Whenever marine mammals and fisheries interact, conflicts arise
resulting in damage of fishing gear/aquaculture nets or by catch of the animals (NSSG, 2!"# $hese interactions may be intentional from both sides, or incidental# %ver since the &'()s (Anderson et al#, &'!(, *ate et al#, &'(!" various measures have attem+ted to deter marine mammals from aquaculture o+erations# Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADD)s" have been categorised under various names including Acoustic ,arassment Devices or +ingers (-./A*, 2&", but for here, 0e 0ill refer to all, as ADD)s 1 a submerged, acoustical device to deter marine mammals from human related activities# %ffectiveness of Acoustic Deterrent Devices# ADD)s most li2ely affect s+ecies that have sensitive hearing at the +articular frequencies emitted by each device, and since each device is designed 0ith a different frequency range, it is hard to ma2e a general conclusion about their effectiveness (Gordon et al, 22"# $here is a large and meaningful difference bet0een +ingers and A,Ds not only in terms of their +o0er out+ut, but also in the 0ays they are de+loyed (-./A*, 2&" again ma2ing generali3ations very hard# G4t3 et al (2&5" revie0ed the fe0 e6+eriments +erformed 0ith commercial ADD)s, concluding that their efficiency ranges from +oor to moderate 0ith a fe0 e6ce+tions# -ndirect information obtained by a survey study in Scotland sho0ed only 257 of fish farmers found the +ingers very effective, 87 re+orted moderate, &87 re+orted +oor and !7 re+orted little efficiency (9uic2 et al# 2:"# $he +roblem in most studies, is habituation by the animals, 0ithin a time frame of a fe0 days to years (G4t3 et al, 2&5"# ADD)s dis+lay a short term success rate because as time +asses the animals learn to associate the stimulus 0ith fishery resources, the so called ;dinner bell effect) (<efferson et al, &''=, .ronin et al, 2&5"# >ingers in fisheries sho0 some +romising results (?raus et al &''!, @arlo0 et al 25, ,ardy et al 2&2, Graham et al 2'" than in aquaculture sites (.ronin et al 2&5"# .arrera et al (2&&" found that the bycatch of Delphinus delphis, 0as 87 lo0er in sets 0ith 5 +ingers, but this reduced bycatch 0as not the same for all s+ecies studied# -n addition there 0as no observed habituation, ho0ever de+loyment of ADD)s at aquaculture facilities is essentially +ermanent or constant, 0hile de+loyment of +ingers in fishing gear is usually s+oradic and un+redictable (<ohnston et al, &''(", +robably leading to habituation more easily# Another basic, behavioral reason that ADD)s may not be com+letely effective on seals feeding from aquaculture sites is that they sim+ly learn to 2ee+ their head above the 0ater (Aur2 et al, 2"# Negative -m+acts of Acoustic Deterrent Devices# @ecause of the high frequencies emitted by ADD)s, there is serious concern of un0anted im+lications to marine mammals, de+ending both on the intensity of the device and each s+ecies +articular hearing sensitivity# .ertain ty+es of ADD)s are not recommended anymore in .anada, and fishers that bought them have been re imbursed (Nash et al, 2"# Barious studies have sho0n the e6clusion of certain endangered odontocetes, from their natural feeding grounds, 0hich may or may not be direct targets of the +ingers (G4t3 et al, 2&5, Northridge et al 2&, Gordon et al, 22, *orton et al, 22"# Strong concerns have been raised about the +ossibility of hearing damage u+on the animals, 0hich 0ill in itself ma2e the ADD)s ineffective (G4t3 et al 2&5, Wursig et al 22, Gordon et al, 22"# Cinally, mas2ing of natural sounds +revents animals from assessing +redation ris2s, reduction of communication s+ace, an6iety and echolocation overla+ (G4t3 et al 2&5, Scha2ner et al, 2&5, Wur3ig, 22"# Suggested im+rovements and further research# $he success of +ingers on gill nets, contrasts the uneffectiveness of ADD)s in fish farms, illustrating the im+ortance of motivation in aversion (G4t3 et al 2&, Scha2ner et al, 2&5", consequently