2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 

Impact of “Ghost Fishing“

via Derelict Fishing Gear

2015 NOAA Marine Debris Program Report 
March 2015

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science – Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research

219 Ft. Johnson Rd.

Charleston, South Carolina 29412

Office of Response and Restoration

NOAA Marine Debris Program

1305 East-West Hwy, SSMC4, Room 10239

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

Cover photo courtesy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

For citation purposes, please use: 

NOAA Marine Debris Program. 2015 Report on the impacts of “ghost fishing” via derelict fishing gear. Silver Spring, MD. 25 pp

For more information, please contact: 

NOAA Marine Debris Program

Office of Response and Restoration

National Ocean Service

1305 East West Highway

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

301-713-2989
Acknowledgements

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Debris Program would like to acknowledge Jennifer Maucher Fuquay (NOAA 

National Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science) for conducting this research, and Courtney Arthur (NOAA National Ocean 

Service, Marine Debris Program) and Jason Paul Landrum (NOAA National Ocean Service, Marine Debris Program) for providing guidance and support 

throughout this process. Special thanks go to Ariana Sutton-Grier (NOAA National Ocean Science) and Peter Murphy (NOAA National Ocean Service, 

Marine Debris Program) for reviewing this paper and providing helpful comments. Special thanks also go to John Hayes (NOAA National Ocean Service, 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science) and Dianna Parker (NOAA National Ocean Science, Marine Debris Program) for a copy/edit review of this 

report and Leah L. Henry (NOAA National Ocean Science, Marine Debris Program) for design and layout. Funding for this project was provided by the 

NOAA Marine Debris Program.

This publication does not constitute an endorsement of any commercial product or intend to be an opinion beyond scientific or other results obtained 

by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No reference shall be made to NOAA, or this publication furnished by NOAA, to any advertising 

or sales promotion which would indicate or imply that NOAA recommends or endorses any proprietary product mentioned herein, or which has as its 

purpose an interest to cause the advertised product to be used or purchased because of this publication.
Executive Summary 1

Background 2

 Occurrence 3

Impacts of Ghost Fishing 4

Habitat 4

Species Mortality 4

Economic 4

The Gear 5

 Gillnets 6

 Gillnet Loss Frequency 6

 Gillnet Mortalities 8

 Derelict Gillnet Impact Mitigation 9

Longlines and Trawls 9

Trap Gear 10

 

 Trap Gear Loss Frequency 10

 Trap Gear Mortalities 10

 Derelict Trap Gear Impact Mitigation 11

 The Future 12

 Prevention 12

 Removal 13

 Education and Outreach 14

Summary & Recommendations 15

Cited References 16

TABLE OF CONTENTS
2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

“Ghost fishing” is a part of the global marine debris issue 

that impacts marine organisms and the environment. Lost or 

discarded fishing gear that is no longer under a fisherman’s 

control becomes known as derelict fishing gear (DFG), and 

it can continue to trap and kill fish, crustaceans, marine 

mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds. The most common types 

of DFG to ghost fish are gillnets and crab pots/traps, with 

longlines and trawls less likely to do so. Ghost fishing can 

impose a variety of harmful impacts, including: the ability to 

kill target and non-target organisms, including endangered 

and protected species; causing damage to underwater 

habitats such as coral reefs and benthic fauna; and 

contributing to marine pollution. Factors that cause gear to 

become DFG include poor weather conditions, gear conflicts 

with other vessels or bottom topography, gear overuse, and 

too much gear being used. 

Despite the major advancements of previous research 

toward our understanding of DFG and ghost fishing, 

detailed information on catch rates, mortality rates and the 

economic impacts of DFG is still scarce. Some areas have 

been intensively studied (e.g., Hawai‘i), while others have 

little to no data available. There are numerous logistical 

and cost-prohibitive difficulties in executing ghost fishing 

research studies, and consistent units of measure are not used 

across studies, making comparisons difficult. Differences 

in international, national, and regional regulations and 

compliance are also problematic, in that catch limits, gear 

usage, gear type, sink times, and even attitude regarding 

proper gear use and disposal can vary widely geographically. 

Taken in the context of these differences around the world, 

more data are needed across wider geographical areas to 

better refine the impacts of ghost fishing that occur due to 

DFG. 

This report is a summary of the current scientific knowledge 

of ghost fishing, the derelict fishing gear that contribute 

to it, the species mortalities, and the economic losses to 

certain fisheries due to ghost fishing mortalities. Gaps in 

knowledge are identified, and suggestions for the prevention 

and mitigation of DFG and possible future research foci are 

presented here within the framework of prevention, removal, 

and education as means of reducing ghost fishing. These 

three focus areas, however, should be considered together as 

a multi-pronged approach toward that goal.

The main conclusions for this summary paper are the 

following:

•	 Ghost fishing contributes to increased mortalities in 

a wide variety of marine organisms and is especially 

damaging to endangered and protected marine species, 

such as marine mammal and sea turtle populations. 

It remains difficult to determine accurate ghost 

fishing catch rates, and future efforts should focus on 

standardizing field methods and metrics.

•	 Economic impact studies show fisheries can be negatively 

affected by a variety of factors, including costs of 

replacing lost gear, costs of buying new gear to comply 

with new regulations, and decreased populations of 

target organisms due to mortality in DFG. Rates of gear 

loss are difficult to determine and have been calculated 

in a variety of ways in published studies, making direct 

comparisons within gear classes difficult with the current 

data, methods, and analyses. Standardization of methods 

and metrics would allow for comparable analyses to be 

done among fisheries and across different geographic 

areas, providing a more comprehensive and globally 

relevant view of the economic impacts of DFG.

•	 Multiple programs now exist to promote onshore 

collection, disposal, and recycling of used gear. Resources 

and outreach efforts, as well as initiatives to create 

better types of gear or methods of fishing, are needed 

to increase awareness of ghost fishing and how it fits 

into the much larger issue of marine debris. Improved 

relationships between industry, government and 

non-governmental organizations are also necessary to 

promote change and better management of DFG. 

•	 Detailed information regarding ghost fishing and DFG 

(e.g., regulations, compliance rates, ghost catch rates, 

agency internal reports and published peer-reviewed 

literature) is not always easily accessible to interested 

parties. A central repository is suggested as a means 

of centralizing where information can be found on 

a variety of topics regarding DFG and ghost fishing. 

Having a central point of information could then be 

used to promote linkages between scientists, fisheries 

managers, regulatory agents, and the public. This could 

be a database, or series of databases, which could include: 

studies and projects completed and generalized results; 

direct links to those studies and projects for more 

detailed information; an interactive database in which 

fishermen or others can identify locations of DFG found 

and any associated animal mortalities; regulations for 

individual fisheries by state/region. 
2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 

BACKGROUND

2

What is ghost fishing?

Ghost fishing refers to lost or abandoned 

fishing gear, also called derelict fishing gear 

(DFG), that continues to capture fish and 

other marine animals after the gear is no 

longer under the control of a fisherman 

(Smolowitz, Corps, and Center, 1978). The 

most common types of DFG to ghost fish are 

gillnets and crab pots/traps, but other types 

of fishing gear, like longlines and trawls, 

can also ghost fish if they become DFG. 

Although the original intent of each is to 

capture a particular “target” species, whether 

for commercial or recreational use, derelict 

fishing gear can continue to fish for target 

as well as non-target species (called ghost 

catch) after it is lost, broken, or discarded. 

For example, a crab trap may break loose 

from its buoy in bad weather and continue 

to trap crabs, which may then act as 

bait themselves and attract other fish or 

species not originally intended for capture. 

Ghost fishing specifically implies that the 

organisms caught in the DFG die as a result 

of starvation, predation, or cannibalism 

(Smolowitz et al., 1978). This means that just 

because an organism enters a piece of DFG, 

also known internationally as abandoned, 

lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear 

(ALDFG), the gear is not necessarily ghost 

fishing unless mortality occurs. The time 

over which DFG can continue to ghost fish 

can vary according to the specific gear type, 

but can range from days to years. Over the 

course of its lifespan, a piece of DFG may 

kill large numbers of commercially valuable 

or threatened species (Laist, 1987). This 

ghost fishing phenomenon is a part of the 

global marine debris issue that impacts 

marine organisms and the environment. 

Ghost fishing can impose a variety of 

harmful impacts, including: the ability 

to kill target and non-target organisms, 

including endangered and protected species; 

causing damage to underwater habitats, like 

coral reefs and benthic fauna; economic 

losses from target species mortalities and 

replacement costs; and contributing to 

marine pollution. 

There are many ways that fishing gear can 

become derelict, and more than one of the 

following can be contributing factors: 

1. Environmental: storms, wave action 

or currents, sedimentation, ice cover, 

deep-water conditions 

2. Gear conflict: entanglement with other 

vessels or bottom topography such as 

reefs or rocky bottoms

3. Gear condition: breaks loose/cut loose 

(intent can be accidental or deliberate) 

due to old age/overuse; 

4. Inappropriate disposal at sea

Early research into ghost fishing began 

in the 1970s (High, 1976; Pecci, 1978), 

shortly after the 1973 prohibition of 

abandonment or dumping of fishing gear 

by the International Maritime Organization 

Convention for the Prevention of the 

Pollution from Ships. Also during this time, 

construction of fishing gear transitioned 

from natural, biodegradable materials such 

as cotton and wood to plastic monofilament 

and vinyl-coated steel. Although these 

materials last longer, which is advantageous 

for the fishermen, they do not readily 

degrade and therefore prolong the potential 

for ghost fishing to occur, and they increase 

the total amount of marine debris overall as 

DFG. 

Derelict fishing gear contributes to marine 

debris in general. Although it is impossible 

to get an accurate global number, a rough 

estimate is that less than 10% of marine 

debris by volume is DFG (Macfadyen, 

Huntington, and Cappell, 2009) and DFG 

is the main type of submerged marine 

debris (Macfadyen et al. 2009; Nagelkerken, 

Wiltjer, Debrot, and Pors, 2001; Chiappone, 

White, Swanson, and Miller, 2002; Sheridan, 

Hill, Matthews, G. Appledoorn, Kojis, and 

Matthews, T., 2005). A United Nations 

(UN) Food and Agriculture Organization 

(FAO) and UN Environment Programme 

(UNEP) report states that while most gear 

is not deliberately discarded, the problem 

of abandoned, lost and discarded fishing 

gear is getting worse due to the increased 

scale of global fishing operations and the 

above mentioned introduction of highly 

durable fishing gear made of long-lasting 

synthetic materials (Macfadyen et al., 

2009). This suggests that the likelihood of 

ghost fishing may be increasing, although 

it is difficult to know exact numbers due to 

incomplete reporting of how much gear is 

actually lost and the difficulty in monitoring 

or retrieving DFG. Factors that contribute 

to the likelihood of DFG ghost fishing are 

the rates at which gear is lost, the catching 

efficiency of each specific gear type, and 

the species that are present in the area that 

may then be susceptible to ghost fishing 

(Brown and Macfadyen, 2007). Also not 

well-understood are the catch rates (how 

many organisms are caught) and mortality 

rates (how many organisms die) of species 

caught in DFG. 

