Course:EOSC270/2023/Ghost Fishing

From UBC Wiki

What is the problem?

What is Ghost Fishing and Where does it Occur?

Ghost fishing is a phenomenon where fishing gear is lost or abandoned in waters, continuing to capture and kill marine fauna without human oversight[1]. Such abandoned fishing gear, better known as ALDFG (Abandoned, lost, and discarded fishing gear)[2] include gillnets, trammel nets, cage traps, pots, and several more[1]. Through abandoned traps and pots, animals could find themselves encaged, staying stagnant and eventually dying due to starvation, cannibalism, disease, or predation[3]. Additionally, abandoned traps and nets may contain bycatch species, which eventually die and attract scavengers that also become caught forever, resulting in a self-baiting cycle of ghost gear[4].

Through these mechanisms, ALDFG directly impacts ecosystems, as traps and nets entangle fish and crustaceans, smothering sensitive habitats, and disrupting food chains and biodiversity[5]. Long-term and indirect detriments of ghost fishing include pollution of synthetic materials from ALDFG, and economic loss from fish stocks being lost due to capture and killing[5].

Ghost fishing can occur in most bodies of water where ALDFG is found, including oceans, rivers, and lakes. In areas where dense proportions of abandoned fishing gear is found like the North Pacific[6], ghost fishing is most likely to occur. However, it is important to recognize that ghost fishing is a global issue.

Human Contributions

Ghost fishing begins when fishing gear is abandoned in the water either intentionally or unintentionally. This abandonment of gear could be a result of adverse environmental conditions like storms, hurricanes, wave action, or ice cover; gear entanglement with the environment or other vessels; or degradation and destruction of gear due to age[3]. Between 2020-2024, 77,802 gear units were reported lost to Fisheries and Oceans Canada in the DFO region[7].

Intentional dumping of gear is also a major problem caused by humans. Dumping of nets out of convenience, negligence, or even because said nets are unregulated or illegal[8] happens as often as unintentional abandonment of fishing gear.

The Global Pervasiveness of Ghost Fishing

Ghost fishing is a problem that occurs in marine ecosystems around the world. ALDFG alone is detrimental to the environment, contributing to ocean pollution, habitat destruction, and economic loss. According to the APEC, marine litter in general cost 10.8 billion USD in damages in 2015[9]. while the European Commision in 2018 estimated that as much as 27% of marine litter in European sea basins is caused by ghost fishing gear[10].

The problem also endangers global seafood supplies, threatening fisheries and related industries. A study between 2020 and 2021 found that 48% of bycatch in ALDFG retrieved from Southwest Nova Scotia were American lobsters, and 82% of those lobster sizes are market-sized or above[4]. Globally, 5-30% of harvestable fish are withheld by ghost gear, demonstrating the severity of ghost fishing’s impact on human food security[11].

Impact

Perpetuity of ghost fishing

The effects of ghost fishing are both widespread and compounding. Areas most affected are those facing heavy large scale anthropogenic activity, especially benthic[12] and littoral/ sublittoral regions such as coral reefs. These are areas where gear is able to accumulate via current and gravitational settling, entangling and snaring less free- swimming species[13] and destroying the sea bed via scraping. Fish may become trapped by equipment long after their monitoring has ceased by means of curiosity, accident, and from intra/interspecies interaction[14].

A lobster trap containing a skeleton.

The rate at which ghost fishing perpetuates depends on the make and longevity of the lost gear. Line fishing equipment such as trawlnets are subject to a faster rate of decay than traps (namely gillnets, lobster pots and mesh traps)[15], though this lifespan may be increased by the usage of non-biodegradable materials such as plastic (eg. nylon) or wire which can take multiple years to corrode[16]. Wire lobster traps were reported by Butler et al. (2015) to still catch fish even as the experiment ended (1071 days)[17].

Injuries sustained by trapped fish

Live fish caught in traps are often physically damaged over their residence. The sources of these wounds may be from 'bumping'[1], a stress- induced behavior where the animal scrapes against the mesh repeatedly, or from the attentions of predators attracted to the movement and blood in the water. Physical damage includes bruising, scale loss, damage to the snout and mouth, and skin wounds such those from abrasion against the mesh and degloving[18].

Major injuries were noted to be in full effect from as little as a 6 day 'soak' period (where the trap is left in the water to accumulate catch) and fish were found to be left in traps even after bait had finished (3 hours)[18]. Mesh traps, despite their rate of escape[19], were noted to contain large amounts of decomposing fish over a 21 week length of employment. This buildup of dead and dying animals leads to the self- baiting of traps and nets; ensnared animals die, whether from stress or starvation, and the resulting carrion draws in more fish to perpetuate this cycle.

