Sharks under threat because of global fisheries, study says |

Sharks under threat because of global fisheries, study says

Associated Press
Getty Images
This file picture taken on Nov. 9, 2014, shows a shark for sale at a traditional market in Tanjung Luar in Lombok, West Nusa Teggara, Indonesia.

CANBERRA, Australia — About a quarter of shark habitats are actively targeted by global commercial fishing fleets, leaving the predators with limited places to hide from the longlines, or baited hooks, on which they frequently get caught, according to study published Wednesday.

The researchers found areas frequented by protected species had much higher overlap with active fishing zones where longlines were used, directly threatening the iconic ocean predators.

Longlining is a commercial fishing technique that uses a drifting long line with baited hooks attached on shorter branch lines at intervals. Hundreds or thousands of baited hooks can hang from a single line that mostly target species like tuna and swordfish.

The study by a team of Australian and international researchers was published in the science journal Nature.

The researchers tracked the movements of 1,600 sharks using satellite tags and monitored the movements of global fishing fleets to see where their paths crossed.

They found that 24% of the space used by pelagic, or oceanic, sharks in an average month falls under the footprint of longline fisheries, while areas frequented by protected species, like great white sharks, had an even higher overlap — 64% — with longline fleets.

Pelagic sharks are highly migratory, covering vast ocean areas. On average, large pelagic sharks account for half of all identified shark catch worldwide in target fisheries or as bycatch.

The researchers said the findings indicated that pelagic sharks have limited places of refuge from fisheries and thus more protected areas are needed urgently to sustain their declining population.

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.