Despite previous research that increased our 

understanding of DFG and ghost fishing, 

detailed information on DFG based on 

the above factors is still relatively scarce, 

as few detailed studies have been done. 

Some areas have been intensively studied 

(e.g., Northwestern Hawaiian Islands), 

while others have little to no data available. 

There are numerous logistical difficulties 

in executing ghost fishing research studies, 

and consistent units of measure have not 

been used across studies, complicating 

comparison of results. Differences in 

international, national, and regional 

regulations and compliance are also 

problematic, in that catch limits, gear usage, 

gear type, sink times, and even attitude 

regarding proper gear use and disposal 

can vary widely geographically. Taken in 

the context of these differences around the 

world, more data are needed across wider 

geographical areas to better refine the 

impacts of ghost fishing that occur due to 

DFG. 

This report is a summary of the current 

scientific knowledge of ghost fishing, the 

derelict fishing gear that mainly contribute 

to it, the species mortalities, and the 

economic losses to certain fisheries due to 

ghost fishing mortalities. Gaps in knowledge 

are identified, and suggestions for the 

prevention and mitigation of DFG and 

possible future research foci are presented 

within the framework of prevention, 

removal, and education as focus areas and 

means of reducing ghost fishing. These three 

focus areas, however, should be considered 

together as a multi-pronged approach 

toward that goal.
Ocurrence

Figure 1. A map of the Eastern and Western Garbage patches. These regions have higher debris concentrations because of ocean circulation patterns. 

(Photo Credit: NOAA Marine Debris Program)

3

Anywhere fishing gear is deployed, there 

is the potential risk for ghost fishing, and 

thus DFG can enter marine systems at a 

variety of locations worldwide. On this 

global scale, drifter experiments have 

shown five main areas where marine debris 

tends to accumulate which are known as 

convergence zones (Maximenko, Hafner, 

and Niiler, 2012). The ocean currents and 

prevailing winds concentrate water masses 

into these specific regions, and marine 

debris, including DFG, can likewise be 

concentrated there. One such “hot spot” 

of DFG accumulation with documented 

ghost fishing in the U.S. is the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands (NWHI). This hot 

spot is due to a concentration of ocean 

currents in an area known as the North 

Pacific subtropical convergence zone. DFG 

accumulated in this zone leads to the coasts 

and coral reefs of the islands, which has 

resulted in ghost fishing (Kubota, 1994; 

Donohue, Boland, Sramek, and Antonelis, 

2001; Pichel, Veenstra, Churnside, Arabini, 

Friedman, Foley, Brainard, Kiefer, Ogle, and 

Clemente-Colon, 2003; Pichel, Churnside, 

Veenstra, Foley, Friedman, Brainard, Nicoll, 

Zheng, and Clemente-Colon, 2007). The 

DFG that are mostly responsible for ghost 

fishing in this area may originate from 

various current drift net fisheries from 

North Pacific Ocean fisheries, or may 

be decades-old remnants of Japanese, 

Korean, and Taiwanese fleets lost prior 

to high-seas drift net bans in the early 

1990s (Donohue et al., 2001; National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2007; Boland 

and Donohue, 2003). Since 1996, NOAA’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

NOAA’s National Ocean Service, and 

other state and federal organizations have 

removed hundreds of tons of derelict nets 

from the NWHI’s coral reefs in an effort 

to restore fragile habitats and reduce the 

impact on the local marine fauna (Pacific 

Islands Fisheries Science Center, 2012).

DFG released in the North Pacific Ocean 

represents only one area, albeit a very large 

area, where DFG accumulates and poses 

problems via ghost fishing. Other ocean 

basins, such as the South Pacific Ocean 

and the North Atlantic Ocean basins, 

also contain DFG, although these zones 

have not received as much attention in 

the literature as the North Pacific Ocean. 

Additionally, as mentioned earlier, DFG can 

become a problem anywhere that fishing 

gear is deployed, including along coastlines. 

There are numerous other coastal regions 

and resources, like the Chesapeake Bay 

(Havens, Bilkovic, Stanhope, and Angstadt, 

2011; Havens, Bilkovic, Stanhope, Angstadt, 

and Hershner, 2008), the Puget Sound 

(Pichel, et al., 2003; Good, June, Etnier, and 

Broadhurst, 2009; and Maselko, Bishop, 

and Murphy, 2013), and the Gulf of Mexico 

(Guillory, McMillen-Jackson, Hartman, 

Perry, Floyd, Wagner, and Graham, 2001), 

where both floating (e.g., gill nets, long 

lines) and fixed (e.g., crab traps/pots) fishing 

gear are lost and subsequently ghost fish 

for years. In these areas, the NOAA MDP 

has supported efforts to survey where DFG 

has been deposited in order to get a better 

sense as to where DFG occurs due to fishing 

activity in these areas. However, more work 

needs to be done to get a better sense of the 

overall extent of where DFG accumulates, 

both in the water column and on the sea 

floor. 
Impacts of Ghost Fishing

Habitat

Fisheries operate in many different types 

of habitats in order to capture their target 

species, whether it is along the coast in 

shallow waters, or further offshore in open 

ocean (pelagic) areas. Coral reefs, like those 

in Hawai‘i, are one type of habitat that can 

be impacted by ghost fishing, not only by 

the loss of organisms dying in DFG, but the 

physical damage done by the gear itself. This 

can occur when DFG such as lobster pots 

or bottom trawls sink or get dragged along 

the reefs by currents and storm action, 

which can destroy fragile corals and their 

associated inhabitants. Another habitat 

type that can be susceptible to impacts 

from DFG and ghost fishing is the benthos 

(Butterworth, Clegg, and Bass, 2012). These 

ocean bottom regions, although generally 

remote in location, can still be damaged 

significantly when DFG, especially trap gear, 

sinks to the bottom where it can smother 

organisms that live on top of and just below 

the sediments, like seagrasses, crabs, and 

worms. 

One of the most significant ghost fishing 

impacts of DFG is the unintended deaths 

of target and non-target species, which 

contribute to the overall depletion of 

populations. DFG that begins ghost fishing 

poses a threat to a variety of non-target fish 

(Stewart, and Yochem, 1987), turtles (Carr, 

1987; Meager and Limpus, 2012), seabirds 

(Good, et al., 2009; Piatt and Nettleship, 

1987), whales (Volgenau, Kraus, and Lien, 

1995; Meager, Winter, Biddle, and Limpus, 

2012), and seals (Boland and Donohue, 

2003; Page, McKenzie, McIntosh, Baylis, 

Morrisey, Calvert, Haase, Berris, Dowie, 

Shaughnessy, and Goldsworthy, 2004). This 

is especially problematic when endangered 

or protected species including marine 

mammals and sea turtles die as a result 

of ghost fishing. Protected marine species 

Species Mortality It is difficult to gauge accurate total costs 

associated with ghost fishing, as this varies 

across specific fisheries, and can depend 

on the gear type, weather, and ghost catch 

rates, among other factors. Questions 

that make calculating economic impacts 

difficult include:

•	 At what rate is trap gear lost annually?

•	 How long exactly can trap gear 

continue to ghost fish? 

•	 How effective is the trap gear at ghost 

fishing?

•	 How is a value placed on the loss 

of both commercial AND noncommercial species?

•	 What are the costs of DFG on the 

environment?

For the fishers, their direct costs range 

from the money required to replace lost 

gear, to increased resources (i.e., fuel, ship 

time, more fishing gear, special equipment) 

have already declining populations that 

can be further set back by DFG. Even in 

non-endangered target species, mortalities 

due to ghost fishing can further deplete the 

population and lessen the sustainability 

of the fishery. One way ghost fishing 

is perpetuated is by the trapped and 

dead animals in the DFG acting as bait, 

attracting and potentially entrapping more 

organisms. For example, fish or crustaceans 

can enter a derelict lobster pot looking 

for food (which could be already trapped 

organisms) or shelter and may then become 

trapped themselves. To give an idea of the 

scale on which this could potentially occur, 

a recent study estimates there are over 

85,000 lobster and crab ghost traps in the 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

(Uhrin, Matthews, and Lewis, 2014). This 

suggests a definite risk for ghost fishing in 

just one region of the U.S. alone.

Economic

needed to capture decreasing target fishery 

populations. This is especially problematic 

in deep-sea species that grow slowly 

(Merrett and Haedrich, 1997; Koslow, 

Boehlert, Gordon, Haedrich, Lorance, 

and Parin, 2000). If significant numbers 

of these animals are lost to ghost fishing, 

this further strains the sustainability of 

the population. Fishers also lose revenue 

from target organisms killed due to 

ghost fishing. Some studies estimate 

that over 90% of species caught in DFG 

are of commercial value (Al-Masroori, 

Al-Oufi, McIlwain, and McLean, 2004), 

which can contribute to a significant loss 

of revenue for fishermen. The economic 

impact of DFG is usually calculated either 

as the percentage of the catch that has 

commercial value in the region, or as a 

percentage of the commercial catch of the 

individual species caught. Some examples 

are a 1.46% loss of the commercial 

monkfish catch in northern Spain (Sancho, 

Puente, Bilbao, Gomez, and Arregi, 2003), 

a 4–5% loss of the commercial catch in the 

Baltic Sea (Tschernij and Larsson, 2003), 

and 20–30% of the Greenland halibut 

catch in Norway (Humborstad, Løkkeborg, 

Hareide, and Furevik, 2003), all attributed 

to ghost fishing (Ceccarelli, 2009). Another 

study in Washington state found early 

ghost fishing rates account for an estimated 

4.5% loss in the Dungeness crab fishery per 

year, which equates to a harvest loss of over 

$744,000 (Antonelis, Huppert, Velasquez, 

and June, 2011).These examples show that 

the economic impacts of ghost fishing 

can be substantial, but they are specific to 

each fishery and area studied. And as with 

all the potential impacts of ghost fishing 

just mentioned, impacts will vary with the 

specific type of fishing gear in use.

