Common use of Actively deterring birds from baited hooks Clause in Contracts

Actively deterring birds from baited hooks. Single bird scaring line The use of a single bird scaring line has been shown to be an effective mitigation measure in a range of demersal longline fisheries, especially when used properly (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 1996; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1998, 2001; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2001; ▇▇▇▇▇ 2001; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2002; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2003) Effective only when streamers are positioned over sinking hooks. Single bird scaring lines can be less effective in strong crosswinds (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1998; Brothers et al. 1999; ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2000; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2001; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2004). In the event of strong crosswinds, bird scaring lines should be deployed from the windward side. This problem can also be overcome by using paired bird scaring lines (see below).The effectiveness of the bird scaring lines is also dependent on the design, the aerial coverage of the bird scaring line, seabird species present during line setting (proficient divers being more difficult to deter from baits than surface feeding birds) and the proper use of the bird scaring line. The aerial coverage and the position of the bird scaring line relative to the sinking hooks are the most important factors influencing their performance. There have been a few incidents of birds becoming entangled in bird scaring lines (Otley et al. 2007). However it must be stressed that the numbers are minuscule, especially when compared with the number of mortalities recorded in the absence of bird scaring lines. Bird scaring lines remain a highly Effectiveness is increased when used in combination with other measures – e.g. night setting, appropriate weighting of line and judicious offal management. Further improvement in the effectiveness and practical use of bird scaring lines on individual vessels or vessel type. Current minimum standards vary. CCAMLR was the first conservation body that required all longline vessels in its area of application to use bird scaring lines (Conservation Measure 29/X adopted in 1991). The bird scaring line has gone on to become the most commonly applied mitigation measure in longline fisheries worldwide (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2004). CCAMLR currently prescribes a range of specifications relating to the design and use of bird scaring lines. These include the minimum length of the line (150m), the height of the attachment point on the vessel (7m above the water), and details about streamer lengths and intervals between streamers. Other fisheries have adapted these measures. Some, such as those in New Zealand and Alaska have set explicit standards for the aerial coverage of the bird scaring lines, which varies effective mitigation measure, and efforts should be directed to improving further their design and use so that their effectiveness can be improved further. according to the size of the vessel. Paired or multiple bird scaring lines Several studies have shown that the use of two or more streamer lines is more effective at deterring birds from baited hooks than streamer line (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2001; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇ 2002; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2003; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2004; ▇▇▇▇ et al. 2004). The combination of paired streamer lines and IW longlines is considered the most effective mitigation measure in demersal longline fisheries using autoline systems (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2008). Potentially increased likelihood of entanglement with other gear. Use of an effective towed device that keeps lines from crossing surface gear essential to improve adoption and compliance. See also above comment about bird entanglements in bird scaring lines. Manually attached and operated paired or multiple bird scaring lines requires some effort to operate (a 150m double line takes about 8-10 men to retrieve). One way of overcoming this is to make use of electronic winches. Effectiveness is increased when used in combination with other measures – e.g. night setting, appropriate weighting of line and judicious offal management. Further trialling of paired (or more) streamer-lines in fisheries which currently only use single streamer lines. Paired streamer lines required in Alaskan fisheries and encouraged/recommended by CCAMLR, except in the French exclusive economic zone (CCAMLR Subarea 58.6 and Division 58.5.1), where paired streamer lines have been compulsory since 2005. Paired streamer lines have also been required in the Australian longline fisheries off Heard Island since 2003 (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2008) ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ curtain Anecdotal evidence indicates that the use of a ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ curtain can effectively reduce the incidence of birds becoming foul hooked when the line is being hauled (Brothers et al. 1999; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2004; Otley et al. 2007). Some species, such as the black- browed albatross and cape petrels, can become habituated to the curtain, so it is important to use it strategically – when there are high densities of