What do we do about the proliferation of sharks??

[Libs]

I wonder how much of what we are seeing with shark behaviour now is not only a result of 'learned behaviour' (and I have to say, sharks learning new tricks has a certain terrifying but awe inspiring appeal), but also the effects of factors that we have not considered - like the impact of shark nets.

[nantes]

nets has been there for plenty of years
the shark problem only got out of hand the last 4 or 5 years
why didnt they learn before
 
i dont beleave that al the sharks could learn at the same time
yes i do think the nets has something to do with it
i dont think its al the sharks that got out of hand
my feeling is that its mainly the big blackfins. thats the sharks we see mainly
could be wrong

[tackle whore]

20 years ago i fished during the shad/sardine run in durbs and remembering the guys complaining about the sharks - think they were small grey sharks/duskys???? , we caught hundreds , came back after the sardine run and in a weeks fishing caught only 11 small sharks . with the sardine run/geelbeck/salmon/shad you always going to get the apex predators following these fish , we geyt huge makos and bronzies following the snoek , hook one on a light  rod and its a good chance you going to get taxed , thats part of fishing we just got to find diff techniques to catch fish , as for sharks learning sorry dont buy that for a second , zambies at breede will sit under a boat because of the noise people make on the boat, electric field motors are giving off through anodes or battery ,guys washing there hands /splashing, fish hooked . the great whites off seal island in falsebay are not conditioned to the boats , they return year round to pup yet are increadably shy and hesitant of the boat even with chum in the water it takes us upto 80min some time to get a shark upto the boat even though natural predations are happening around the island and the sharks are there.

[Half-Pint]

TW I really have to say your responses on this thread have been great well thought out and no emotional responses cred to you for keeping such a level head on a topic that is very controversial

[Libs]

I have put this up on other forums. For those of you who have seen the full report, my apologies. If you want the full report, pm me and I will send it to you. This is a pilot study (limited sample base - so the results are entertaining, but not statistically significant) It has to do with Skiboat fishing in KZN and shark activity/fish loss.

One of the guys who participated is a commercial linefisher that I have already interviewed. And what a pleasure. He was so forthright about the problems faced by commmercial guys in KZN (mostly I have had very uninformative exchanges - I cannot blame them - they do not know me & have no reason to trust me).

This information came from the study conducted in 2003 about shark   activity during skiboat trips. I am not sure about the rest of you but I   found it fascinating. Bear in mind this was a pilot study with a very   small sample size of fishers and trips so while the results are   interesting, they are not really statistically significant.
 
  There were 6 skiboat operators involved for the period of February to   August 2003. The guys participating were logged the amount of fish lost   per fishing trip.
 
  The number of fishing trips done during this period was 126. The breakdown for the amount of trips made from 6 landing sites is as follows:
 
  Port Edward – 35 trips
  Warner Beach – 15 trips
  Rocky Bay – 15 trips
  Durban – 34 trips
  Shelley Beach – 11 trips
  Zinkwazi – 16 trips
 
  The study also looked at different types of fishing being conducted
  •   Game fishing accounted for 52% of trips
  •   Bottom fishing accounted for 31%
  •   Mixed fishing accounted for 14%
  •   Bait fishing accounted for 4%.
 
  (the relevance of me putting up these stats will become apparent when   you look at the different types of fishing where shark activity and fish   loss were highest.)
 
  This is what the report recorded in terms of the amount of different types of fishing per trip in different areas.
 
  Different types of fishing:
  Bottom fishing:
  Warner Beach – 87% of fishing trips
  Shelly Beach – 91% of trips
 
  Game Fishing
  Durban – 85% of trips
  Zinkwazi – 94% of trips
 
  Port Edward and Rocky Bay had a mixture of different types of fishing.
 
  Shark activity recorded for all the trips:
  Total number of Trips: 126 trips
  Recorded Shark Activity for Total Number of Fish: 62% (79 trips).
 
  Port Edward had the lowest amount of recorded shark activity taking place, of the 35 trips shark activity was recorded for 43% of trips (about 15 trips).
 