There are a wide variety of impacts that 

ghost fishing can have, including the DFG 

responsible for ghost fishing being a type 

of marine pollution, but three in particular 

stand out. Although the most obvious is the 

mortality of organisms in DFG, damage can 

also be done to the habitat in which DFG 

becomes lost, and economic losses are also a 

consequence of ghost fishing. 

a recent study estimated there are

over 85,000 lobster and crab ghost 

traps in the Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary

4 2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 
2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 

There are a variety of fisheries, usually 

categorized by what target species they are 

trying to catch specifically and by their scale 

of operation. Industrial and commercial 

fisheries operate on a broad scale requiring 

large boats and lots of gear (e.g., the Gulf of 

Mexico shrimp trawl fishery). Small-scale 

fisheries use smaller boats and less gear, 

like artisanal or recreational/sport fisheries. 

No matter what type of fishery it is, all run 

the risk of gear potentially becoming DFG. 

The types of DFG most often cited for ghost 

fishing are, in the order of prevalence and 

amount of available information (Shomura 

and Godfrey, 1990): 

Figure 2. Several examples of different types of derelict fishing gear, from (a)gill nets, (b)to pots /traps, to (c)

monofilament, to (d) trawl nets.

Photo credits: (a) US Fish and Wildlife Service, (b, c) Northwest Straits Foundation, (d) NOAA .

The Gear

Gillnets and pots have been the most 

documented gear types to date regarding 

ghost fishing, and this paper therefore 

concentrates on their loss rates, species 

mortalities, and mitigation efforts. 

•	 Gillnets

•	 Pots/Traps

•	 Bottom trawl nets

•	 Longlines

5

(d)

(a)

(b) (c)
2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 

Gillnet Loss Frequency

Gillnets

Gillnets are so named because the fish 

tend to swim through the mesh and get 

entangled by their gills, but they can also 

swim through mesh such that their bodies 

get wedged in the mesh or become snared 

by fins, teeth, or other body projections. 

Varying the mesh size of the net targets 

specific sizes of fish, and can be very 

selective for certain fisheries. There are 

many types of gillnets that can become 

DFG and therefore potentially ghost fish, 

but they mainly fall into two groups. Some 

are considered active gear as they are 

towed from a boat and then retrieved, as 

with trammel nets. Others are considered 

passive gear, like a drift net, as they are 

usually set in a particular location, then 

left unattended for a period of time, called 

“soak time,” until retrieval. Although the 

specifics of how different types of gillnets 

are set vary, they are generally weighted at 

the bottom and have floats at the top edge 

so the net is oriented vertically in the water 

column. Passive gear can have soak times 

that last from hours to days depending on 

the fishery. This makes these passive types of 

gillnets more susceptible to becoming DFG 

and therefore more likely to ghost fish, as 

there is no person actively monitoring the 

net, as there is with active gear types (Kaiser, 

Bullimore, Newman, Lock, and Gilbert, 

1996; Carr, Blott, and Caruso, 1992). The 

most common ways that gillnets become 

derelict are: breaking free from the floats; 

entanglement with the bottom surface, like 

reefs or rocky bottoms; and interaction 

or entanglement with other fishing gear 

present. This paper will primarily discuss 

gillnets as being the passive type, but other 

types may be referenced as well.

The ability for a gillnet to ghost fish depends 

on how open the net is as it drifts through 

the water column. Nets that “ball up” 

due to currents or tides tend not to be as 

effective, but those that have some open net 

surface remaining can continue capturing 

marine organisms to varying degrees 

(Erzini, Monteiro, Ribeiro, Santos, Gaspar, 

Monteiro, and Borges, 1997). Studies using 

experimental ghost nets suggest that as the 

net tangles and the open net area decreases, 

so does its ability to ghost fish (Kaiser et al. 

1996; Carr et al. 1992; Revill and Dunlin, 

2003). The likelihood of how well derelict 

gillnets can ghost fish can also vary with 

water depth. Those in shallower waters 

with more dynamic tidal and current 

conditions tend to ball up faster and stop 

fishing earlier, while gear lost or discarded 

in deep water with little tidal or current 

activity can continue to fish for years rather 

than months (Kaiser et al., 1996; Erzini et 

al., 1997).The monofilament construction 

allows for the nets to be nearly invisible 

in the water, thus making gillnets hard 

for fish and other marine organisms to 

see and avoid. The plastic monofilament 

does not degrade and, once discarded or 

lost, these nets can potentially continue 

to ghost fish for extended periods of time; 

some have been recovered actively ghost 

fishing after 20 years (Good, June, Etnier, 

and Broadhurst, 2010). The shape, size, 

and visibility of gillnets has an important 

bearing on how much gets caught (Ayaz, 

Acarli, Altinagac, Ozekinci, Kara, and 

Ozen, 2006), but nets generally decline 

in ghost catch rate with time (Brown and 

Macfadyen, 2007; FANTARED). Biofouling 

(the attachment and growth of other living 

organisms, such as algae) makes these 

nets more visible and thus easier to avoid 

with time, which ultimately decreases the 

catching ability of the net as well.

There is little information regarding the 

frequency at which gillnets become DFG 

and the numbers of organisms lost due to 

ghost fishing. Early documented work on 

lost gillnets and ghost fishing began with 

Way (1977) describing finding fish and 

crabs in lost Newfoundland cod gillnets, 

and High (1981) demonstrating that derelict 

gill nets have the potential for causing 

major fish losses. The first comprehensive 

group of studies on DFG and ghost fishing 

consequences were the FANTARED 

studies, done between 1995–2005 and 

covering various parts of the United 

Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Spain, France, 

and Portugal (Brown and Macfadyen, 

2007). These studies, and others (Hareide, 

Garnes, Rihan, Mulligan, Tyndall, Clark, 

Connolly, Misund, McMullen, Furevik, 

Humborstad, Hoydal, and Blasdale, 2005; 

Brown, Macfadyen, Huntington, Magnus, 

and Tumilty, 2005), did include some gillnet 

loss rate data. Rates of static fishing gear loss 

in the European Union (EU) were found 

to be low, at <1% of all nets deployed each 

year, primarily due to high recovery rates 

of fishing vessels using GPS (Brown et al., 

2005). One common factor found was the 

relationship between water depth and gillnet 

loss rates. Those nets used in coastal waters 

<200m are not considered to be a significant 

problem, while those used in deep waters 

>500m are most likely to be lost due to 

excessive net length, increased soak times 

and gear stress (Hareide et al., 2005). Deepwater fisheries in the northeast Atlantic 

were a noted exception to low gear losses, 

as they accounted for more than 25,000 nets 

of the total 33,038 reported lost (Brown et 

al., 2005). In addition to higher loss rates, 

the deep-water fish species present tend to 

be slow growing, long lived, and have low 

reproductive rates (Merrett and Haedrich, 

1997; Koslow et al., 2000). These traits make 

such species highly vulnerable if ghost 

fishing significantly impacts population 

numbers.

6

“Some studies estimate 

that over 90% of 

species caught 

in DFG are of 

commercial value,

which can contribute 

to a significant loss of 

revenue for fishermen.”
2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 

Table 1. Summary of gillnet loss/abandonment/discard indicators from around the world

Even if high recovery rates are reported, 

DFG still exists. For example, Macfadyen et 

al. (2009) noted that despite a reported lost 

net recovery rate between 80–100% in most 

Norwegian fisheries, there were still 6,759 

derelict gillnets picked up from Norwegian 

waters by various retrieval programs, 

which indicates the continued need for 

these types of programs as unreported 

net losses apparently still occur. Other 

published data on gillnet losses exist for 

various parts of the world, as summarized 

in the table adapted from Macfadyen et 

al. (2009) below. One thing to note is the 

inconsistency between how these losses 

are reported. More studies need to be done 

not only to get an accurate assessment of 

gillnet loss rates, but should be done using 

7

(Adapted from Macfadyen et al. 2009)

standardized measurements in order to 

make more direct comparisons between 

them. 

Differences in local fishing practices 

and attitudes also contribute to the wide 

variability in gear loss. For example, 

Matthews and Glazer (2010) noted that 

nets made up a small percentage of the 

type of fisheries gear used (about 24% of 

all gear was nets), but of those nets there 

was a loss rate of 79%. Of the Caribbean 

fisheries surveyed, 24% listed “apathy” 

as to why gear was lost, abandoned, 

or discarded in addition to the most 

frequently cited reason of bad weather. 

Conversely, Matsuoka, Nakashima, and 

Nagasawa (2005) found that Filipino 

coastal fishermen avoided gillnetting 

around coral reefs and dove to retrieve 

lost nets, as gillnets are expensive assets 

for small-holder fishermen in developing 

countries. He goes on to suggest that the 

magnitude of the ghost fishing problems 

may depend on the socioeconomic status 

of fishing sectors in each country.

Region Fishery/gear type Indicator of gear loss (data source) Data source

North Sea & NE Atlantic Bottom-set gill nets 0.02–0.09% nets lost per boat per year EC contract FAIR-PL98-4338 

(2003)

English Channel & North Sea 

(France)

Gillnets 0.2% (sole & plaice) to 2.11% (sea bass) nets 

lost per boat per year

EC contract FAIR-PL98-4338 

(2003)

NE Atlantic* Deepwater monk fish and 

shark fisheries

>25,000 nets; 1,254 km sheet netting per year Hairede et al., 2005

Deepwater Greenland 

halibut

0.14–0.17% nets per season; est. 15 nets per 

day

DeepNet 2009

Mediterranean Gillnets 0.05% (inshore hake) to 3.2% (sea bream) nets 

lost per boat per year

EC contract FAIR-PL98-4338 

(2003)

Baltic Sea* Gillnets 5,500–10,000 nets lost per year Baltic Sea 2020 Foundation

North Pacific* Gillnets 7,000 km of net per year Bullimore et al., 2000

NW Atlantic Newfoundland cod gillnet 

fishery

5,000 nets per year Breen, 1990

Canadian Atlantic gillnet 

fisheries

2% nets lost per boat per year Chopin et al., 1995

Caribbean Nets 79% of nets Matthews and Glazer, 2010
Figure 3. Fishermen removing bycatch from recovered gillnet at sea. (Photo Credit: NOAA)

Gillnet Mortalities

Ghost fishing by gillnets has an impact 

on a wide variety of marine life—from 

fish to sea birds and mammals to benthic 

organisms—with some of the greatest 

impacts on turtles (Roeger, Munungurr, 

and Wise, 2004; Leitch, 2001). The threat 

to marine turtles posed by derelict nets 

is thought to equal fishing efforts before 

the introduction of turtle excluder devices 

(TEDs) (Kiessling, 2003). Although target 

species are affected as well, ghost fishing 

is especially problematic when it causes 

mortality of protected species. Critically 

endangered Hawaiian monk seals have 

been found entangled in masses of 

monofilament driftnet with seven confirmed 

deaths (Donohue, 2001; National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2007; Henderson, 1984). 