suggesting the need for further research in the behavioral field of marine mammals, along 0ith detailed as+ects of their de+radation behavior (Northridge et al, 2&"# Scha2ner et al (2&5" suggest the use of threatening or +ainful stimuli, in order to quic2ly condition the animal a0ay from a +rotected resource# Since ADD)s do not come chea+, requiring large funds for acquisition and continuous maintenance in order to be moderately effective (Northridge et al, 2&" alongside their +roven negative effects on 0ildlife and doubtful effectiveness, it 0ould be useful to e6+lore alternate anti de+radation techniques, li2e +hysical e6clusion by e6ternal reinforced nets (*DC-, 2'", or better management tactics of aquaculturists (Northridge et al, 2&"# *any studies have sho0n that direct 2illings are common (*DC- 2', Northridge et al, 2&, Wur3ig et al, 22", but against the la0 both in the ES under the amendment of the *arine *ammal >rotection Act and in the %E Wildlife Fegislation# $his radical action and other unsuccessful methods to minimi3e de+radation have been develo+ed mostly by fishermen or fish1farmers# Governments and science have been too slo0 or un0illing in the develo+ment of mitigitation measures to reduce damage and economic loss to fisheries and fish farms 0ith the alongside mortality of by1catch or rogue seals# -t is also vital to study seal haul out sites before any attem+t of an aquaculture installation, as it has been sho0n that a clear relationshi+ e6ists in the e6tent of +inni+ed1related +roblems and distance of facilities from +referred haul1out or mating/+u++ing sites of the +redators (>emberton et al, &''5"# Cinal conclusion# As our a++etite for fish increases, so does our need for utili3ation of ever e6+anding areas to harbour various ty+es of aquaculture around coastal areas 0hich are inhabited by many fragile s+ecies of marine mammals, thus coming in direct com+etition for vital s+ace and food# Since the economic significance of seal de+radation has not been officially quantified nor has it been investigated scientifically (Gordon et al 22", besides an attem+t by Nash et al (2" for the >acific North0est of America, it is vital to quantify the actual de+radation si3e and determine if it constitutes for a real or sus+ected economic loss# .arter et al (2&" states that the conclusion that seals are a maGor im+act on local salmon stoc2s, in Scotland, is based on anecdotal evidence or casual observation and they found that seal +redation as a cause of mortality on large salmon in estuaries, is a++arently an order of magnitude less im+ortant than mortality caused by rod fisheries# -n addition, Northridge et al (2&" in Scotland, found that seal de+radation has declined over the +ast ten years due to im+roved management measures i#e# net tentioning, mortality removal, lo0er stoc2ing densities and seal blinds# -t 0ould be un0ise to intentionally add more noise +ollution in already +olluted, fragile marine environment, in order to minimise unsubstantiated damage by +redators in fish farms, 0hen more +ractical +hysical barriers can 2ee+ a0ay individual, rogue seals, 0ho +ose a threat# Cinally, a recent %E /egulation (%. (&2/2:" requires the reduction of cetacean by1catch through the use of ADD)s for boats over &2m# $his could mean that under0ater noise +ollution from ADD)s is already mas2ing the *editerranean, causing un2no0n damage to sensitive hearing marine mammals# $here is no substantiated reason to add to this from ever increasing aquaculture sites and their ne0ly installed ADD)s# /eferencesH Anderson S#S# I ,a02ins A#D# (&'!