Data_Sheet_5_Global Causes, Drivers, and Prevention Measures for Lost Fishing Gear.docx

• Main Authors: Kelsey Richardson, Britta Denise Hardesty, Joanna Zofia Vince, Chris Wilcox
• Format: Dataset
• Language: unknown
• Published: 2021
• Subjects: Oceanography; Marine Biology; Marine Geoscience; Biological Oceanography; Chemical Oceanography; Physical Oceanography; Marine Engineering; abandoned lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear; derelict fishing gear; fisheries management; ghostfishing; marine debris; marine litter; plastic pollution; sustainable fisheries; New Zealand; Iceland
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.690447.s005; https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Data_Sheet_5_Global_Causes_Drivers_and_Prevention_Measures_for_Lost_Fishing_Gear_docx/14937429

Abandoned, Lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) comprises a significant part of global marine plastic pollution, with adverse consequences for fishers, the seafood industry, and marine wildlife and habitats. To effectively prevent and reduce ALDFG at source, an understanding of the major causes of and drivers behind fishing gear losses is required. We interviewed 451 fishers from seven countries around the world (Belize, Iceland, Indonesia, Morocco, New Zealand, Peru, and the United States of America) representing five key fishing gear types (gillnets, purse seine nets, trawl nets, longlines, and pots and traps) about why and under what circumstances they lose their gear. We also asked them their views on the most effective interventions to reduce gear losses. Across all major gear types and countries where interviews were undertaken, bad weather was the most common cause of gear loss, followed by interactions with wildlife (identified as a cause for loss by 81% and 65% of all fishers interviewed, respectively). Snagging gear on a bottom obstruction was a major cause of loss for gears that contact the seafloor, along with conflicts with other fishers, often via gear and vessel interactions, for gillnet and pot and trap fishers. Operational and behavioral characteristics such as gear type, trip length, and the party responsible to pay for gear repairs and replacements all significantly influenced gear losses. Gear maintenance was the most effective gear loss prevention measure across all gear types and countries reported by fishers, followed by training crew in gear management (identified as an effective prevention measure by 95% and 82% of all fishers interviewed, respectively). Actions available to fishers, managers and port operators to effectively prevent fishing gear losses include: gear maintenance; reducing active gear interactions with wildlife; reducing financial and administrative burdens for port reception facilities; reducing trip lengths; and targeting education and gear stewardship ...