  Durban had the highest amount of recorded shark activity. Out of the 34 trips, shark activity was recorded for 76% of them (roughly 26 trips)
 
  Loss of fish per trip
  The percentage of fish lost out of the total number of trips
  Number of Trips: 126
  Percentage of fish lost: 44% (55 trips).
  There was a big difference when comparing different areas.
  Shelley Beach – had the highest amount. Fish loss occurred during 73% of trips
  Port Edward - had the lowest amount. Fish loss occurred during only 6% of trips
 
  The total number of fish lost during the 126 trips: 341 fish.
  That works out to be roughly 2.7 fish per trip, but there is a big difference of how many fish were lost in different areas.
 
  These are the 3 areas where the most amount of fish were lost.
 
  •   Warner Beach – 46% of the total number of fish lost (156 fish) during the 15 trips. (roughly that works out to be 10 fish per trip).
  •   Shelley Beach – 26% of the total number of fish lost  (88 fish) during 11 trips (8 fish per trip)
  •   Durban – 16% of the total number of fish lost (54 fish) during 34 trips (about 1.6 fish per trip)
 
  Different types of fishing: Variation in shark activity and fish loss
  Both shark activity and fish loss were higher during bottom fishing trips in comparison to game fishing.
 
  Bottom Fishing
  Number of Trips: 39
  Number of Fish lost per Trip: 6.5 fish
 
  Game Fishing
  Number of Trips: 65
  Number of Fish lost per Trip:1.2 Fish
 
  Very interesting, but I wonder why?
 
  Fish Loss and Water Depth
  More fish were lost when fishing in water where the depth was 21 – 30 m   as opposed to slightly deeper or shallower water. This occurred for both   bottom fishing and game fishing.
 
  Boats forced to move to new location because of shark activity.
  Out of the total number of trips, boats were forced to change location   because of shark activity only 15.5% of the time. There did not appear   to be a big difference in fishing activity here when comparing bottom   fishing trips and game fishing trips.
 
  There was a big difference recorded for different areas though.
 
  Warner Beach: 33%
  Rocky Bay: 0%
 
  Shark Activity: Species of Shark
 
  Out of the 79 trips were shark activity was reported, the identity of the shark was reported as unknown during 37 of the trips.
  The most frequently identified or suspected species per trip are as follows:
  Blacktip – 6 trips
  Dusky – 9 trips
  Scalloped hammerhead – 11 trips
  Tiger – 5 trips
 
  Fish Loss: Shark Species Responsible
  The report says that neither the dusky of scalloped hammerhead sharks   were responsible for ‘extensive fish loss’, mainly because the   identified sharks were juveniles.
 
  The species identified or suspected for being most responsible for fish loss was the blacktip
 
  This is a quote taken straight from the report:
 
  ‘The estimated loss of 341 fish during just 126 fishing trips, when   extrapolated to the total number of trips that take place annually on   the southern KwaZulu-Natal coast, would amount to a large number of   fish. Bottom fishing, in particular, is affected, with the loss of 6.5   fish per trip. This loss of fish to sharks has implications not only for   the profitability of commercial linefishing but also as a cryptic   component of fishing mortality’
 
  Source: Dudley, S (2003) ‘KwaZulu-Natal Skiboat Fishing Shark Activity   Survey – Pilot Study’, Unpublished Report No 1/2003, Natal Sharks Board
 
 
  So what are your thoughts.
 
  Would skiboat operators be interested in reporting shark activity and   fish loss? I ask because I am thinking about putting together an online   database where people could log this information (actually, my husband   will design it).
 
  It might be interesting to keep it going for a number of years and see what the trends are.

[sea sick]

interesting reading.
Yeah, why not.

Ss

[REEFMAN]

Wow... that makes fascinating reading Libs! Thanks for that! Reckon you should get another study going asap.... no question about it!

[Kumz]

Wow... that makes fascinating reading Libs! Thanks for that! Reckon you should get another study going asap.... no question about it!

   ..I agree ....

[John F]

Interesting indeed...

I think the difference in "taxation" between bottom x gamefishing lies on the "territoriality" behavior of bottom fish... they often occur in areas with hard structure (reefs, wrecks, etc.) and tend to stay there... this causes some sort of habituation on sharks... they know that area is a food station... gamefish (ie pelagics) can be caught in the open ocean... so less chances of shark tax?

my 2 Moz cts 

[nico]

I would definitely participate. I would also say adding species targetted would be informative. General bottomfishing we never get taxed, fishing for geelbek or daga at night we do (as an example).

