Talk:Bycatch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can register your interest for the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Environment (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Merge with Discards[edit]

Ok, here's why I don't think these two pages should be merged. By-catch includes everything which is caught that isn't what you might consider "target species". That might be uncommercial stuff that ends up getting discarded, but bycatch also includes a lot of stuff that is retained and a lot of fishermen depend on commercial levels of "bycatch" for their economic survival (something that's not really touched on in the bycatch article), for instance landings (ie. not catch) of prawn fishermen in the North Sea are required by law to be at least 25% Nephrops norvegicus. Discards, on the other hand, are things which are specifically thrown back into the sea for one reason or another. Although discards are a form of bycatch, the two terms mean very different things to fisheries scientists and shouldn't be confused. At the moment there's an issue over cod stock recovery leading to discards of juvenile cod, and I think two separate articles highlighting the differences here are a useful thing. Anilocra (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, and thanks for the clarification. However, since (as you say) "discards are a form of bycatch", why not make "Discards" into a separate section of the "Bycatch" article? This would be a lot clearer for the general reader and would eliminate the confusion caused by having to very similar articles under different titles. (If the Discards section grows too big, we could then split it off into a separate article with a summary section in Bycatch.)
Also, there's the problem that "Discards" has meaning outside commercial fishing - card games, for example. 69.74.234.178 (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic language[edit]

The Cetacean section under examples says "Unfortunately for the dolphins, "dolphin friendly" does not mean that dolphins were not killed in the production of a particular tin of tuna..." I believe the phrase "Unfortunately for the dolphins" is unencyclopedic and unsourced. I think this article needs a little work. Paulish (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-fishing bycatch[edit]

Being involved in the study of insects, I often catch insects of groups outside my target groups. I, and many others in this business, refer to such untargeted insects as bycatch. I think it would be good to widen the description on Wikipedia such as to include also this kind of bycatch. Thanks. 200.2.188.103 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Be bold and add a section at the end of the article describing applications of the term other than fish. But please cite what you add with a reliable source, so it is clear that the extended use is not confined just to you and your mates. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Bykill[edit]

Is this the same as bycatch? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bycatch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bycatch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bycatch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary Information[edit]

This article has irrelevant information that could be shortened in order to actually focus on bycatch. There is no need of going into details about the different species that are being caught through bycatch, they could be simply listed in a summary sentence. Instead, the author should talk more about different fisheries gears and how they are related to bycatch. For example, Gillnet fisheries cause very high incidental mortalities in cetaceans and pinnipeds, that should be included in the article.

The viewpoint is underrepresented with a lot of unnecessary information. For example when in the beginning, an explanation of what bycatch means is already given, the section of the four different ways bycatch are used in fisheries seems repetitive and it does not really increase any knowledge of the reader. Instead, statistics should be added in the article about the average number of bycatch rates of different fishing gears to give the readers a more insightful view of the main problem in fisheries.

Also some of the citations are extremely outdated, science and ecosystem change with time, more recent sources should be used and also some of the citations are missing,it would be better to add them in.

As a marine science student, what we talk about in class is more in depth and detailed as wikipedia is open for everyone with or without fisheries or science background. Using terms such as IUCN Red List is fine for us to read, but other reader might not be able to understand. Instead of using IUCN, the author could talk about the species as threatened or endangered or give a short explanation of IUCN. But again, giving too much information about unrelated topic might distract reader attention and they might end up on other pagesWeiting(Wendy) Li (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

References to consider[edit]

Here are some references to consider: Marine Mammal Protection Act Endangered Species Act Convention of International Trade of Endangered Species

Bycatch Reduction Device [1] A Global Assessment of Fisheries Bycatch and Discards [2] Defining and estimating global marine fisheries bycatch [3]Weiting(Wendy) Li (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

References