birds around the hauling bay (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2004). Must be used in combination with other mitigation measures – bird scaring lines at setting, line weighting, night setting and judicious offal management. A device designed to discourage birds from accessing baits during hauling operations is required in high risk CCAMLR areas (exact design not specified). Also required in the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) longline fishery, where the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Curtain is recommended. Olfactory deterrents Dripping shark liver oil on the sea surface behind vessels has been shown to effectively reduce the number of seabirds (restricted to ▇▇▇▇▇▇- nesting birds) attending vessels and diving for bait in New Zealand (Pierre & Norden 2006; Norden & Pierre 2007). The shark liver oil did not deter albatrosses, giant petrels, or Cape Petrels from boats (Norden & Pierre 2007). The potential impact of releasing large amounts of concentrated fish oil into the marine environment is unknown, as is the potential for contaminating seabirds attending vessels and the potential of seabirds to become habituated to the deterrent (Pierre & Norden 2006). Must be used in combination with other mitigation measures – bird scaring lines at setting, line weighting, night setting and judicious offal management – especially until further testing has been conducted. Testing of olfactory deterrence should be extended to white- chinned petrels. Research is also required to identify the key ingredients in the shark oil that are responsible for deterring seabirds, and the mechanism by which the birds are deterred. The potential “pollution” effects also need to be investigated. None yet.

Actively deterring birds from baited hooks. Single bird scaring line The use of a single bird scaring line has been shown to be an effective mitigation measure in a range of demersal longline fisheries, especially when used properly (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 1996; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1998, 2001; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2001; ▇▇▇▇▇ 2001; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2002; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2003) Effective only when streamers are positioned over sinking hooks. Single bird scaring lines can be less effective in strong crosswinds (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1998; Brothers et al. 1999; ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2000; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2001; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2004). In the event of strong crosswinds, bird scaring lines should be deployed from the windward side. This problem can also be overcome by using paired bird scaring lines (see below).The Effectiveness is increased when used in combination with other measures – e.g. night setting, appropriate weighting of line and judicious offal management. The use and specifications/performance standards are fairly well established in demersal longline fisheries. However, there is scope to improve further the effectiveness and practical use of bird scaring lines on individual vessels or vessel type. Current minimum standards vary. CCAMLR was the first conservation body that required all longline vessels in its area of application to use bird scaring lines (Conservation Measure 29/X adopted in 1991). The bird scaring line has gone on to become the most commonly applied mitigation measure in longline fisheries ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2003) effectiveness of the bird scaring lines is also dependent on the design, the aerial coverage of the bird scaring lineline , seabird species present during line setting (proficient divers being more difficult to deter from baits than surface feeding birds) and the proper use of the bird scaring line. The aerial coverage and the position of the bird scaring line relative to the sinking hooks are the most important factors influencing their performance. There have been a few incidents of birds becoming entangled in bird scaring lines (Otley ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2007). However it must be stressed that the numbers are minuscule, especially when compared with the number of mortalities recorded in the absence of bird scaring lines. Bird scaring lines remain a highly Effectiveness is increased when used in combination with other measures – e.g. night settingeffective mitigation measure, appropriate weighting of line and judicious offal managementefforts should be directed to improving further their design and use so that their effectiveness can be improved further. Further improvement in the effectiveness and practical use of bird scaring lines on individual vessels or vessel type. Current minimum standards vary. CCAMLR was the first conservation body that required all longline vessels in its area of application to use bird scaring lines (Conservation Measure 29/X adopted in 1991). The bird scaring line has gone on to become the most commonly applied mitigation measure in longline fisheries worldwide (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2004). CCAMLR currently prescribes a range of specifications relating to the design and use of bird scaring lines. These include the minimum length of the line (150m), the height of the attachment point on the vessel (7m above the water), and details about streamer lengths and intervals between streamers. Other fisheries have adapted these measures. Some, such as those in New Zealand and