Considering that there are approximately 

only 1,200 animals left in this critically 

endangered species, DFG entanglement 

has been deemed one of four serious 

threats to the population (NMFS, 2007). 

Approximately 25% of reported cetacean 

entanglements in Australia occurred in 

derelict fishing nets (Ceccarelli, 2009). Two 

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins and three 

Australian snubfin dolphins, both “near 

threatened” species, were reported to have 

drowned in nets in the Australian Shark 

Control Program between 2008 and 2011, 

and in Cape Arnhem, northern Australia, 29 

dead sea turtles, all seven species of which 

are either endangered or threatened, were 

found in ghost fishing nets over a fourmonth period (Meager et al., 2012).

There are still very few controlled 

experiments that focus specifically on 

determining gillnet ghost fishing mortalities 

and how long they can effectively still 

capture organisms once they become 

DFG. One study by Kaiser et al. (1996) 

used a fixed gillnet set (one gillnet and one 

trammel net) left offshore of the UK and 

allowed them to soak and ghost fish for 9 

months. In total, the gillnet caught 226 fish 

after 70 days and 839 crustaceans after 136 

days, and the trammel net caught 78 fish 

after 22 days and 754 crustaceans after 136 

days. Although damaged by storms, the 

lost nets continued to catch commercial 

crustacean species for the nine months 

of the study, and is suggestive that ghost 

fishing could have continued for longer 

(Kaiser et al., 1996). In another DFG “hot 

spot” in Puget Sound, WA, a comprehensive 

analysis quantified the mortality of all 

marine organisms recovered from 870 

derelict gillnets found and included (Good 

et al., 2010):

•	 960 marine fishes (22 species)

•	 509 marine birds (15 species)

•	 23 marine mammals (4 species)

•	 65 species of marine invertebrates

Studies about similar gear types can give 

seemingly contradictory results if all of 

the study parameters are not the same. 

For example, unaccounted mortality 

caused by gillnet ghost fishing was 

considered unimportant in UK coastal 

waters (Revill and Dunlin, 2003) and in 

the hake, Merluccius merluccius, fishery 

off the Algarve region of Portugal (Santos, 

Saldanha, Gaspar, and Monteiro, 2003), 

but this may be due to the small number 

of nets tested. On the other hand, ghost 

fishing by lost gillnets was considered to 

be important for the Greenland halibut, 

Reinhardtius hippoglossoides, on the 

Norwegian continental slope (Humborstad 

et al., 2003) and for the cod, Gadus morhua, 

in the Baltic Sea (Tschernij and Larsson, 

2003). However these latter results are from 

deep-water fisheries where water depth is 

a large contributing factor to gear loss and 

therefore ghost fishing. These seemingly 

conflicting results emphasize both, the need 

for more comprehensive studies, as well as 

some standardization of methods and how 

results are reported.

8
Derelict Gillnet Impact 

Mitigation

Efforts have been made to reduce 

the impact gillnets have on fisheries 

populations and loss of non-target species 

via by-catch, as well as their contributions 

toward marine debris in general. The 

EU banned the use of driftnets over 2.5 

kilometers long in 1991, and the United 

Nations followed up with a ban in all 

international waters in 1992. The EU 

Council Regulation (EC) management 

measures were revised in 2006 and now 

include a permanent ban on all deep-water 

gillnet fisheries at depths >600 m and 

impose maximum limits on the length 

of nets deployed and the soak time in 

the remaining fisheries at depths <600 m 

(Council Regulation (EC) No. 41/2006). 

In the U.S., gillnet fisheries generally 

require licensing and are mainly regulated 

based on mesh size and length, soak time, 

and area. But rules for gillnet fisheries can 

vary from state to state and even within a 

state. In Hawai‘i, each island has different or 

no regulations on the use of a type of gillnet 

called lay nets (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2010). Florida recently halted 

enforcement of a 1994 state constitutional 

amendment limiting gillnet fishing in 

state coastal waters. And tribal versus state 

laws can vary within a state, as in Oregon 

and Washington states, regarding gillnet 

use in the Columbia River (Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2013). In 

Oregon, gillnets are allowed for use only on 

the Columbia River and there is a ban on 

gillnetting for steelhead. This ban does not 

affect tribal fisheries, which are allowed to 

use set nets. As of 2012 it is now mandatory 

for commercial fishermen to report lost 

nets to the Washington State Department of 

Fish and Wildlife within 24 hours of loss.

Longlines and Trawls

Data on ghost fishing mortality and gear 

loss for derelict bottom trawl, longline, 

jigging, and fish weir gears are minimal 

in comparison to gillnets and trap gears 

(Brown et al., 2005; International Council 

for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), 2000; 

Tasker, Camphuysen, Cooper, Garthe, 

Montevecchi, and Blaber, 2000) . However, 

there is some limited documentation of 

derelict longlines being able to ghost fish, 

although mortality rates tend to be low 

(ICES, 2000; Huse, Løkkeborg, and Soldal, 

2000). Longlines are submerged lines with 

baited hooks set at intervals and can be 

up to 50 miles long. Longlines can be set 

to fish near the surface (in pelagic waters) 

to catch fish like tuna and swordfish, or 

laid on the seafloor (demersal) to catch 

deep-dwelling fish like cod and halibut. 

Many lines, however, can hook sea turtles, 

sharks, and seabirds that are also attracted 

to the bait. Impact data collected to date 

suggest that seabirds tend to be the most 

susceptible to longlines (Tasker et al., 2000). 

Between 2004 and 2013, observed shallow 

and deep-set longlines in Hawai‘i had 652 

seabird mortalities compared to 72 sea 

turtle deaths and 21 marine mammal deaths 

(NOAA Fisheries-Pacific Islands Region 

reports). Although these data are from 

active gear and not DFG, it implies that 

when longlines become derelict, they could 

most likely continue to cause mortalities due 

to entanglement and hooking. Pilot whales 

have been observed to interact with fishery 

operations, and between 1992 and 2008, five 

pilot whale mortalities were attributed to 

the pelagic longline fishery along the U.S. 

Atlantic coast, although again these data are 

from observed longlines that are actively 

fishing and not necessarily from DFG 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012). 

Along the coast of British Columbia, marine 

mammals known to become entangled in 

longlines are the harbor porpoise, Dall’s 

porpoise, Pacific white-sided dolphin, 

minke whale, humpback whale, fin whale, 

and orca (Williams, Ashe, and O'Hara, 

2011). 

Efforts to mitigate derelict longline gear 

impacts have been limited, although 

methods such as setting lines at night 

versus daytime and using deterrents such 

as streamers during line setting have 

been suggested (Brothers, Cooper, and 

Løkkeborg, 1999). In addition, the winner 

of the 2011 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) 

Smart Gear contest developed a doubleweighted mechanism for using longlines 

that reduced bird by-catch by 89%, with no 

effect on target fish catch rates.

Various types of trawls (beam and otter) 

are used for various fisheries, but all are 

considered active types of fishing, as they 

are usually pulled behind a boat. Trawls can 

ghost fish if they break free from the ship, 

either through gear fatigue or snagging 

on bottom features like rocks, and stay 

stretched open. However, little attention has 

been given to this gear type in the context of 

ghost fishing (Shomura and Godfrey, 1990). 

2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 9
2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 

Trap Gear Mortalities

Trap Gear Loss Frequency Trap Gear

Pots and traps (hereafter referred to as trap 

gear) are considered passive gear types 

that entice target species and ultimately 

entrap them. (Food and Agriculture 

Organization, 2001). Trap gear have lines 

attached to buoys at the surface for retrieval, 

and can be set either individually or in 

multiple sets of trap gear linked together by 

groundlines. Similarly to nets, the specificity 

of what is caught can vary depending on 

characteristics of the trap gear itself. The 

size and configuration of the opening sets 

the size of the largest organism that can get 

inside the trap gear, and the sides determine 

the minimum size that can remain trapped 

inside. The shape of trap gear can also 

help dictate what is being targeted. Trap 

gear have doors or escape panels that are 

usually fastened shut by a cord of twine or 

some other biodegradable material, so in 

the event it does become derelict, the cord 

will ideally rot and allow the door to open, 

releasing any trapped animals. In the past, 

trap gear frames used to be made of wood, 

but now tend to be metal or coated with 

a plastic resin. This makes the trap gear 

much sturdier and longer lasting, which is 

beneficial to the fishermen, but also puts 

lost gear at higher risk of being able to ghost 

fish for longer periods if not retrieved. As 

with gillnets, water depth can be a factor 

in how effectively trap gear can ghost fish. 

Deep-water pots, which are less damaged 

by waves and storms and less fouled by 

organisms, may continue to ghost fish for 

longer time periods than those in shallow 

waters (Matsuoka et al., 2005).

Data are relatively scarce on the loss rates 

of derelict trap gear, and vary by region and 

specific fishery. In areas of the EU, studies 

tend to show relatively low overall loss rates, 

and trap gear are considered to have little 

impact on ghost fishing overall (Brown 

et al., 2005). For example, in the Algarve 

region of southern Portugal, more than 700 

octopus traps were lost, but had medium 

to high recovery rates to offset these losses 

(FANTARED 2, 2003). However, the area 

in which trap gear is deployed can also be 

a factor in loss rates, as retrieval of DFG 

tends to be less difficult in shallow, coastal 

waters compared to deeper waters, or places 

where currents are especially strong. Strong 

currents account for >50% of shrimp pot 

losses each year throughout the Puget 

Sound and Hood Canal according to one 

study (Natural Resources Consultants, 

2012). 

