A mechanised Bait Throwing Device for Longline Fisheries. Performance Assessment of a Test Machine

The following unpublished Report (Dept. Parks, Wildlife & Heritage Tasmania 1993) is the only detailed account of BCM function and performance. It has been made available here to assist SBWG Members in consideration of SBWG8 Doc 19, Recommendation 1.
One of the main problems with mitigation measures is reliable uptake. BCM is currently used widely for its operations and economic benefits. Any investigation of uncertainties about the consequence of BCM use as proposed by Doc 19, must not undermine the fact that BCM is capable of providing seabird conservation benefits and can reliably do so because of its wide acceptance in the industry. Care is necessary in acting upon the suggestion that BCM is negatively impacting on seabird bycatch. Therefore ACAP might initially seek information from Japan's scientists who analyse their CCSBT fishery observer data and who may also have industry-wide BCM information, including whether all machines incorporate the desirable seabird bycatch mitigation capabilities and whether these are being used appropriately. If and when appropriate, the BCM bycatch mitigation fact-sheet (no.11) could then be updated together with relevant sections in fact-sheets 7a, 8 and the draft sheet (SBWG8 Doc 08) for Hook Shielding devices. In addition, it is unknown whether collection of any BCM-related data has been added, as previously proposed, to vessel mitigation measure standard documentation, which should apply across all relevant fisheries.