Species most affected

A dead bird in found in old netting washed ashore.

The range of organisms vulnerable to ghost fishing is dependent on region. It includes cephalopods such as cuttlefish[20] and octopus[21] many finfish such as sablefish[22], cod (anywhere from 3 to 906 tonnes of biomass in the Baltic Sea)[23], and monkfish (worst case 4.46% of total commercial catch)[24].

Near Muscat, spadefish, cuttlefish and sea bream outnumbered all other marine species in terms of both number (42%) and weight (61%); in this same 21 week period, 94% of the total weight of bycatch were commercially valuable marine species[25]. Crustaceans such as blue swimmer crabs (Portunus armatus)[26] and spiny lobsters in and around the Florida Keys are found tangled wire traps and trapped in long abandoned pots[27]; Estuary diamondback terrapins are some of the most abundant bycatch in Louisiana blue crab pots, with the crabs themselves having a 33 to 88% rate of being ghost fished by these traps[28]. Fragile branching coral polyps can be damaged and broken off by fishing line [29].

Famously, larger organisms can also be subject to lost gear. When washed ashore, equipment can disrupt turtle nesting sites by deterring spawning adults and trapping hatchlings making their way to sea. Multiple species of adult sea turtles have been found in gillnets and longline gear, dead and alive. The majority of turtle entanglements reported by experts surveyed by Duncan and Botterell et al. (2017) were said to be via ghost fishing[30]. 3400 to 12200 turtles were caught in ghost trawl and gill nets in the Maldivian archipelago, 97% of which were olive ridley sea turtles[31]. Seabirds such as the critically endangered Christmas Island frigatebird are liable to swallowing fishing hooks, and may suffer mortality from this directly or from breaking free only to have the trailing line become entangled on shore[32]. Unlike humans, animals are not able to call for help when caught in gillnets or locked in lobster pots, and are left without intervention to a slow fate.

What is the extent of the problem?

Measurable Ecological Impacts of Ghost Fishing

There is a significant knowledge gap in understanding the full impact of ghost fishing on marine ecosystems, leading researchers to rely on holistic estimations of long-term effects[2]. Scientific evidence on organism mortality due to ghost fishing remains an active area of research, as some organisms may enter lost fishing gear without sustaining injuries, making it difficult to quantify its detrimental effects[1]. Previous monitoring efforts focused on commercial and experimental fishing gear from an observational standpoint, but retrieving and tracking derelict gear remains a major challenge[1].

Current statistics indicate that ghost fishing gear accounts for 46% of the 79,000 tons of plastic in a surveyed 1.6 million km² area of the North Pacific Ocean[2]. Over time, this gear degrades into microplastics, exacerbating marine pollution and disrupting food chains. Off the Pacific coast of North Japan, ghost fishing gear contributes to 9% of the total 44% marine debris, nearly a quarter of all marine waste. Traps, in particular, pose a significant threat due to their durability in harsh marine environments, allowing them to persist for extended periods before breaking down[3].

Annual marine life losses due to ghost fishing have been linked to declining populations[1][2][3], which in turn disrupt food webs[5]. The cumulative impact highlights the urgent need for further research and improved mitigation strategies to address ghost fishing’s long-term ecological consequences.

Shift in Fishing Gear Composition

Fishing gear is typically composed of 86% metal and 14% plastic, designed to withstand harsh marine conditions for extended periods. As fishing technology advanced, metal became the dominant material[33], whereas historically, biodegradable fishing gear was more common[34]. However, the shift toward synthetic materials, aimed at increasing durability, has led to long-term environmental concerns such as microplastic pollution. The Global Ghost Gear Initiative (GGGI) recognizes this growing impact on the marine environment and is working to develop solutions, including enforcing codes of conduct to mitigate the impact of ghost fishing[35].

Consequences of Ghost Fishing

The persistent increase in ghost fishing gear poses escalating challenges for marine ecosystems. As microplastics continue to integrate into these environments, they further threaten marine species and disrupt ecological balance[2]. Marine ecosystems have long supported fishing, a vital resource for human livelihoods. However, species such as crabs are experiencing population declines due to ghost fishing, leading to economic losses[3][34]. Additionally, fishermen face financial burdens from replacing lost gear, conversely declining fish stocks caused by ghost gear damage contribute to negative economic impacts, producing an unbreakable cycle. If ghost fishing persists, it will exacerbate species vulnerability, potentially pushing marine biodiversity toward endangerment or extinction. This, in turn, threatens the sustainability of both the fishing industry and the livelihoods dependent on it[35].