One way to track loss rates for trap gear 

is by their registration tags or licenses. In 

the U.S., most states require licenses for 

trap gear, so records exist for how many 

have been requested, but determining the 

actual amount of gear that becomes derelict 

is still not well documented. The Maine 

Department of Marine Resources receives 

over 3 million license requests per year, and 

from 2009 to 2011 it also received about 

38,000 requests for lobster trap replacement 

licenses per year (Johnson, 2012), which 

implies that a similar amount of gear was 

either lost or stolen, with no differentiation 

between the two. Other published data on 

trap gear losses exist for various parts of the 

A variety of marine organisms, both target 

and non-target species can fall victim to 

ghost fishing via trap gear. Approximately 

250,000 derelict traps are added each year 

in the Gulf of Mexico (Guillory et al., 2001), 

resulting in the loss of more than 250,000 

blue crabs per year in Louisiana alone. A 

single crab pot in the Chesapeake Bay was 

estimated to have a potential ghost catch 

rate of 50 blue crabs per crab pot (Havens 

et al., 2008). In southeast Alaska, a different 

region where crab traps can also be a 

nuisance for the Dungeness crab fishery, a 

recent study showed that in selected bays 

during summer closures in 2009 and 2010, 

123 pots containing 215 Alaskan Dungeness 

crabs were found (Maselko et al., 2013). The 

study also estimated that these pots could 

last for an estimated maximum ghost fishing 

time that exceeds seven years, a long-term 

problem for this fishery. The potential 

for long time periods when trap gear can 

ghost fish, especially given the fact that trap 

gear can be “self-baiting,” just compounds 

the problem. A one-year, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife survey 

of derelict shrimp pots found that pots 

could potentially capture 3,796 to 7,580 

endangered species of rockfish per year 

(Natural Resources Consultants, 2012). 

Other documented cases of ghost fishing 

involving endangered species have occurred 

with trap gear, including sea turtles found in 

derelict pots or their associated float lines in 

Queensland, Australia (Meager and Limpus, 

2012) and four fur seal pups drowned in 

a rock lobster pot in New Zealand (Page et 

al., 2004). Johnson et al. (2005) studied the 

entanglements of 31 right whales and 30 

humpback whales to assess the types and 

parts of fishing gear most likely to entangle 

these animals and found 81% involved 

entanglements in buoy lines or groundlines 

from pots, but could not distinguish 

whether this gear was ghost fishing at the 

time of entanglement or was being actively 

fished at the time of entanglement (Johnson, 

Salvador, Kenney, Robbins, Kraus, Landry, 

and Clapham, 2005). As with gillnets, there 

is still much more research to be done in 

order to more accurately gauge the extent of 

welfare impacts and mortalities due to trap 

gear ghost fishing. 

10

Figure 4. The basic configuration of lobster trap deployment.

(Diagram Credit: NOAA)

world, as summarized in the table below, also 

adapted from Macfadyen et al. (2009). 
2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 

Derelict Trap Gear Impact Mitigation

Advancements are being made in 

technologies to reduce the likelihood of 

derelict trap gear being able to ghost fish. 

The shape of the trap can be important 

in determining catch rates, with some 

experimental conical shaped traps having 

lower catch rates for sub-sized crabs than 

rectangular traps (Hébert, Miron, Moriyasu, 

Vienneau, and DeGrace, 2001). Cull rings 

are required to be included in the design 

of crab pots in order to allow undersized 

crabs to escape. Biodegradable release cords 

(rot cords) are also mandated in trap gear 

to allow trap panels to eventually open 

should the trap become derelict and thus 

reduce ghost fishing ability and duration. 

For example, the estimated Dungeness 

crab trap ghost fishing duration was 126 

days for traps with escape cord and 2.2 

years for traps without escape cord, but 

the effectiveness of the rot cords (i.e., 

degradation rate) depends on various 

environmental factors influencing the 

degradation rate of the cord (e.g., water 

temperature, fouling organisms, etc.) 

(Antonelis et al., 2011). Current research 

is investigating the use of completely 

biodegradable escape panels (Bilkovic, 

Havens, Stanhope, and Angstadt, 2012). 

Even with the required use of biodegradable 

escape panels and release cords, the trap 

gear can become biofouled with algae and 

encrusting animals like barnacles to the 

point that the escape mechanisms don’t 

always release sufficiently to allow animals 

to escape. A 2010 Massachusetts Division of 

Marine Fisheries study deployed 18 lobster 

pots with biodegradable escape panels in 

Cape Cod Bay and Buzzards Bay, and found 

that more than half of those pots continued 

to catch lobsters and other organisms long 

after the escape panels were set to degrade 

to the point where animals should have been 

able to escape (Lyons, 2012). 

Regulations that exist regarding trap gear 

can vary widely from nation to nation and 

from state to state, but many are banning 

certain types of trap gear to decrease losses 

from ghost fishing and reduce marine 

pollution via DFG. The state of Florida 

prohibited the use of fish traps in state 

waters in 1980 following by-catch and ghost 

fishing concerns (Newman et al., 2011). 

There is currently a motion, put forward 

by the International Coral Reef Initiative 

(ICRI) in Oct 2013, to ban fish traps in the 

Caribbean. In 2007, Massachusetts became 

the first state to require year-round use of 

sinking groundline in all state waters to 

reduce the risk of whale entanglement in the 

lines connecting lobster pots (Massachusetts 

Department of Fish and Game, 2015). This 

is now a federal requirement throughout 

the entire fishery. In the Gulf of Mexico, 

the Gulf Council banned placing new fish 

traps in 1987 and phased out existing traps 

over a 10-year period. The South Atlantic 

Fishery Council outlawed fish traps in 1988, 

banning them in the ocean's federal waters 

three miles off the coast between North 

Carolina and Florida. One exception to the 

ban is for small traps for black sea bass, 

mainly off the Carolinas. And although 

regulation efforts are on the books, it is still 

difficult to know how well they are being 

enforced or if fishers are in compliance.

11

(Adapted from Macfadyen et al. 2009)

Table 2. Summary of trap gear loss/abandonment/discard indicators from around the world

Region Fishery/gear type Indicator of gear loss (data source) Data source

Gulf of Aden Traps c. 20% lost per boat per year Al-Masroori, 2002

ROPME Sea Area (UAE) Traps 260,000 lost per year in 2002 Gary Morgan, personal 

communication, 2007

Australia (Queensland) Blue swimmer crab trap 

fishery

35 traps lost per boat per year McKauge, undated

NE Pacific Bristol Bay king crab trap 

fishery

7,000 to 31,000 traps lost in the fishery per 

year

Stevens, 1996; Paul et al.; 

1994; Kruse and Kimker, 1993

North Pacific* Traps 7,000– 31,600 pots per year Bullimore et al., 2000

NW Atlantic New England lobster 

fishery

20– 30% traps lost per boat per year Smolowitz, 1978

Chesapeake Bay Up to 30% traps lost per year, mainly in the 

hurricane season

NOAA Chesapeake Bay 

Office, 2007

Caribbean Guadeloupe trap fishery 20,000 traps lost per year, mainly in the 

hurricane season

Burke and Maidens, 2004
THE FUTURE

Removal

Prevention

Ghost fishing by DFG is one part of the 

overall marine debris issue that impacts the 

habitats and species of our oceans. More 

information has become available on this 

specific topic in recent years, as evidenced 

by the increasing research literature, as well 

as the efforts of independent organizations 

such as GhostNets Australia and 

Ghostfishing.org in promoting awareness 

and providing educational resources. 

Previous comprehensive studies by the 

Institute for European Environmental 

Policy (Brown et al., 2005) and Food and 

Agriculture Organization (Macfadyen 

et al., 2009) have provided detailed 

recommendations for the reduction of 

ghost fishing by lost or abandoned gear, 

with a general consensus that prevention is 

the best means to address this issue. Given 

the complexity of factors that contribute to 

DFG, a multi-pronged approach is needed 

to: address prevention of the introduction 

of new DFG and therefore prevention of 

eventual ghost fishing; use cost effective 

detection and removal mechanisms to 

address already present DFG; and increase 

education and outreach programs to 

promote awareness of DFG and ghost 

fishing. Taken together, these actions, as 

suggested below, would provide the most 

comprehensive and collaborative approach 

to mitigate the presence and impact of ghost 

fishing derelict fishing gear in the world’s 

oceans.

Preventive measures would reduce the 

likelihood that fishermen will discard gear 

at sea and make gear less likely to ghost fish 

and could include:

1-Improvement of gear design to reduce 

likelihood of failure or snagging.

2-Spatial zoning of fisheries to avoid 

gear conflict and increase navigational 

awareness of gear in water.

3-Reduced fishing effort (lower soak 

times, limiting fishing time, less gear per 

boat).

4-Reducing ghost fishing efficiency of 

gear (improve biodegradable aspects for 

release or disabling of lost gear over time).

5-Gear marking, integrated GPS to allow 

for immediate recovery, port or state 

monitoring, and inspection of gear.

6-Provide affordable port disposal 

facilities and incentives to discourage 

improper disposal at sea.

Many preventive mechanisms are already 

being implemented in various ways. 

Gear improvements such as the use of 

integrated GPS tags are already widely used 

in EU fisheries (Macfadyen et al., 2009) 

and account for the higher documented 

recovery rates (FANTARED 2). A new 

type of completely biodegradable escape 

panel for crab pots has been developed 

from polyhydroxyalkanoates, or PHAs, 

in which the entire escape panel degrades 

rather than just a cord (Bilkovic et al., 

2012). Cooperation between lobstermen 

and rope manufacturers led to new 

groundline improvements to reduce 

chafing and breakage of the lines on rocky 

bottoms, thus reducing the likelihood 

of trap gear becoming DFG (Schreiber, 

2011). For example, a NOAA-sponsored 

grant supported a Gulf of Maine Lobster 

Foundation project, The Bottom Line, 

which allowed for rope exchanges from the 

lighter sink lines to more durable lines for 

groundlines, and then recycled or re-used 

the old line to make a variety of items, from 

plastic pots to doormats (Gulf of Maine 

Lobster Foundation, 2015).

 

The cost of disposing fishing gear properly 

can be high, so in some cases it is dumped 

at sea as a low cost disposal method 

(Pooley, 2000). The need for affordable 

port reception facilities and incentives for 

bringing DFG back to shore for disposal is 

vital to the prevention of marine debris and 

DFG (Carswell, McElwee, and Morison, 

2011). One example of a successful 

incentive program is the “Waste Fishing 

Gear Buy-Back” project, implemented in 

the Republic of Korea since 2003, which 

provides disposal bags for fishermen, who 

receive about US$10 per 100-liter bag 

upon their return (Macfadyen et al., 2009). 