[Half-Pint]

Just hope that some people don't take this as a licence to start their own campaign of shark extermination

[tackle whore]

makes good reading . what the report should show is how many fish were landed per fishing trip  . lets look at the one stat -
  The total number of fish lost during the 126 trips: 341 fish.
  That works out to be roughly 2.7 fish per trip............................ how hany fish were landed for the 126 trips
 if i am  still catching my recreational quota eg- 10 yellowtail a person per day x by 4 guys on boat  = 40 fish for the trip  if i am loosing 2.7 fish to sharks per trip that loss is totally exeptable to me . The report does not show what the total tonnage was of fish caught commercially to what was eaten by sharks . if you were hooking only 5 fish per trip  and getting taxed on 3 of those per trip then i would say its an issue . good example is snoek down here last weekend in buffels one commercial got a school of 30 fish - lost 23 to seals and got 4 halves back and rest heads .........................thats a seal problem . but once the fish move outside the piont its not nearly as bad with seals .

[nico]

Unfortunately, fishing is not very good off Durban, other than geelbek you would rarely catch quota, and gamefishing just about never. If you get taxed once or twice you are probably going home with no fish at all.

[CASTSA]

Awesome read, thanks Libs,
 
Just a quick add,
 
If any of you guys have the time to chat to someone with a world of knowledge of this point, try get in contact with Mark Addison who is based in Umkomaas. They have done some very interesting studies on the shark issue and why it "seems" as though the sharks are worse for us anglers.
 
The idea of fish stocks decreasing, and sharks becoming residential on various marks is a reality,
 
For example at Aliwal Shoal, you have a bunch of resident Blacktips around that 60-80kg mark that are always there, some of them even have names,    but the reality is that if due to lack of fish stocks, like sardines, these fish have learnt to find an easy meal on the most common marks/structure then we will have these resident sharks where ever we have a have a decent eco-system.
 
Research has shown that in some cases, the sharks do follow the shoals of Daga and Geelbek, probably because of the strong cent they carry and because of the huge presents they have under water, for those of you who dive, you can actually hear the Kob making that grunting under the water, and many experienced diver will back this up.
 
So with the kob and geelbek coming to all the main marks, so do the Sharks. As described by an experienced commercial diver, "its as though they are waiting in a line at Mcdonalds" this was after a deep commercial dive at one of the wreck marks off Durban, he basically said that the shoals of fish were on the bottom around 0-7 meters and above that surrounding them was those smaller Blackfins just hanging around.
 
Sharks have a hard time to get food on their own, and if the sharks get a free meal from the recreational angle, it is a recipe for disaster, because they learn way too quickly and become residential.
 
Before we used to hook the planty on live baits, a mackerel or shad, NOW these sharks have learn to leave that "small" bait alone because if they do they will in turn get a larger return...as you hook a BEK, three, four winds and its eaten...with no exception!!
 
The strange thing is, anglers will still fish for Bek when the sharks are that wild, I was out the other night recording a commercial catch, and basically watched four boats, with average 3 anglers per boat, hook maybe 20-30 fish in the space of 1 hour and EVERY SINGLE one got eaten.........EVERY ONE!!
 
NOW this in its own can give you an indication as to why the Sharks are SO wild on the main marks??,,that amount of food, Sharks could never match that naturally...
 
Its a topic that I have been so irratated with for some time, because I have lost some amazing fish to sharks and it just puts a sour taste in my mouth but as anglers and maybe by us not changing OUR habits is making this issue a giant problem throughout our coastline..........
 
My 2c.........
 
 
 
 
 

[Capt. Hook]

  It might be interesting to keep it going for a number of years and see what the trends are.

Excellent info. Thanks

[Happy Dog]

Count me in to help with a survey when started.

[Lynski]

Well done Libs a great effort -Would be happy to participate-Results would probably change from 2003 ?
Just hope somebody will take notice !!
 

[Libs]

I think it would take a a little while to build up enough data for it to be statistically significant, but once the information is there and we start doing reports, getting some publicity in the media etc, I think it would be difficult for the powers that be to ignore it.

Imagine if we get enough people logging their information and then get a national newspaper or Cartblanche to point out that government is ignoring information being voluntarily contributed by fishers. Ang getting the information into the public domain would not be difficult.

[REEFMAN]

C'mon then B... get this one going... you will have plenty volunteer feedback.

[Libs]

Well, what we need to do to start this database is get some feedback from people about what type of info guys would want to log.