Given the impact, what are the solutions?

Local Prevention

Mr. Scott, a diver seeing the damage caused by ghost gear, decided to start cleaning up and removing the old gear as a passion project. Eventually, this changed into a full on non-profit organization known as the Emerald Sea Protection Society (ESPS), who specializes in retrieving the discarded gear. By locating ghost gear and organizing diving teams to remove them, Mr. Scott and the ESPS have removed over 55000 kilograms of abandoned gear since 2017[36]. They are looking to document and map the locations of the lost gear in order to better predict and locate where future gear will be found, as well as being able to educate people to bring awareness to the problem and tackle it at its core[37]. The ESPS is also working under the Global Ghost Gear Initiative (GGGI), allowing them to make use of specialized gear such as remotely operated vehicles equipped with sonars to better locate ghost gear[36][38].

Canada is also currently working with the GGGI, being one of the primary leaders in an effort to prevent ghost fishing. In 2019 the Canadian government improved their policies as part of a ghost fishing regulatory program. This required that all lost fishing gear be reported in order to allow for future recovery[39]. Canada has also hosted the first ever Gear Innovation Summit in 2020, in an attempt to gather fishers, technology companies, and manufacturers to discuss possible innovations to prevent ghost fishing[40].

Global Prevention

The Global Ghost Gear Initiative is the primary leader in efforts to find solutions to the problem of ghost fishing. In order to do so, they have worked with many governments and organizations to educate and spread awareness about the problem. One such effort included working with the republic of Panama, helping them found a program designed specifically to train divers for ghost gear removal[41]. Other projects include upcycling and recycling found ghost gear so that it can be utilized for other purposes. In Pakistan, the GGGI worked with the Oliver Ridley Project to turn ghost gear into sellable products, such as bracelets and dog leashes[42]. Repurposing the ghost gear allows for more jobs as well as preventing ghost fishing from harming creatures such as turtles.

Technological Improvements

In the Republic of Vanuatu, Fish aggregating devices (FADs) are often used to attract curious pelagic fish, making them easier to catch. Despite most FADs being anchored, they can sometimes end up getting detached or unanchored. This can result in damage to nearby habitats caused by the trailing rope entangling creatures, as well as being a massive financial loss, with some FADs costing up to 2000 USD[41]. To combat this, the local fisheries department is working with the GGGI to help implement tracking devices to keep an eye on FADs. By making use of smart buoys and satellite trackers, the fisheries department is able to locate FADs that have become unanchored and recover them before they can damage sensitive environments[43]. While extreme weather events have been shown to have an impact on the tracking capabilities, this is still a vast improvement as it provides valuable information to the fisheries department on how and where to most effectively deploy FADs.

Resqunit is a company that is looking to develop traps that come with a reserve buoy and an Electronic Time Release in order to help fishermen not lose their gear. If the fisherman loses the trap, the buoy will unspool itself, allowing it and the trap to float back up to the surface, preventing it from ghost fishing and priming it for easier recovery[44].

