Search The Database

Summary: Pingers reduce bycatch of California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) and short-beaked common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) in the California drift gillnet fishery for swordfish and sharks. Catch of target fish species (broadbill swordfish, common thresher shark, and shortfin mako shark) and non-target species were not affected by pinger use.

Summary: Pingers are effective in reducing the bycatch of Franciscana dolphins (Pontoporia blainvillei) but increase interactions between fishing gear and South American sea lions (Otaria byronia) in an Argentinian bottom gillnet fishery.

Summary: Pingers are effective in reducing the bycatch of Franciscana dolphins (Pontoporia blainvillei) but increase interactions between fishing gear and South American sea lions (Otaria byronia) in an Argentinian bottom gillnet fishery.

Summary: Pingers do not reduce bycatch of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) in the salmon and sturgeon gillnet fisheries in northern Washington state but do reduce bycatch of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). Pingers did not affect catch of target species, chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and sturgeon (Acipenser sp.).

Summary: Pingers do not reduce bycatch of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) in the salmon and sturgeon gillnet fisheries in northern Washington state but do reduce bycatch of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). Pingers did not affect catch of target species, chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and sturgeon (Acipenser sp.).

Summary: Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) avoided an area around a non-lethal, experimental gillnet equipped with a pinger in British Columbia, Canada. In a separate experiment with gillnets in the Baltic Sea, pingers did not affect the catch of targeted herring (Clupea harengus).

Summary:

Cod traps equipped with pingers resulted in a reduction in collisions with humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Newfoundland, Canada. Traps with alarms caught more fish than traps without alarms.

Summary:

Acoustic pingers were tested for their effectiveness to reduce entanglement of Hector's dolphins in New Zealand gillnets. A remote control device was used to raise either active or passive acoustic pingers near Hector's dolphins. The dolphins' movement and distribution was observed from shore.Dolphins avoided the immediate area when pingers were active, but did not leave the larger harbor area. Dolphin sightings made during active pinger trials were distributed significantly farther from the source than during passive trials. 

Summary:

Three different device types were mounted on floatline to test their potential for reducing harbor porpoise bycatch. The devices were two passive reflectors (target strength ranging from -38 dB to -24 dB) and a 2.9 kHz pinger. Behavioral responses of 355 harbor porpoise groups were monitored. 92.4% of the groups avoided the pinger equipped floatline, while only half the groups avoided the reflectors and control, empty, floatline.  

Summary:

Three different device types were mounted on floatline to test their potential for reducing harbor porpoise bycatch. The devices were two passive reflectors (target strength ranging from -38 dB to -24 dB) and a 2.9 kHz pinger. Behavioral responses of 355 harbor porpoise groups were monitored. 92.4% of the groups avoided the pinger equipped floatline, while only half the groups avoided the reflectors and control, empty, floatline.