Basically, what you want is a user-friendly system that allows even technologically challenged people to use it (like my folks - who phone me everytime they try to use google). And I am not implying guys here are technologically challenged, but here are some fishers out there who never use the net.

The thing about designing a database is that it is like building a house. Having a good architectural plan to start with is critical because adding important stuff onto an existing database is a pain (Imagine having the basic structure up and then discovering that you have to tear it down because you failed to put in plumbing, or that the brickwidth in the foundation is not wide enough for you to add a double story). So as much information about what people would like to input would be great.

I also think this database should include more then just taxing reports. Some of the stuff I have picked up talking to the guys who fish off-shore (rec's, com's and charter guys) is that what you catch/ what is available changes yearly but regulations do not change to reflect this.

One commercial guy I spoke to from Toti told me that this year there have been hardly any geelbek there, so he has been going for kob (which according to the latest research is dangerously exploited - but where he fishes is prevalent). Some of the guys from other areas have had a great season for geelbek. The latest report on 74 in KZN say that despite the ban on fishing, stock have not recovered. Again, guys fishing offshore in different areas have told me that in some places, 74 are the most prolific fish.

A common complaint that I have heard is that although they try and give this feedback to government or in KZN, EKZNW but there is little attention paid to this.

My problem/but solution here is that our government's new sexy issue about managing natural resources sustainably is not to just use scientific information but to use 'indigenous' knowledge, or traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). The use of the word indigenous unfortunately suggests or implies restrictions - only indigenous people should give input. Frankly, from my perspective, someone who has been fishing for 10 - 30 years, or even 3 years in a particular area has indigenous or traditional knowledge. 

One of the guys I spoke to recently, Carey Steele-Boe from RFS told me that in the WC in the areas that treknetting has been stopped, this has resulted in a huge increase in steenbras, big mature adults in what has been identified as 'nurseries' for this species. At no point has he ever been asked to contribute his 'traditional' knowledge to DAFF about what is going on in his area.

This morning, I had a chat to about 9 - 10 guys who where either charter or commericial fishers - no-one from government or any of the fisheries research institutes has ever gone out as an offshore observer - and these are not the first guys who have told me this - despite that fact that they have literally offered 'open invitations - they want the TPTB's to see what actually goes on (despite ocean-based observers is being emphasized in so many policies - apparently, limited involvement here).

I am horrified by this - been out with commercial guys, inspection patrols, and about to do some charter trips - how could I even write about this without actually having some idea of what happens - like taxing. Do not get me wrong, scientific research is important but so is research where the person doing it is 'embedded' (my mate Mic spent months living with the San in the Kalahari to see how cellphones impacted on community interaction - anthropologists - go figure). 

Taxing was one of the biggest problems mentioned today, but a whole bunch of things came up that I have never considered. BTW, complete kudos to nantes, who has posted here a few times and who set this up for me. He contacted me completely of his own accord, offered to get a bunch of guys together to talk to me and organised the whole thing - cannot tell you who helpful this was, getting both the charter and commercial guys to talk about the problems they face - Thanks Nantes, and Tommy for the use of your boat.

The one thing that has become apparent to me after 12 or 13 odd years of doing public policy research is that having a generic national policy can be dangerous, it ignores dynamics specific to very localized areas. Successful regulations and policies are those that take into account the specific policy context - believe me, I have done research on so may areas - to name a few: the St Lucia dune-mining, dog-racing, invasive species, assymetrical sexual selection in birds, biodiversity decline in forestry plantations, affirmative action, AZT adherence and the disability grant, pollution by chemical companies. The policies that work properly are the ones that are designed for specific areas, and the only way that can happen is if there is massive stakeholder input.

The truth is I have no idea how this database will affect fishing regulations, dealing with government is like betting on the ponies. The favourites have the best chance, but low odds. The outsiders or wildcards have better potential returns, but who knows.

I do know one thing though. Organised activity by a group of people who have the passion to pursue it and a vested interest does result in returns.

I do not know how many people have seen the new small-scale fisheries policy, but this is a good example. An NGO called Masifundise has been representing subsistence/artisanal/small-scale fishers in WC. Some of the members of this NGO are also attached to PLAAS, an academic branch of UWC.