References

  1. ↑ Jump up to: 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Matsuoka, T., Nakashima, T. & Nagasawa, N. A review of ghost fishing: scientific approaches to evaluation and solutions. Fish Sci 71, 691–702 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-2906.2005.01019.x
  2. ↑ Jump up to: 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Do, Huu-Luat; Armstrong, Claire W. (2023). "Ghost fishing gear and their effect on ecosystem services – Identification and knowledge gaps". Marine Policy. 150: 105528 – via Science Direct.
  3. ↑ Jump up to: 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Lively, Julie A.; Good, Thomas P. (2019). World Seas: An Environmental Evaluation. Volume III: Ecological Issues and Environmental Impacts. Chapter 10 - Ghost Fishing. Academic Press. pp. 183–196.
  4. ↑ Jump up to: 4.0 4.1 McIntyre, Jessie; Duncan, katie; Fulton, Leah; Smith, Ariel; Goodman, Alexa J.; Brown, Craig J.; Walker, Tony R. (2023). "Environmental and economic impacts of retrieved abandoned, lost, and discarded fishing gear in Southwest Nova Scotia, Canada". Marine Pollution Bulletin. 192: 115013 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  5. ↑ Jump up to: 5.0 5.1 5.2 Wasave, Suhas; Kamble, Sushil; Kazi, Tousif; Wasave, Sangita; G. B., Sreekanth; Brown, Craig J.; Walker, Tony R. (2023). "A bibliometric review on ghost fishing: Impacts on marine environment and governing measures". Marine Pollution Bulletin. 192: 115013 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  6. ↑ "Preventing lost and abandoned fishing gear (ghost fishing)". Marine Stewardship Cycle. Retrieved 2025. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  7. ↑ "Data on lost and retrieved gear". Canada.ca. 2025-03-13.
  8. ↑ Brown, J, G. Macfadyen, T. Huntington, J. Magnus and J. Tumilty (2005). Ghost Fishing by Lost Fishing Gear, DG FISH/2004/20, https://ieep.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ghostfishing.pdf
  9. ↑ McIlgorm, A., K. Raubenheimer and D.E. McIlgorm (2020). Update of 2009 APEC report on Economic Costs of Marine Debris to APEC Economies. A report to the APEC Ocean and Fisheries Working Group by the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS), University of Wollongong, Australia, December.https://www.apec.org/docs/default-source/publications/2020/3/update-of-2009-apec-report-on-economic-costs-of-marine-debris-to-apec-economies/220_ofwg_update-of-2009-apec-report-on-economic-costs-of-marine-debris-to-apec-economies.pdf?sfvrsn=9ab2a66c_1
  10. ↑ Drakeford, Benjamin M.; Forse, Andy; Failler, Pierre (2023). "The economic impacts of introducing biodegradable fishing gear as a ghost fishing mitigation in the English Channel static gear fishery". Marine Pollution Bulletin. 192: 114918 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  11. ↑ "What is ghost gear". Canada.ca. 2023-12-07.
  12. ↑ Brown, J., & Macfadyen, G. (2007). Ghost fishing in European waters: Impacts and management responses. Marine Policy, 31(4), 488–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2006.10.007
  13. ↑ Sutherland DL, Beardsley GL, Jones RS. Results of a survey of the south-Florida fish-trap fishing grounds using a manned submersible. Northeast Gulf Sci. 1983; 6: 179–183.
  14. ↑ Munro , J. L. , Reeson , P. H. and Gaut , V. C. 1971 . Dynamic factors affecting the performance of the Antillean fish trap . Proc. Gulf. Carib. Fish. Inst. , 23 : 184 – 194
  15. ↑ Carr, H. A., & Harris, J. (1997). Ghost-fishing gear: have fishing practices during the past few years reduced the impact?. Marine debris: sources, impacts, and solutions, 141-151.
  16. ↑ Taylor , R. G. and McMichael , R. H. 1983 . The wire fish-trap fisheries in Monroe and Collier Counties, Florida Florida Marine Research Publications No. 39, 19 pp.
  17. ↑ Casey B. Butler, Thomas R. Matthews, Effects of ghost fishing lobster traps in the Florida Keys, ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 72, Issue suppl_1, July 2015, Pages i185–i198, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu238
  18. ↑ Jump up to: 18.0 18.1 Newman, S. J., Skepper, C. L., Mitsopoulos, G. E. A., Wakefield, C. B., Meeuwig, J. J., & Harvey, E. S. (2011). Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Trap Usage and Ghost Fishing on the Northern Demersal Scalefish Fishery. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 19(2), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641262.2010.543961
  19. ↑ Cole , R. G. , Alcock , N. K. , Tovey , A. and Handley , S. J. 2004 . Measuring efficiency and predicting optimal set durations of pots for blue cod Parapercis colias . Fish. Res. , 67 : 163 – 170.
  20. ↑ Al-Masroori, H., Al-Oufi, H., McIlwain, J. L., & McLean, E. (2004). Catches of lost fish traps (ghost fishing) from fishing grounds near Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. Fisheries Research, 69(3), 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2004.05.014