Similar incentive-type programs should be 

expanded in other regions when possible 

to reduce improper disposal at sea. But 

even with incentives, there must still be 

affordable disposal facilities available once 

waste is brought back to shore. 

A number of programs specifically aimed 

at the removal of DFG have appeared in the 

past decade and have successfully removed 

DFG, onshore and at sea, thereby decreasing 

the potential for ghost fishing. Several of 

these are shown in table 3, with the amount 

of DFG each recovered.

Clean up programs do incur costs. One 

calculation for the cleanup of DFG in the 

Republic of Korea had an average clean-up 

cost of US $1,300 per ton over a six-year 

period (Hwang and Ko, 2007), which is 

cost effective compared to one 2004 effort 

in the NWHI that averaged US $25,000 

per ton (Raaymakers, 2007). Funding for 

these programs is not always consistently 

available, making it difficult for many 

nations to reduce the concentration of 

marine debris in the marine environment 

through removal efforts alone. For example, 

GhostNets Australia receives some funding 

from national and state governments, as well 

as relying on matches by stakeholder’s cash 

and in-kind contributions, sponsorships 

and donations(Arafura Times, 2012). 

Conversely, the California Lost Fishing 

Gear Recovery project is entirely funded 

by grants. By increasing partnerships 

between government organizations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), 

and the communities they serve, funding 

for such programs does not necessarily 

become the burden of a single entity, 

and the improved working relationships 

between such groups can increase 

global participation. The Gear Grab 

organization, part of the Gulf of Maine 

Lobster Foundation, is such an example, 

where lobstermen, scientists, and the local 

communities work together to make the 

fishery sustainable, including efforts to 

reduce ghost fishing.

One creative removal program is the 

Louisiana Sea Grant’s derelict crab trap 

“rodeo,” which since 2004 has enlisted 

volunteers to collect more than 20,000 

derelict traps during the annual 10-day 

fishery closure (Louisiana Sea Grant, 2015). 

Smaller, shorter-term programs also exist. 

From 2009 to 2011, the Monterey Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary and its 

partners implemented the Lost Fishing 

Gear Removal project to document and 

12 2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 
2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 

remove lost fishing gear from the deepwater habitats of the sanctuary using a 

remotely operated vehicle, the Phantom 

HD2. Retrieved gear included over 1,000 

feet of rockfish gillnet, a variety of crab and 

spot prawn traps, and 700 pounds of clump 

weight lead (Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary, 2014). 

Another mechanism to increase retrieval is 

to improve the detection of gear once it is 

lost or abandoned. Ghost gear that washes 

ashore is relatively straightforward and easy 

to identify. What is more difficult to locate 

and retrieve is ghost gear that is offshore, 

especially in deep water. Modeling, an 

indirect method, can help predict where 

DFG may be accumulating based on ocean 

currents and wind patterns and better 

target specific areas for monitoring and 

removal programs. One example of this 

is the Debris Estimated Likelihood Index 

(DELI), which uses correlations between 

sea surface temperatures and chlorophyll 

levels to successfully predict areas of marine 

debris accumulation in the North Pacific 

(Pichel et al., 2007). Other technologies can 

be added in conjunction with modeling, 

such as remote sensing via satellites or 

aircraft to direct ship-based recovery efforts 

(McElwee, Donohue, Courtney, Morishige, 

and Rivera-Vicente, 2012). Although radar 

has generally been shown to be limited in 

application for debris detection, since debris 

generally does not provide a clear target 

profile for a radar return, a multi-pronged 

approach has been used by programs such 

as GhostNet Australia, NAVSAE, and 

GEOSS (Mace, 2012). One study in the U.S. 

used side scan sonar and a submersible 

vehicle to find derelict Tanner crab pots 

off Alaska and estimate ghost fishing catch 

rates (Stevens, Vining, Byersdorfer, and 

Donaldson, 2000). Side scan sonar has also 

been used in surveys to locate DFG in the 

Chesapeake Bay and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

(Clark, Pittman, Battista, and Caldow, 

2012). 

The removal of DFG is only one part of 

the solution. The reuse or recycling efforts 

of retrieved DFG now being launched 

are crucial to diminishing further 

environmental impacts due to landfill 

disposal or incineration, as well as disposal 

at sea. One such program is the Healthy 

Sea Initiative, which has taken more than 

20 tons of discarded nets from the North, 

Adriatic, and Mediterranean Seas that will 

be recycled into ECONYL® yarn, used in 

clothing, carpet, and tiles (Ghostfishing.org, 

2013). Another is the Fishing for Energy 

program, through which “commercial 

fishermen are provided with no-cost 

opportunities to dispose of old and unused 

fishing gear,” which is then converted to 

electricity that can be used downstream. 

The program is a nationwide partnership 

between Covanta Energy, the National 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the NOAA 

Marine Debris Program, and Schnitzer Steel 

Industries, Inc. As of February 2015, over 

2.8 million pounds of fishing gear has been 

collected at 42 ports in 10 states through 

this program. Another creative approach to 

recycling DFG is the Ghost Nets: Creative 

Collaborations exhibit, begun in 2004, 

which displays indigenous community 

artwork made from DFG recovered by the 

GhostNet Australia program. 

Table 3. Total derelict fishing gear removed as a direct result of removal efforts in specific geographical areas:

13

Time Frame Gear Amount Recovered Project/source Geographical Area

1996–2014 820 metric tons of DFG(and 

other marine debris)

NOAA’s Pacific Islands Fisheries 

Science Center

Papahānaumokuākea MNM

2006–2012

2004–2012

60+ tons removed CA lost fishing gear recovery 

project

Coastal California

12,000+ nets GhostNets Australia Australia

2008–2013 161 nets; 28934 crab pots; 4,202 

other pots

CCRM VIMS Chesapeake Bay, US

2000–2006 10,285 tons Korean coastal cleanup campaigns 

(Hwang and Ko, 2007)

Korea

20 tons fishing nets Healthy Seas Initiative North Sea, Adriatic Sea, 

Mediterranean Sea

5,600 traps Gear Grab.org Gulf of Maine
Education and Outreach

One of the most common recommendations 

in the published literature is to increase 

outreach and education programs as means 

to help prevent the accumulation of DFG, 

and a variety of these programs already 

exist. NOAA and the Ocean Conservancy 

collaborated to create the Keep the Coast 

Clear Campaign, which is a targeted public 

awareness and education campaign to help 

with the understanding of marine debris 

impacts on ocean health with the goal of 

engaging people to prevent and eliminate 

marine debris. 

Ghostfishing.org is a non-profit organization 

of divers that “collects, motivates, and 

initiates ghost fishing projects around the 

world” to increase awareness in the global 

diving community, and provides links to 

worldwide collaborations for the removal 

and recycling of DFG. But other types 

of outreach can also be applied to more 

directly engage fishermen, especially in 

industries that become affected by closures 

or decreased catch limits, so that they can 

become part of the management solution 

and promote sustainability for their future 

efforts. 

One example of this is the Marine Debris 

Location and Removal Program in Virginia, 

in which watermen affected by the crab 

dredge fishery closure were compensated 

for income loss by participating in a 

project to retrieve ghost pots and nets 

(VIMS, 2015). They were trained in proper 

retrieval techniques and between 2008–

2012 removed over 38,000 pots from the 

Chesapeake Bay that contained over 32,000 

organisms (VIMS, 2015) from 40 species of 

crustaceans, fish, birds, whelk, and terrapins 

(Havens et al., 2011). Information from this 

project has also been turned into a lesson 

plan for grades 6–12 (Petrone, 2015), which 

allows student to use real world data and 

increases student awareness of ghost fishing. 

Outreach and education must also extend 

beyond schoolhouse curricula to include 

policy makers, port authorities, and fishery 

managers. The NOAA Marine Debris 

Program continues to expand its outreach to 

provide information regarding all aspects of 

marine debris, including ghost fishing, with 

their growing clearinghouse of information 

as part of Marine Debris Act (2012). 

One major gap in this area is the lack of 

web accessible data products regarding 

ghost fishing information, studies, and 

projects. Some databases already exist such 

as StrandNet, an Oracle database, which 

summarizes all records of sick, injured, 

or dead marine wildlife reported to the 

Department of Environment and Heritage 

Protection in Queensland, Australian 

(Department of Environment and Heritage 

Protection, 2014). This is a powerful tool 

that centralizes data from known mortalities 

as compiled by five different agencies across 

the country, including those from derelict 

fishing gear. Having a centralized location 

with one or more searchable databases 

would be a significant advancement for 

educational and outreach purposes, not just 

locally but globally. There would be a need 

to have mechanisms in place to oversee 

management, verification, and distribution 

of such data.

Suggestions for data to include are:

•	 Spatial zoning of fishing gear 

regulations searchable by state/region/

nation/fishery

•	 Mortality of organisms searchable by 

species/region found

•	 Location of found DFG with data 

provided by fishermen, scientists, and 

general public

•	 List of projects/initiatives from both 

governmental and non-governmental 

organizations to promote collaborations 

and reduction of duplicative research 

efforts

•	 Published literature, including 

government reports, conference 

summaries, and links to peer reviewed 

literature

There must be reliable, comparable scientific 

data generated in the first place before it 

can be incorporated into education and 

outreach programs. Although the body of 

data is increasing regarding ghost fishing 

and DFG, much remains to be studied, 

especially regarding economic losses, 

species mortalities, and gear loss rates. 

It is inherently challenging to study the 

complex factors briefly mentioned in this 

review paper that contribute to ghost 

fishing, but it is necessary to promote 

accurate understanding of these factors and 

the role each contributes to ghost fishing. 

Experimental design is critical. Studies 

should be done in the same regions under 

the same environmental conditions with 

commercial and recreational gear, with 

similar numbers of gears set. Monitoring 

of artificial ghost gear should be done 

regularly in situ, and the reported data 

should be in similar units of measure so that 

results are more directly comparable across 

industries and geography.

