Contents

Talk:Gillnetting

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): Seyuun, Dingwell14. Peer reviewers: Dingwell14.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fisheries and Fishing High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand why this article should be deleted as nonsense. Google turns up articles like: [1] --Fangz 19:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Likewise, this is an important article to have. I'd like to see the rationale for calling it "nonsense" - I think it's just been getting scrambled by the anon, should just revert back to October version and go from there. Stan 20:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The original article was nonsense. I've created a new article from what I've been able to find out (though my knowledge of the subject is somewhat limited, and it would be great if someone who knows more about it can expand it). A few points about the original article:

• Gillnets do not have hooks - they are purely a net.
• Luxembourg does not have seas
• The name Mikael Krustikosky does not give any results as a Google search, other than a mirror of the nonsense article.
• The user who made the original nonsense article appears to be the same user who defaced the Waterfall article.

To the user who made the original article, if you can provide evidence which supports your article, please do. But please don't just go and replace factual information with nonsense - that defeats the whole purpose of Wikipedia... Nick Moss 02:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

   Our colleague Nick has, as is typical of many, confused this talk page with listservers, mis- leveraging that model (and our founders' lack of foresight about wikis being great for collaborative writing, but inviting chaos when used for discussion) -- especially in light of their (at least early) utility and net-pervasiveness.

   Perhaps some more competent observer than I has tapped out (or should do so) an essay at least on the genius of that model (even if not on the side-effect of the suffering of wiki-talk under it)..

   In any case, I have endeavored to amelieorate the long-standing source of confusion.
--JerzyA (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Our colleague Nick has, as is typical of many, confused this talk page with listservers, mis- leveraging that model (and our founders' lack of foresight about wikis being great for collaborative writing, but inviting chaos when used for discussion) -- especially in light of their (at least early) utility and net-pervasiveness.

   Perhaps some more competent observer than I has tapped out (or should do so) an essay at least on the genius of that model (even if not on the side-effect of the suffering of wiki-talk under it)..

   In any case, I have endeavored to amelieorate the long-standing source of confusion.
--JerzyA (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on completing the stub of this article and would appreciate being given at least through tonight (april 7th) to complete it. I would also appreciate it if opinions about the subject were left out. Stating a method of fishing is cruel while at the same time admitting that your knowledge of the subject is limited seems unfair and also against the point of wikipedia (which is to provide facts, not opinions)Vackley 17:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the citations are from papers on 'ghost-fishing' or lost gillnets. To have more accurate data on how gillnets fish, data cited should come from information about actively fishing nets, not the ones that are lost. Klolo9 (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see more information on the different kinds of nets, where they are used, what kind of fish, the by-catch rates, and the different positions on using gillnets. I am sure this can be achieved without being biased.
Misaryeepo 06:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for a a place to share information on the effects of gillnet selectivity on Pacific salmon, which I've collected for a Conservation Biology class at University of Washington Bothell. I believe it is unbiased. I don't know where to post. Maybe here, or new page? (Akhusky07 (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I would like there to be more information on how and why gillnets are "closely monitored and regulated by fisheries management and enforcement agencies". This sentence seems incomplete in information and/or unnecessary relative to the paragraph. Dingwell14 (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to how gillnets are "closely monitored and regulated by fisheries management and enforcement agencies" needing more information, there is a lack of numerical values (not only in the intro, but within the article) or at least a link to direct readers to an source containing the exact required measurements. The article is also lacking in information regarding the environmental impact of gillnets as well as explaining why there are regulations (preventing certain animals from being caught, for example).Dingwell14 (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)dingwell14[reply]

The disadvantage of this method should be mentioned, especially how much were spoiled. Furthermore, in which area, this method is banned. Jackzhp 14:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More should be mentioned regarding specific species that are caught in these nets, including endangered species, as well as the environmental impact. Also if there are any statistics on the number of nets forgotten or lost in the water, to add to this article. Dingwell14 (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag proposing this article be merged with drift net has sat on this article for eleven months without comment. I see no advantage in a merge and will remove the tag in a couple of days if there are no objections. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information from a source that is unverifiable keeps being put into the article by user seriousdada.

"In 2012, University of Washington Fisheries Professor Emeritus Stephen Mathews compared Puget Sound bycatch data for the non-treaty gillnet and purse seine keta salmon fisheries. He found that although neither fishery had major bycatch problems with nontarget salmonids, the gillnet fishery has substantially less impact on nontarget Chinook salmon. His fulltext report is available from the Washington State Puget Sound Salmon Commission."

The paper cited is available only on a gillnet industry website and the study says it was commissioned by the industry. ^[1] This raises flags that the research is not from a neutral point of view. The paper seems to be only published on the same industry website and there is no evidence that the paper and its conclusions went through any type of peer review in the scientific community. Also the content, regardless of the source, doesn't seem to fit within the context of this article. Discussion? TruthCheckBot (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gill nets can have a measure of selectivity that other fishing methods don't have, and gill netting in some contexts is not necessarily a problem, and indeed might be preferable to other methods. It depends on whether or not the non targeted species are getting entangled. The author of that report has a strong academic background in fisheries, and there is no reason to suppose he is fudging his data. There is very little balancing from the other side in this article, and I don't think this modest effort in a minor context is out of place. I agree generally with your reservations, but balance is also needed. I would agree with removing it if you can find a better sourced report on contexts where gill netting may be a good choice. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a peer reviewed article and it was paid for by an industry group. A fairly quick search of the science about this subject shows a very different view than the citation in question. Without getting into specific peer reviewed journal reports (although many are cited by these reports), here are some more sources on the subject which say fish captured in gillnets and released are less likely to survive than those from purse seines and gillnets are also more likely to kill birds and marine mammals during salmon fisheries: http://www.psc.org/pubs/TCCHINOOK04-1.pdf
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/252358.pdf
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00854
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B08C
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/observers/mmop.htm
http://www.psmfc.org/steelhead/2012/Holowatz_Poster_2012_Steelhead_Meeting.pdf
http://mcbi.marine-conservation.org/publications/pub_pdfs/HowWeFish.pdf
http://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/is-this-the-future-of-columbia-river-fishing/
According to these reports, both purse seines and gillnets are not having huge impacts non-target species but if you compare the two, there are greater concerns about gillnets. TruthCheckBot (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of proper citation under the history section... "they would attach stones to the bottom...in their fisheries for salmon and steelhead" Dingwell14 (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gillnetting. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050217140841/http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=%2FDOCREP%2F005%2FX7788E%2FX7788E00.HTMtohttp://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=%2FDOCREP%2F005%2FX7788E%2FX7788E00.HTM

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).

• 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) 14:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article switched back and forth between spellings with ("gill net") and without a space ("gillnet"). There were 53 uses of "gillnet" and only 15 of "gill net" so I standardized on "gillnet" for consistency. Intractable (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]