("# Scaring seals by sound# *ammal /evie0 8,&'12:# @arlo0, <# I .ameron, G#A# (25"# Cield e6+eriments sho0 that acoustic +ingers reduce marine mammal bycatch in the .alifornian drift gill net fishery# *arine *ammal Science# 19H2=812(5# .arretta, <#B# I @arlo0, <# (2&&"# Fong1term effectiveness, failure rates, and Jdinner bellJ +ro+erties of acoustic +ingers in a gillnet fishery# *arine $echnology Society <ournal 45(5)H!1&'# .arter $#<#, >ierce G#<#, ,islo+ <#/#G#, ,ouseman <#A# I @oyle >#/# (2&"# >redation by seals on salmonids in t0o Scottish estuaries# Cisheries *anagement and %cology 8H2!K228# .ronin, *# , <esso++, *# , ,oule, <#, /eid, D# (2&5"# Cishery1seal interactions in -rish 0atersH .urrent +ers+ectives and future research +riorities# *arine >olicy# Gordon, <# I Northridge, S# (22"# >otential im+acts of acoustic deterrent devices on Scottish marine 0ildlife Scottish Natural ,eritage .ommissioned /e+ort C&AA::# =5 ++ G4t3,$#, <ani2, B# *#, (2&"# Aversiveness of sounds in +hocid sealsH +sycho1 +hysiological factors, learning +rocesses and motivation# $he <ournal of %6+erimental @iology 213H &85=1&8:(# G4t3,$#, <ani2, B# *#, (2&5"# Acoustic deterrent devices to +revent +inni+ed de+redationH efficiency, conservation concerns and +ossible solutions# *arine %cology >rogress Series, 492H 2(8K52# Graham, -# *#, ,arris, /# N#, Denny, @#, Co0den, D#, and >ullan, D# (2'"# $esting the effectiveness of an acoustic deterrent device for e6cluding seals from Atlantic salmon rivers in Scotland# K -.%S <ournal of *arine Science, 66H (=K(=:# ,ardy,D#, Williams,/#, .aslar2e,/#I $regen3a,N# (2&2"# An investigation of acoustic deterrent devices to reduce cetacean bycatch in an inshore set net fishery# <ournal of .etacean /esource *anagement# 12(1): (8K'# -./A*, (2&"# /e+ort of the Wor2sho+ on -nteractions bet0een Dol+hins and Cisheries in the *editerraneanH %valuation of *itigation Alternatives# <efferson $#A#, .urry @#%# (&''="# Acoustic methods of reducing or eliminating marine mammal interactions 0ith fisheriesH Do they 0or2L Dcean .oast *anage 31H :&M!# <ohnston D#W# I Woodley $#,#, (&''("# A survey of acoustic harassment device (A,D" use in the @ay of Cundy, N@, .anada# Aquatic *ammals 24H8&1=&# ?raus, S#, /ead, A#, Anderson, %#, @ald0in, ?#, Solo0, A#, S+radlin, $# and Williamson, <#, (&''!"# Acoustic alarms reduce incidental mortality of +or+oises in gillnets# Nature, 388H 828# *ate @#/#, @ro0n /#C#, Greenla0 .#C#, ,arvey <#$# I $emte <,# (&'(!"# An acoustic harassment technique to reduce seal +redation on salmon# -nH *ate @#/#, ,arvey <$, eds# Acoustical deterrents in marine mammals conflicts 0ith fisheries# Dregon Sea Grant, Ne0+ort DregonN ++ 2515=# *DC- >roGect (2'"# htt+H//mofi#mom#gr/+df/laymansOre+ortO%NG#+df *orton, A# @#, and Symonds, ,# ?# (22"# Dis+lacement of Drcinus orca (F#" by high am+litude sound in @ritish .olumbia, .anada# K -.%S <ournal of *arine Science, 59H !&K(# National Seal Strategy Grou+ I Ste0ardson, .#, (2!"# National Assessment of -nteractions bet0een ,umans and SealsH Cisheries, Aquaculture and $ourism, Australian Government De+artment of Agriculture, Cisheries and Corestry# Northridge, S#>#, Gordon, <#G#, @ooth, .#, .alderan, S#, .argill, A#, .oram, A#, Gilles+ie, D#, Fonergan, *# and Webb, A# (2&"# Assessment of the im+acts and utility of acoustic deterrent devices# Cinal /e+ort to the Scottish Aquaculture /esearch Corum, >roGect .ode SA/C::# 5:++# >emberton, D# and Shaughnessy, >#D#, (&''5"# -nteraction bet0een seals and marine fishfarms in $asmania, and management of the +roblem# Aquatic .onservationH *arine and Cresh0ater ecosystems, 3H&:'1&8(# 9uic2 N#<#, *iddlemas S#<#, Armstrong <#D# (2:"# A survey of anti+redator controls at marine salmon farms in Scotland# Aquaculture 25H &='M&(# Scha2ner, P#A#, @lumstein, D#$#, (2&5"# @ehavioral biology of marine mammal deterrentsH A revie0 and +ros+ectus# @iological .onservation, 167H 5(15('# Wursig, @#, I Gailey, G# A# (22"# *arine *ammals and AquacultureH .onflicts and >otential /esolutions (eds" /obert / Stic2ney and <ames ># *cBey in Responsible marine aquaculture# Wallingford, D6on N Ne0 Aor2 H .A@- -S@N 1(8&''1=:15. Aur2, ,#, $rites, A#W#, (2"# %6+erimental attem+ts to reduce +redation by harbor seals on out1migrating Guvenile salmonids# $ransactions of the American Cisheries Society emberN 129(6): &5=1&5==#