Effect of changes in hook pattern and size on catch rate, hooking location, injury and bleeding for a number of tropical reef fish species

The Queensland Great Barrier Reef line fishery in Australia is regulated via a range of input and output controls including minimum size limits, daily catch limits and commercial catch quotas. As a result of these measures a substantial proportion of the catch is released or discarded. The fate of these released fish is uncertain, but hook-related mortality can potentially be decreased by using hooks that reduce the rates of injury, bleeding and deep hooking. There is also the potential to reduce the capture of non-target species though gear selectivity. A total of 1053 individual fish representing five target species and three non-target species were caught using six hook types including three hook patterns (non-offset circle, J and offset circle), each in two sizes (small 4/0 or 5/0 and large 8/0). Catch rates for each of the hook patterns and sizes varied between species with no consistent results for target or non-target species. When data for all of the fish species were aggregated there was a trend for larger hooks, J hooks and offset circle hooks to cause a greater number of injuries. Using larger hooks was more likely to result in bleeding, although this trend was not statistically significant. Larger hooks were also more likely to foul-hook fish or hook fish in the eye. There was a reduction in the rates of injuries and bleeding for both target and non-target species when using the smaller hook sizes. For a number of species included in our study the incidence of deep hooking decreased when using non-offset circle hooks, however, these results were not consistent for all species. Our results highlight the variability in hook performance across a range of tropical demersal finfish species. The most obvious conservation benefits for both target and non-target species arise from using smaller sized hooks and non-offset circle hooks. Fishers should be encouraged to use these hook configurations to reduce the potential for post-release mortality of released fish.

The big pond debate.

Over recent decades, Australian piggeries have commonly employed anaerobic ponds to treat effluent to a standard suitable for recycling for shed flushing purposes and for irrigation onto nearby agricultural land. Anaerobic ponds are generally sized according to the Rational Design Standard (RDS) developed by Barth (1985), resulting in large ponds, which can be expensive to construct, occupy large land areas, and are difficult and expensive to desludge, potentially disrupting the whole piggery operation. Limited anecdotal and scientific evidence suggests that anaerobic ponds that are undersized according to the RDS, operate satisfactorily, without excessive odour emission, impaired biological function or high rates of solids accumulation. Based on these observations, this paper questions the validity of rigidly applying the principles of the RDS and presents a number of alternate design approaches resulting in smaller, more highly loaded ponds that are easier and cheaper to construct and manage. Based on limited data of pond odour emission, it is suggested that higher pond loading rates may reduce overall odour emission by decreasing the pond volume and surface area. Other management options that could be implemented to reduce pond volumes include permeable pond covers, various solids separation methods, and bio-digesters with impermeable covers, used in conjunction with biofilters and/or systems designed for biogas recovery. To ensure that new effluent management options are accepted by regulatory authorities, it is important for researchers to address both industry and regulator concerns and uncertainties regarding new technology, and to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that new technologies do not increase the risk of adverse impacts on the environment or community amenity. Further development of raw research outcomes to produce relatively simple, practical guidelines and implementation tools also increases the potential for acceptance and implementation of new technology by regulators and industry.