Alaska have set explicit standards for the aerial coverage of the bird scaring lines, which varies effective mitigation measure, and efforts should be directed to improving further their design and use so that their effectiveness can be improved further. according to the size of the vessel. Paired or multiple bird scaring lines Several studies have shown that the use of two or more streamer lines is more effective at deterring birds from baited hooks than streamer line (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2001; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇ 2002; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ increased likelihood of entanglement with other gear. Use of an effective towed device that keeps lines from crossing surface gear essential to improve adoption and compliance. See also above comment about bird entanglements in bird scaring Effectiveness is increased when used in combination with other measures – e.g. night setting, appropriate weighting of line and judicious offal Further trialling in fisheries which currently only use single streamer lines. Paired streamer lines required in Alaskan fisheries and encouraged/recommended by CCAMLR, except in the French exclusive economic zone (CCAMLR Subarea 58.6 and Division 58.5.1), where paired 2003; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2004; ▇▇▇▇ et al. 2004). The combination of paired streamer lines and IW longlines is considered the most effective mitigation measure in demersal longline fisheries using autoline systems (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2008). Potentially increased likelihood of entanglement with other gear. Use of an effective towed device that keeps lines from crossing surface gear essential to improve adoption and compliance. See also above comment about bird entanglements in bird scaring lines. Manually attached and operated paired or multiple bird scaring lines requires some effort to operate (a 150m double line takes about 8-10 men to retrieve). One way of overcoming this is to make use of electronic winches. Effectiveness is increased when used in combination with other measures – e.g. night setting, appropriate weighting of line and judicious offal management. Further trialling of paired (or more) streamer-lines in fisheries which currently only use single streamer lines. Paired streamer lines required in Alaskan fisheries and encouraged/recommended by CCAMLR, except in the French exclusive economic zone (CCAMLR Subarea 58.6 and Division 58.5.1), where paired streamer lines have been compulsory since 2005. Paired streamer lines have also been required in the Australian longline fisheries off Heard Island since 2003 (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2008) ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ curtain Anecdotal evidence indicates that the Haul mitigation The use of a bird exclusion device such as a ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ curtain can effectively reduce the incidence of birds becoming foul hooked when the line is being hauled (Brothers et al. 1999; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2004; Otley ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2007; ▇▇▇▇ et al. submitted, ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. in prep.). Some species, such as the black- black-browed albatross and cape petrels, can become habituated to the curtain, so it is important to use it strategically – when there are high densities of birds around the hauling bay (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2004). Must be used in combination with other mitigation measures – bird scaring lines at setting, line weighting, night setting and judicious offal management. A device designed to discourage birds from accessing baits during hauling operations is required in high risk CCAMLR areas (exact design not specified, but it is required that they fulfil two operational characteristics: 1) deter birds from flying into the area where the line is being hauled, and 2) prevents birds that are sitting on the surface from swimming into the hauling bay area). Also required in the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) longline fishery, where the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Curtain is recommendedrecommended (▇▇▇▇▇ et al, in prep). Olfactory deterrents Dripping shark liver oil on the sea surface behind vessels has been shown to effectively reduce the number of seabirds (restricted to ▇▇▇▇▇▇- nesting birds) attending vessels and diving for bait in New Zealand (Pierre & Norden 2006; Norden & Pierre 2007). The shark liver oil did not deter albatrosses, giant petrels, or Cape Petrels from boats (Norden & Pierre 2007). The potential impact of releasing large amounts of concentrated fish oil into the marine environment is unknown, as is the potential for contaminating seabirds attending vessels and the potential of seabirds to become habituated to the deterrent (Pierre & Norden 2006). Must be used in combination with other mitigation measures – bird scaring lines at setting, line weighting, night setting and judicious offal management – especially until further testing has been conducted. Testing of olfactory deterrence should be extended to white- candidate/suitable species of conservation concern, such as white-chinned petrelspetrels and sooty shearwaters. Research is also required to identify the key ingredients in the shark oil that are responsible for deterring seabirds, and the mechanism by which the birds are deterred. The potential “pollution” ―pollution‖ effects also need to be investigated. None yet.