14 2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 
2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 

Summary & Recommendation

Ghost fishing is clearly a global issue, and 

although the volume of literature on the 

subject is increasing, much is still unknown 

regarding the exact number of mortalities, 

and the extent of its environmental and 

economic impacts. The implementation 

of large-scale studies and long-term 

monitoring programs as a means to increase 

our knowledge on specific topics—such as 

DFG loss rates, fishery economic losses due 

to ghost fishing, etc.—has been suggested 

often and with good cause, as much is 

still to be learned regarding the impacts 

of ghost fishing. More studies need to be 

conducted to increase the data available on 

the concentration and distribution of DFG, 

the economic impacts of ghost fishing, and 

the best ways to mitigate what DFG already 

exists. 

A continued emphasis on the prevention of 

gear loss is considered to be the most critical 

advancement necessary to help mitigate all 

ghost fishing impacts, and the effort must be 

global and sustainable. New collaborations 

between government agencies, NGOs, and 

15

Figure 5. A Hawaiian monk seal on large derelict net at Pearl and Hermes Atoll. (Photo Credit: NOAA) Permit no. PMNM-2013-001

private industries and organizations are 

essential for increasing global participation 

for both prevention and removal efforts. 

From an educational standpoint, fisheries 

and the public should be made more aware of 

fisheries rules and regulations regarding gear 

use, gear limits, and proper onshore disposal, 

as well as implementing better mechanisms 

for tracking gear compliance. 

Having this multipronged approach of 

prevention, removal, and education is 

vital to further our knowledge on ghost 

fishing, the factors that contribute to it, and 

what mechanisms (preventive, regulatory, 

educational, etc.) are best to reduce ghost 

fishing. Increased interaction between 

international organizations would further 

strengthen collaborative possibilities, 

promote more standardization of methods, 

and advance the sharing of ideas and 

programs that are found to be effective—all of 

which will ultimately help reduce the loss of 

marine life due to DFG and help sustain the 

world’s fisheries for future generations.
2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 

Al-Masroori, H., Al-Oufi, H., McIlwain, J. L., and McLean, E. (2004). Catches of lost fish traps (ghost fishing) from fishing grounds near 

Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. Fisheries Research 69, 407–414.

Antonelis, K., Huppert, D., Velasquez, D., and June, J. (2011). Dungeness Crab Mortality Due to Lost Traps and a Cost–Benefit Analysis of 

Trap Removal in Washington State Waters of the Salish Sea. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 31, 880–893.

Ayaz, A., Acarli, D., Altinagac, U., Ozekinci, U., Kara, A., and Ozen, O. (2006). Ghost fishing by monofilament and multifilament gillnets in 

Izmir Bay, Turkey. Fisheries Research 79, 267–271.

Bilkovic, D. M., Havens, K. J., Stanhope, D. M., and Angstadt, K. T. (2012). Use of Fully Biodegradable Panels to Reduce Derelict Pot Threats 

to Marine Fauna. Conservation Biology 26, 957–966.

Boland, R. C., and Donohue, M. J. (2003). Marine debris accumulation in the nearshore marine habitat of the endangered Hawaiian monk 

seal, Monachus schauinslandi 1999–2001. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46, 1385–1394.

Brothers, N. P., Cooper, J., and Løkkeborg, S. (1999). The incidental catch of seabirds by longline fisheries: worldwide review and technical 

guidelines for mitigation, FAO, Rome.

Brown, J., Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., Magnus, J., and Tumilty, J. (2005). Ghost fishing by Lost Fishing Gear. Final Report to DG 

Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission., Institute for European Environmental Policy / Poseidon Aquatic Resource 

Management Ltd.

Brown, J., and Macfadyen, G. (2007). Ghost fishing in European waters: Impacts and management responses. Marine Policy 31, 488–504.

Bullimore, B. A., Newman, P. B., Kaiser, M. J., Gilbert, S. E., and Lock, K. M. (2001). A study of catches in a fleet of “ghost-fishing” pots. 

Fishery Bulletin 99, 247–253.

Butterworth, A., Clegg, I., and Bass, C. (2012). Untangled- Marine debris: a global picture of the impact on animal welfare and of animalfocused solutions, World Society for the Protection of Animals, London.

Carr, A. (1987). Impact of nondegradable marine debris on the ecology and survival outlook of sea turtles. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18, 

352–356.

Carr, H., Blott, A., and Caruso, P. (1992). A study of ghost gillnets in the inshore waters of southern New England, In Proc. Mar. Technology. 

Soc. Conf. pp 361–367.

Carswell, B., K. McElwee, and S. Morison (eds.). (2011). Technical Proceedings of the Fifth International Marine Debris Conference. March 

20–25, 2011. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-38.

Ceccarelli, D. (2009). Impacts of plastic debris on Australian marine wildlife. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. 

Commonwealth of Australia.

Chiappone, M., White, A., Swanson, D. W., and Miller, S. L. (2002). Occurrence and biological impacts of fishing gear and other marine 

debris in the Florida Keys. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, 597–604.

Clark, R., Pittman, S. J., Battista, T. A., and Caldow, C. (2012). Survey and impact assessment of derelict fish traps in St. Thomas and St. 

John, U.S. Virgin Islands, (Science, N. N. C. f. C. O., Ed.) p 51, U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD.

Council Regulation (EC) No. 41/2006 of 21 December 2006 fixing for 2007 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain 

fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are 

required [2007] OJ L15/1

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. (January 2014). Marine wildlife strandings annual reports. Retrieved from: 

http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/caring-for-wildlife/strandnet-reports.html

Donohue, M. J., Boland, R. C., Sramek, C. M., and Antonelis, G. A. (2001). Derelict Fishing Gear in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: 

Diving Surveys and Debris Removal in 1999 Confirm Threat to Coral Reef Ecosystems. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42, 1301–1312.

CITED REFERENCES

16
2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 17

Erzini, K., Monteiro, C. C., Ribeiro, J., Santos, M. N., Gaspar, M., Monteiro, P., and Borges, T. C. (1997). An experimental study of gill 

net and trammel net ‘ghost fishing’ off the Algarve (southern Portugal). Marine Ecology Progress Series 158, 257–265.

FANTARED. Incidental impact of gill nets. EC project no. 94/095.

FANTARED 2. (2003). A study to identify, quantify and ameliorate the impacts of static gear lost at sea. EC contract FAIR-PL98-4338. 

ISBN 0-903941-97-X. 1–501

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2001). Fishing with Traps and Pots. Slack-Smith, R.J. Retrieved from: http://

www.fao.org/docrep/004/x2590e/x2590e02.htm

GhostNets project in bid for award. (2012, March 28). Arafura Times, p. 7. Retrieved from: http://issuu.com/regionalandremote/docs/

at__28_march_2112

Ghost Fishing.org. (2013, September 23). Pilot successful: 20 tons of fishing nets transported for 

recycling. Retrieved from: 

http://www.ghostfishing.org/pilot-successful-20-tons-of-fishing-nets-transported-for-recycling/

Good, T. P., June, J. A., Etnier, M. A., and Broadhurst, G. (2009). Ghosts of the Salish Sea: Threats to Marine Birds in Puget Sound and 

the Northwest Straits from Derelict Fishing Gear. Marine Ornithology 37, 67–76.

Good, T. P., June, J. A., Etnier, M. A., and Broadhurst, G. (2010). Derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits: Patterns 

and threats to marine fauna. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60, 39–50.

Guillory, V., McMillen-Jackson, A., Hartman, L., Perry, H., FLoyd, T., Wagner, T., and Graham, G. (2001). Blue crab derelict traps and 

trap removal programs.

Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation. (2015). The Bottom Line Project: Rope Reduced, Re-used 

and Recycled. Retrieved from: 

http://www.gomlf.org/projects.asp?page=current&subsubpage=10

Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation. (2013). Lobster Lines, Issue 6. Retrieved from: 

http://www.gomlf.org/docs/news/LobsterLines_Winter2013.pdf

Hareide, N. R., Garnes, G., Rihan, D. J., Mulligan, M. C., Tyndall, P., Clark, M., Connolly, P., Misund, R., McMullen, P. H., Furevik, D. 

M., Humborstad, O. B., Hoydal, K., and Blasdale, T. (2005). A preliminary investigation on shelf edge and deepwater fixed net fisheries 

to the west and north of Great Britain, Ireland, around Rockall and Hatton Bank., p 47, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, Fiskeridirecktoratet, 

Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission, Sea Fish Industry Authority, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Marine Institute Foras na 

Mara.

Havens, K. J., Bilkovic, D. M., Stanhope, D., Angstadt, K., and Hershner, C. (2008). The effects of derelict blue crab traps on marine 

organisms in the lower York River, Virginia. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28, 1194–1200.

Havens, K., Bilkovic, D. M., Stanhope, D., and Angstadt, K. (2011). Fishery failure, unemployed commercial fishers, and lost blue crab 

pots: An unexpected success story. Environmental Science & Policy 14, 445–450.

Healthy Seas. (2014). Healthy Seas Results, 2014. Retrieved from: http://healthyseas.org/assets/uploads/2015/02/HealthySeas_2014.pdf

Henderson, J. R. (1984). Encounters of Hawaiian monk seals with fishing gear at Lisianski Island, 1982. Marine Fisheries Review 46, 

59–61.

Hébert, M., Miron, G., Moriyasu, M., Vienneau, R., and DeGrace, P. (2001). Efficiency and ghost fishing of snow crab (Chionoecetes 

opilio) traps in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Fisheries Research 52, 143–153.

High, W., (1981). Wreck-netters capture more fish than they know. National Fisherman 62 (7), 

122

High, W. L. (1976). Escape of Dungeness crabs from pot. Marine Fisheries Review 38, 19–23.
18 2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 

Humborstad, O.-B., Løkkeborg, S., Hareide, N.-R., and Furevik, D. M. (2003). Catches of Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) 

in deepwater ghost-fishing gillnets on the Norwegian continental slope. Fisheries Research 64, 163–170.

Huse, I., Løkkeborg, S., and Soldal, A. V. (2000). Relative selectivity in trawl, longline and gillnet fisheries for cod and haddock. ICES 

Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 57, 1271–1282.

Hwang, S.T. and Ko, J.P., (2007). Achievement and progress of marine litter retrieval project

in near coast of Korea - based on activities of Korea Fisheries Infrastructure

Promotion Association. Presentation to Regional Workshop on Marine Litter, Rhizao,

China, June 2007. North West Pacific Action Plan.

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea - ICES. (2000). Fisheries technology committee ICES CM 2000/B:03 Working group on 

fishing technology and fish behaviour IJmmuiden, The Netherlands.