  21. ↑ Matsuoka T. Ghost fishing by lost fish-traps in Azuma-cho water. Mini Rev. Data File Fish. Res. 1999; 8: 64–69.
  22. ↑ Scarsbrook, J. R., McFarlane, G. A., & Shaw, W. (1988). Effectiveness of experimental escape mechanisms in sablefish traps. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 8(2), 158-161.
  23. ↑ Tschernij, V., & Larsson, P. O. (2003). Ghost fishing by lost cod gill nets in the Baltic Sea. Fisheries Research, 64(2-3), 151-162.
  24. ↑ Sancho, G., Puente, E., Bilbao, A., Gomez, E., & Arregi, L. (2003). Catch rates of monkfish (Lophius spp.) by lost tangle nets in the Cantabrian Sea (northern Spain). Fisheries Research, 64(2-3), 129-139.
  25. ↑ Al-Masroori, H., Al-Oufi, H., McIlwain, J. L., & McLean, E. (2004). Catches of lost fish traps (ghost fishing) from fishing grounds near Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. Fisheries Research, 69(3), 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2004.05.014
  26. ↑ Broadhurst, M. K., & Millar, R. B. (2018). Relative ghost fishing of portunid traps with and without escape gaps. Fisheries Research, 208, 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2018.07.018
  27. ↑ Casey B. Butler, Thomas R. Matthews, Effects of ghost fishing lobster traps in the Florida Keys, ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 72, Issue suppl_1, July 2015, Pages i185–i198, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu238
  28. ↑ Anderson, J. A., & Alford, A. B. (2014). Ghost fishing activity in derelict blue crab traps in Louisiana. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 79(1-2), 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.12.002
  29. ↑ Beneli, T. M., Pereira, P. H. C., Nunes, J. A. C. C., & Barros, F. (2020). Ghost fishing impacts on hydrocorals and associated reef fish assemblages. Marine Environmental Research, 161, 105129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2020.105129
  30. ↑ Duncan EM, Botterell ZLR, Broderick AC, Galloway TS, Lindeque PK, Nuno A, Godley BJ (2017) A global review of marine turtle entanglement in anthropogenic debris: a baseline for further action. Endang Species Res 34:431-448. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00865
  31. ↑ Stelfox, M., Bulling, M., & Sweet, M. (2019). Untangling the origin of ghost gear within the Maldivian archipelago and its impact on olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) populations. Endangered Species Research, 40, 309–320. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00990
  32. ↑ Tirtaningtyas, F. N., & Hennicke, J. C. (2015). Threats to the critically endangered Christmas Island Frigatebird Fregata andrewsi in Jakarta Bay, Indonesia, and implications for reconsidering conservation priorities. Marine Ornithology, 43, 137-140.
  33. ↑ Satria, M B; WIcaksono, R Z; Utomo, R P (2023). "Composition of lost and discarded fishing gear (ghost fishing) in the blue swimming crab fishery in Rembang, Central Java". IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 1251. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1251/1/012052 – via IOPScience.
  34. ↑ Jump up to: 34.0 34.1 Drakeford, Benjamin M.; Forse, Andy; Failler, Pierre (September 2023). "Biodegradability and sustainable fisheries: The case for static gear in the UK Channel fishery". Marine Policy. 155 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  35. ↑ Jump up to: 35.0 35.1 Boussellaa, Wiem; Bradai, Mohamed Nejmeddine; Mallat, Hamed; Enajjar, Samira; Saidi, Bechir; Jribi, Imed (September 2024). "Ghost Gear in the Gulf of Gabès (Tunisia): An Urgent Need for a Conservation Code of Conduct". Sustainability. 16 (18). doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188003 Check |doi= value (help) – via MDPI.
  36. ↑ Jump up to: 36.0 36.1 Hunter, Justine (2024, January 24). "How Canada is leading the world's 'ghost gear' clean-up efforts". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved March 28, 2025. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  37. ↑ "What We Do". Emerald Sea Protection Society. Retrieved March 29, 2025.
  38. ↑ "GGGI Signature Project - Pacific Northwest". Global Ghost Gear Initiative. Retrieved March 29, 2025.
  39. ↑ "Reporting requirements for commercial fisheries". Government of Canada. Retrieved March 30, 2025.
  40. ↑ "What We Heard Report: Gear Innovation Summit". Government of Canada. Retrieved March 30, 2025.
  41. ↑ Jump up to: 41.0 41.1 Global Ghost Gear Initiative. (2020). Effective Ghost Gear Solutions. https://www.ghostgear.org/s/GGGI_WWF_Effective_Ghost_Gear_Solutions.pdf
  42. ↑ "ORP Pakistan". Olive Ridley Project. November 14, 2021. Retrieved March 30, 2025.
  43. ↑ "GGGI Signature Project - Vanuatu". Global Ghost Gear Initiative. Retrieved March 30, 2025.
  44. ↑ Stephens, Hollie (2023, January 17). "What's the Solution to Ghost Fishing Gear Polluting Oceans?". FoodPrint. Retrieved March 30, 2025. Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:EOSC270/2023/Ghost_Fishing&oldid=858083"