 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Weiting(Wendy) Li. Peer reviewers: Rclaussen.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Is this the same as bycatch? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
References
