Abstract
In many regions of the world, the use of cetaceans as bait or protein source has been reported. In most cases the individuals are from bycatch but also from intentionally killed animals. Cetaceans with coastal habits are more susceptible to negative interactions with small-scale fisheries, as in the case of the Guiana dolphin (Sotalia guianensis) in the Lake Maracaibo system. For decades, the use of Guiana dolphins by local communities has been reported in this region and is culturally supported by recipes for its preparation. Most of these data was outdated and some were anecdotal, so the objective of this work was to collect systematically data through surveys using the snowball method in seven artisanal fishing communities and to try to quantify the capture rate and to inquire about the potential impact of this practice on the population of Guiana dolphin. From 2017 to 2019, 95 semi-structured interviews were applied. An average bycatch of 180 individuals/year was obtained, the highest catch rate in the entire geographic distribution, an alarming situation considering that the surveys were not carried out in all the fishing ports, generating an underestimation. A total of 78% of interviewed recognized at least one bycatch event during their fishing effort. Surveys revealed a higher incidence of entanglement of offspring and juveniles (78%). 77% of the respondents deny the sale and commercialization of the species, while 5% mention some type of trade. The most frequent part exploited was the dorsal muscle, confirmed by fishermen (97%,n= 72) and the rest of the animal is discarded. During this investigation three episodes of directed capture were recorded, affecting a total of 23 individuals, two of them were pregnant females. The interviews also revealed that the majority of fishermen (93%) recognize the capture of this species as illegal. Considering the vulnerability of the Guiana dolphin in the country, the high incidence of capture and consumption and the lack of surveillance and sanctions by government entities, it is imperative to immediate actions to mitigate the negative impact on the population.
Highlights
Direct fisheries interaction has been recognized as the main cause of cetacean mortality throughout the world (Mitchell, 1975; Reeves et al, 2013, 2003; Brownell et al, 2019), even nearly causing the extinction of species such as the “vaquita marina” (Phocoena sinus) (Rojas-Bracho and Taylor, 1999; RojasBracho et al, 2006)
The use of cetaceans around the world is diverse, i.e., as bait in shark fishing (Mintzer et al, 2018), as a protein resource (Read et al, 1988; Ávila et al, 2008) and the use of some of parts for mythical/religious purposes (Alves and Rosa, 2008), among others. These animals come from bycatch and sometimes from intentional capture, but both situations represent a threat to the population stability of many aquatic mammals (Clapham and Van Waerebeek, 2007; Robards and Reeves, 2011; García et al, 2013)
In response to the kind of animal, 9% of them identified the species as a mammal, 14% did not know and 77% (n = 73/95) indicated that it was a “tonina.” Twenty-one fishermen (22%) denied bycatch during their fishing operations, while the rest (78% n = 74) stated that an event of this type had occurred on some occasions
Summary
Direct fisheries interaction has been recognized as the main cause of cetacean mortality throughout the world (Mitchell, 1975; Reeves et al, 2013, 2003; Brownell et al, 2019), even nearly causing the extinction of species such as the “vaquita marina” (Phocoena sinus) (Rojas-Bracho and Taylor, 1999; RojasBracho et al, 2006). The use of cetaceans around the world is diverse, i.e., as bait in shark fishing (Mintzer et al, 2018), as a protein resource (Read et al, 1988; Ávila et al, 2008) and the use of some of parts for mythical/religious purposes (Alves and Rosa, 2008), among others These animals come from bycatch and sometimes from intentional capture, but both situations represent a threat to the population stability of many aquatic mammals (Clapham and Van Waerebeek, 2007; Robards and Reeves, 2011; García et al, 2013). In Venezuela it is classified as “Vulnerable” (BarriosGarrido et al, 2015), as in Brazil (Instituto Chico Mendes de. (Conservação)da Biodiversidade (ICMBio), 2018) and Colombia (Trujillo et al, 2006)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