They took the former MCM to court in 2007/8 about the lack of recognition of subsistence fisher needs. The result, the Equality court instructed MCM/now DAFF to come up with a better policy that catered to subsistence/artisanal fishers.

Masifundise has had a huge role in constructing the draft policy (the public feedback is currently being reviewed). But for the subsistence guys in KZN, the policy is not helpful. It grants 'community rights' and TURF allocations (Territorial User Rights of Fisheries) to subsistence/artisanal fishers. Emphasis is on identifying 'subsistence communities or towns & guys who fish off boats). Once the communities have been identified, they decided how quotas within them will be allocated.

There are a number of subsistence communities in KZN, but so many subsistence guys fish off rec permits and are rock and surf anglers. They might fish in groups because of safety or because of the area (on those piers still open), but the policy will not suit them. How will 'communities' be identified. Then who decides who gets to catch x% of the quota. I am not sure how many guys here have fished off the Durban piers with the subsistence guys, those who have will know who intense things can get.

But the point of that diatribe is that the subsistence guys in WC organised (to some extent). They also got hooked up with the right NGO/academic unit. The policy that is out there suits them.

The latest report I looked at has focused on the proliferation of charter-boat operators in KZN. Currently, no policy exists to 'manage' them but it is on the cards. KZN has (as far as I know) the biggest charter-boat sector in SA. If the guys here do not get involved now, policy will be set by DAFF and who knows if they will pay attention to KZN. The linefish sector is up for review - and that means everyone who participates will be affected, again, rec's (shore and offshore), com's, charters and sub's.

Another new and sexy issue being pursued by the TPTB's(along with NHI, nationalization and land expropriation) is the idea of fisheries co-management. Basically, this recognizes lack of gov knowledge to make regulations or enforce them.

Co-management structures involve user or stakeholder participation where decisions about policies, regulations and governance are too some extent decided by the resource users - our hake fisheries approach is a good example because it shows you how much clout the fishers here have had in effecting regulation.

So for line-fishers the window of opportunity exists. But organisation needs to happen now. The policies that get published as 'drafts' are usually signed off on and agreed upon before the public gets to see them. The amount of naughty boy politics that I have now seen in so may sectors where 'public comments are invited' while the backseat boys have already decided what will happen is scarey. 

My opinion, not fair to make policies in KZN that disadvantage the WC or vice versa. And I have not even touched on the EC.

Frankly, an online databse that allows guys from all the provinces to log their info is what is needed. Again, from what I have have seen, submitting reports to DAFF is limited in terms of input, gets no feedback and limited attention.

My big boss (the Vice Chancellor of our humanities college) has just identified 3 CRITICAL areas where he is going to release special funding.

1 of them is 'Indigenous/Traditional Knowledge systems' and the the other is Maritime/Marine Studies. 

Great glee for me, in the entire of UKZN, I am the only person in Humanities doing this type of research - so potentially I get a big cut of the pie. My direct line-manager (totally brilliant chap that I have known since 1995 cause I actually studied under him) has been jumping all over me to get the PhD out of the way - apply for this funding and get a research programme started.

There is more money I can apply for from the National Research Foundation, from sponsor countries like Norway etc. I cannot in anyway misuse these funds....every penny spent needs to be accounted for, logged, audited, double checked....weighed, measured.lol.

It all goes to research. Great potential but I need participants. I worked out that for my face-to-face rec surveys, for every 10 hours I tramp the beaches (not fishing, even when a run is on - and that hurts - fishing ban remains till PhD goes in) I get 1 complete survey - totally blows when you go up to a guy in waders with about six rods and multiple fishies tail-up in the sand and ask him if he could fill out the survey and he say - actually, I don't fish).

My end aim - a nice big research institute located at UKZN completely devoted to fishing - linefishing to start with, but who knows where it could lead. And not just for KZN,  for SA.

So give me some ideas and what type of info you guys would like to log in this database. We (Hubby and me are ready to start as soon as possible - in fact my husband loves the idea and is raring to go).

We can take a look at how things progress, maybe will will need to set up a few face-to-face meetings in the future to fine-tune this at some point.

Ideally, the database should have no costs involved for guys who want to input their info, later, when gov realizes that is is important we can make them pay a user fee to get the info (thus supporting any database costs).

Actually, that idea appeals to me - make the biggest shark of all pay for info on shark taxing (and other things).

Okay, I am typed out but eagerly awaiting feedback.