Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Marine Resource Report No. 2005-8; VSG-05-07
Six methods of fisher identification were applied to gill net float lines for 230 trials. Three methods marked floats and three methods were attached to the line between floats. Nets were set and retrieved using a hydraulic net reel in order to test failure rate and remarking ease under typical field conditions. Cost and application time of each marking methods was also quantified. Two of the three float marking methods (hot brand, Sharpie® marker) experienced a 0% failure rate. The third method, however, (paint) had the highest failure rate of the study ( 10% ). Self applied float marking methods required more time to apply but were less expensive than line marking methods. All line marking methods experienced a failure rate of 2% or less. Line marking tag cost were higher due to their production by various professional tag manufacturing companies. Good retention of one of the line markers ( crab pot tag) on vertical buoy lines suggests that these types of markers may offer a reasonable method of labeling such lines below buoy breakaways in pot fisheries. Neither float nor line marking methods differed significantly in number of characters which could be presented, however, imprinting restrictions (set up) would significantly increase cost if line tags had to contain specific information (mesh sizes) where as addition of such information on floats would only require additional time.
Gill Nets, Fisheries, Management, Regulation
This work is the result of research sponsored by NOAA/NMFS. Department of Commerce, under contract No. 132A 70 to Virginia Sea Grant, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. The U.S. Government is authorized to produce and distribute reprints for government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation that may appear herein.
Hager, C. (2005) A Comparison of Gill Net Labeling Methods for Fisher Identification. Marine Resource Report No. 2005-8; VSG-05-07. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports/1399