W. (ed) The California halibut Paralichthys californicus, resources and fisheries. Calif. Dept. Fish. and Game, Fish. Bull. 174. Woodley, T.H. and D.M. Lavigne, 1990. Incidental capture of pinnipeds in commercial fishing gear. Pinniped meeting. IWC symposium and workshop on mortality of cetaceans in passive fishing nets and traps. 26pp. Woodley, T.H. and D.M. Lavigne, 1991. Incidental capture of pinnipeds in commercial fishing gear. IMMA Tech Report No. 91-01. 35pp. Woodley, T.H. and D.M. Lavigne, 1993.Potential effects of incidental mortalities on the Hooker's sea lion (Phocarctos hookeri) population. Aquatic Conservation : Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 3:139-148. Woodley, T.H. and D.M. Lavigne, 1994. What level of incidental mortality can the Hooker's sea lion population sustain ?In, Mattlin, R.H. (ed.) Seals and sea birds fisheries interactions : report of a workshop, Wellington, 1992. Appendix 8.13pp. Wynne, K., 1990.Marine mammal interactions with the salmon drift gillnet fishery on the Copper River Delta, Alaska 1988-1989. Alaska Sea Grant College ProgramTech. Rep. AK-SG-90-05. 36pp. Wynne, K.M., 1991. 1990 salmon gillnet fishery observer programs inPrince William Sound and South Unimak, Alaska. Contract Rep. 50-ABNF-000036 to NMFS,Alaska, 65pp. Wynne, K.M., D. Hick and N. Munro, 1992. 1991 marine mammalobserver program for te salmon driftnet fishery for Prince William Sound, Alaska. Final Rep. to NMFS,Alaska, 53pp. 86 Yablokov, A., 1981.Seal/fisheries interactions in the Baikal and Ladoga Lakes and in the Caspian and White Seas : historical lessons. Worlcing Paper 8, IUCN Workshop on Marine Mammal/fishery interactions, La Jolla, California 30 March - 2 April, 1981. IUCN, Gland Switzerland. Yamanalca, M., N. Ohtaishi and T. Itoo, 1986. Migration of Stella sea lion and their damage to fisheries along the Holdcaido coast. In, Wada, K, T. Itoo, A. Niizuma, S. Hayama and M. Suzulci (eds). Proceedings of the Symposium on ecology and prote,ction of the Kuril Sea, 1985. Tokyo University Press, Tokyo. p294-295. Yatsu, A., 1989.Cruise report of flying squid survey by the Wakatori in July/August, 1989. Document submitted to the annual meeting of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Seattle, Washington, October 1989. Fisheries Agency of Japan, Shizuoka. 2Opp. Yatsu, A. and S. Hayase, 1991.Estimation of total catch and bycatch of the Japanese squid driftnet fishery in 1989 1990.Scientific Review of North Pacific High Seas Driftnet Fisheries, Sidney, B.C., June 11-14, 1991. Paper J004. Young, N.M., S. Iudicello, K. Evans and D. Baur, 1993. The incidental capture of marine mammals in U.S. fisheries. Centre for Marine Conservation, Washington. 415pp. Zwanenburg, K. and B. Beck, 1981. Report on the 1978 grey seal damage survey. CAFSAC Res. Doc. 81/80. 7pp. Zwanenburg, K.C.T. and W.D. Bowen, 1990. Population trends of the grey seal (Halichoerus grypsus) in eastern Canada.In, Bowen, W.D. (eds.) Population biology of se,alworm Psuedoterranova decipiens in relation to its intermediate and seal hosts.Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 222:185-197.

0,d

ab le literaturé'on'tiaeretlorO1 dingaluch InfOrmation spOsslblifromb c,papers aìd local reporta It eXamines' ,theitatiire of the speCls found In i.the interactiOnsat are,detrimental lo fisheries bed in term8 Of he extent ofdepredatton,, ,end d 'luring passive a d f1S6 farilliOi,, "I' of pinniedspecIe6 ,fidetelledin terms Ø numberéduringeact e different types of flshkig qperatloh kirtjtiei'l 110iirPUiiiiit t,i!iit ilaV 6 eritçîed ", different areas: are,dlcuèSec Interactions.occur throUgh8At the World: end vary k, OI 'reatisitn eitiint,e10 in,impact oh fishery andplinnioec:I ponufetioric 4ralge frore Infrequent Interection inO eliecifiC'ereihki'lergelicelerOtObleme , , . , ueingliopulatiiin decifries o`i: itibstont*'0*,irli!mic:1,48i'0,8!:9! th'e,'total 8f 45

eds36 havebeen receided ,iibeiniinielved, InOorne feria of Interaction withIlk fetiOne,infleff'fainiä Feiiiteeti intitiattiOneinVolVe pinnipedsonly,efitf,' O effect onfieherfee. hei intereetieneereweiortiedAS heinieniy,d,etrinierifel h..i isherles and not to the"Olnhinedeinveleed.'Nine pinnipeclefieVene rrC' -,Interectione, with fishIrtgoperetiona¡

AAR

10 1

ISBN 92-5-103687-X ISSN 0429-9345

789251 0368771 V6590E/1/8 95/1700