Exploring the potential effects of lost or discard soft plastic fishing lures on the surroundings as

Published: 17th May 2020
Views: N/A

Recreational fishing is a well-known activity throughout the globe (Cooke and Cowx 2004) and particularly in regions including North America (Arlinghaus and Cooke 2009). In Canada alone, over 3.3 million residents participated in recreational fishing in 2010 and jointly spent over 39 million angler days (DFO 2012). In 2006, in the united states, over 33.9 million residents went fishing at least once during that interval (USFWS 2007). Recreational fishing provides enormous socioeconomic benefits, and consequently, many water bodies in North America are managed to optimize gains for anglers and society (Arlinghaus and Cooke 2009; UN 2012). In recent years, there is an increasing recognition that recreational fishing, despite the usage of contemporary fisheries management strategies, can possess various adverse effects that extend beyond exploitation (McPhee et al. 2002). In particular, there are an increasing number of reports of environmental pollution and degradation credited to angling actions (Cooke and Cowx 2006; Lewin et al. 2006).Recreational angling can create pollution through a variety of sources including the use of combustion boat motors (noise, generation of hydrocarbons, fuel spills) and the deposit of fishing tackle (e.g. fishing line, lead sinkers, lures) and affiliated litter (e.g. packaging from fishing materials). Fishing gear is discarded haphazardly by reckless anglers (i.e. littering) and, more commonly, as unintentional loss by responsible anglers (e.g. when line breaks during a failed cast, when gear becomes entangled in debris). To accentuate the potential magnitude of tools loss, a study in Minnesota (Radomski et al. 2006) interviewed 8,068 boat anglers for five walleye (Sander vitreus) fisheries and found 80 % of anglers reported tackle loss, translating to a loss rate of 0.0127 pieces per hour. Relating this to angler numbers and hours spent fishing, this equated to over 100,000 lead-based things lost in the summer of 2004 alone. O'Toole et al. (2009) studied bank fishing sites in Ontario and found a variety of litter, including fishing line, lures and packaging from fishing gear (e.g. worm containers, tackle packaging). Fowl ingestion of lead sinkers has been well examined (Scheuhammer and Norris 1996; Franson et al. 2003), and there are a variety of efforts underway by authorities, anglers and the fishing industry to 'get the lead out' through education plans and development of non-toxic alternatives (Goddard et al. 2008). Hooks can be ingested with a number of organisms (reviewed in Cooke and Cowx 2006) and lost line can be entangled in critters (Derraik 2002) and has additionally led to degradation of coral habitats (Yoshikawa and Asoh 2004). Tackle loss has the potential to create problems for a number of wildlife, but birds have become the focus of most studies. Soft plastic fishing lures (SPLs) have been commonly utilized in the angling community because the early 1970s. Soft plastic lures closely resemble natural forage and offer an alternate to live lure that is cumbersome. With growing concern for biosecurity and lure transfer, there is certainly additional recent interest in using SPLs for various fisheries. Another advantage to using SPLs is they are a lot stronger than live bait, permitting one to catch multiple fish per bait. This durability and following longevity is due to their being composed -biodegradable synthetic polymers. Currently, there are hundreds of brands and types of soft plastic lures, and for the large part, they are the same general composition, dampened plastic which contains phthalates added to other products that are similar or polyvinyl chloride. Similar to lead sinkers/ fishing gear, SPLs have the capacity to be lost or discarded in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

Report this article Ask About This Article

More to Explore