Johnson, A., Salvador, G., Kenney, J., Robbins, J., Kraus, S. D., Landry, S., and Clapham, P. (2005). Fishing gear involved in entanglements of 

right and humpback whales. Marine Mammal Science 21, 635–645.

Johnson, H. (2012, December 2). Maine Voices: A million lost lobster traps wash debris ashore. Portland Press Herald. Retrieved from: 

http://www.pressherald.com/2012/12/02/maine-voices-a-million-lost-lobster-traps-wash-debris-ashore_2012-12-02/

Kaiser, M. J., Bullimore, B., Newman, P., Lock, K., and Gilbert, S. (1996). Catches in ‘ghost fishing’’ set nets. Marine Ecology Progress Series 

145, 11–16.

Kiessling, I. (2003). Finding Solutions: Derelict fishing gear and other marine debris in Northern Australia.

Koslow, J. A., Boehlert, G. W., Gordon, J. D. M., Haedrich, R. L., Lorance, P., and Parin, N. (2000). Continental slope and deep-sea fisheries: 

implications for a fragile ecosystem. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 57, 548–557.

Kubota, M. (1994). A Mechanism for the Accumulation of Floating Marine Debris North of Hawai‘i. Journal of Physical Oceanography 24, 

1059–1064.

Laist, D. W. (1987). Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine environment. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 18, 319–326.

Leitch, K. (2001). Entanglement of marine turtles in netting: northeast Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, Australia. Dhimurru Land 

Management Aboriginal Corporation, Nhulunbuy.

Louisiana Sea Grant. (2015). Derelict Crab Trap Rodeos: Past Rodeos. Retrieved from: 

http://www.laseagrant.org/crabtraps/past/ 

Lyons, Casey. (2012, April). Net Loss: Is Ghost Gear Hurting the Fishing Industry? Boston Magazine. Retrieved from: http://www.

bostonmagazine.com/2012/03/lost-fishing-gear-massachusetts/.

Mace, T. H. (2012). At-sea detection of marine debris: Overview of technologies, processes, issues, and options. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

65, 23–27.

Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., and Cappell, R. (2009). Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear, UNEP FAO, Rome, Italy.

Maselko, J., Bishop, G., and Murphy, P. (2013). Ghost Fishing in the Southeast Alaska Commercial Dungeness Crab Fishery. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 33, 422–431.

Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, Division of Marine Fisheries. (2015). Protected Species. Retrieved (2015, January 29). from: 

http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/dmf/programs-and-projects/protected-species.html

Matsuoka, T., Nakashima, T., and Nagasawa, N. (2005). A review of ghost fishing: scientific approaches to evaluation and solutions. 

Fisheries Science 71, 691–702.

Matthews, T. R., and Glazer, R. A. (2010). Assessing opinions on abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear in the Caribbean, In Proceedings 

of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute pp 12–22, Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, c/o Harbor Branch Oceanographic 

Institution, Inc. Fort Pierce FL 34946 United States.

Maximenko, N., Hafner, J., and Niiler, P. (2012). Pathways of marine debris derived from trajectories of Lagrangian drifters. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin 65, 51–62.
2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 19

McElwee, K., Donohue, M. J., Courtney, C. A., Morishige, C., and Rivera-Vicente, A. (2012). A strategy for detecting derelict fishing gear at 

sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 65, 7–15.

Meager, J., and Limpus, C. (2012). Marine wildlife stranding and mortality database annual report 2011. III. Marine Turtle. Conservation 

Technical and Data report 3, 1–46.

Meager, J., Winter, K., Biddle, T., and Limpus, C. (2012). Marine wildlife stranding and mortality database annual report 2008–2010. II. 

Cetacean and Pinniped. Conservation Technical and Data report 2, 1–76.

Merrett, N., and Haedrich, R. (1997). Deep-sea demersal fish and fisheries, Chapman and Hall, London.

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. (2014, April 16). Resource Issue: Lost Fishing Gear 

Project. Retrieved from: http://montereybay.noaa.gov/resourcepro/resmanissues/lostgear.html 

Nagelkerken, I., Wiltjer, G. A. M. T., Debrot, A. O., and Pors, L. P. J. J. (2001). Baseline Study of Submerged Marine Debris at Beaches in 

Curacao, West Indies. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42, 786–789.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2004-2013). Hawaii Longline Deep Set Annual Status Reports. Retrieved from: http://www.fpir.noaa.

gov/OBS/obs_hi_ll_ds_rprts.html

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2004-2013). Hawaii Longline Shallow Set Annual Status Reports. Retrieved from: http://www.fpir.noaa.

gov/OBS/obs_hi_ll_ss_rprts.html

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2007). Recovery plan for the Hawaiian monk seal 

(Monachus schauinslandi). p 165 pp., Silver Spring, MD.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2012). U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine

Mammal Stock Assessments. (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-221). Woods Hole, MA: Waring, G., Josephson, E., Maze-Foley, 

K., and Rose, P. Retrieved from: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ao2011.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010). Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center “Hawaiian Monk Seal: Top Threats.” Retrieved from: 

http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/Library/PRD/Hawaiian%20monk%20seal/Fact%20Sheets/HMS-top_threats.MAY2010.pdf.

National Research Council. (2008). Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Natural Resources Consultants, Inc. (2012). Spatial Distribution and Magnitude of Derelict Shrimp Pots and their Potential Impacts to 

Rockfish in the Puget Sound.

Newman, S. J., Skepper, C. L., Mitsopoulos, G. E. A., Wakefield, C. B., Meeuwig, J. J., and Harvey, E. S. (2011). Assessment of the Potential 

Impacts of Trap Usage and Ghost Fishing on the Northern Demersal Scalefish Fishery. Reviews in Fisheries Science 19, 74–84.

Page, B. D., McKenzie, J., McIntosh, R., Baylis, A., Morrisey, A., Calvert, N., Haase, T., Berris, M., Dowie, D., Shaughnessy, P. D., and 

Goldsworthy, S. D. (2004). Entanglement of Australian sea lions and New Zealand fur seals in lost fishing gear and other marine debris 

before and after Government and industry attempts to reduce the problem. Marine Pollution Bulletin 49, 33–42.

Pecci, K. (1978). Ghost fishing of vented and unvented lobster, Homarus americanus, traps. Marine Fisheries Review 40, 9–43.

Petrone, C. “Ghostbusting in the Chesapeake: Rounding Up Derelict Fishing Gear” 

Virginia Sea Grant, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and Center for Coastal Resources Management. Retrieved from: http://www2.

vims.edu/bridge/DATA.cfm?Bridge_Location=archive1010.html

Piatt, J. F., and Nettleship, D. N. (1987). Incidental catch of marine birds and mammals in 

fishing nets off Newfoundland, Canada. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18, 344–349.

Pichel, W., Veenstra, T., Churnside, J., Arabini, E., Friedman, K., Foley, D., Brainard, R., Kiefer, D., Ogle, S., and Clemente-Colon, P. (2003). 

Ghost net-derelict net detection in the North Pacific and Alaska waters using satellite and airborne remote sensing and surface drifters, In 

Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Symposium on Remote Sensing of the Environment, Honolulu, USA.

Pichel, W. G., Churnside, J. H., Veenstra, T. S., Foley, D. G., Friedman, K. S., Brainard, R. E., Nicoll, J. B., Zheng, Q., and Clemente-Colon, P. 

(2007). Marine debris collects within the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54, 1207–1211.
20 2015 MARINE DEBRIS GHOST FISHING REPORT 

Pooley, S. G. (2000). Proceedings of the International Marine Debris Conference: Derelict Fishing Gear and the Ocean Environment, In 

International Marine Debris Conference: Derelict Fishing Gear and the Ocean Environment (McIntosh, N., Simonds, K., Donohue, M. J., 

Brammer, C., Mason, S., and Carbajal, S., Eds.) p 217, NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries, Hawai’i Convention Center, Honolulu, HI.

Revill, A. S., and Dunlin, G. (2003). The fishing capacity of gillnets lost on wrecks and on open ground in UK coastal waters. Fisheries Research 

64, 107–113.

Roeger, S., Munungurr, M., and Wise, P. (2004). Entanglement of Miyapunu (marine turtles) in ghost netting: Northeast Arnhem Land, 

Northern Territory, Australia. Report by Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation to Alcan Gove Pty Limited, WWF-Australia 

and the Northern Land Council-Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account, Nhulunbuy, NT.

Sancho, G., Puente, E., Bilbao, A., Gomez, E., and Arregi, L. (2003). Catch rates of monkfish (Lophius spp.) by lost tangle nets in the Cantabrian 

Sea (northern Spain). Fisheries Research 64, 129–139.

Santos, M. N., Saldanha, H. J., Gaspar, M. B., and Monteiro, C. C. (2003). Hake (Merluccius merluccius L., 1758) ghost fishing by gill nets off 

the Algarve (southern Portugal). Fisheries Research 64, 119–128.

Schreiber, Laurie. (2011) “Sinking Line Formula and Deployment Still Experimental” Fishermen’s Voice. May 2011, Vol. 16, No.5. Retrieved 

from: http://www.fishermensvoice.com/archives/0511SinkingLineFormulaAndDeploymentStillExperimental.html

Sheridan, P., Hill, R. L., Matthews, G., Appledoorn, R., Kojis, B. J., and Matthews, T. (2005). Does Trap Fishing Impact Coral Reef Ecosystems? 

An Update, In 56th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute.

Shomura, R. S., and Godfrey, M. L. (1990). Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, (Service, D. N. N. M. F., 

Ed.) p 1304.

Smolowitz, R. J., Corps, L. N., and Center, N. F. (1978). Lobster, Homarus americanus, trap design and ghost fishing. Marine Fisheries Review 

40, 2–8.

Stevens, B. G., Vining, I., Byersdorfer, S., and Donaldson, W. (2000). Ghost fishing by Tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi) pots off Kodiak, 

Alaska: pot density and catch per trap as determined from sidescan sonar and pot recovery data. Fishery Bulletin 98, 389–399.

Stewart, B. S., and Yochem, P. K. (1987). Entanglement of pinnipeds in synthetic debris and fishing net and line fragments at San Nicolas and 

San Miguel Islands, California, 1978–1986. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18, 336–339.

Tasker, M. L., Camphuysen, C., Cooper, J., Garthe, S., Montevecchi, W. A., and Blaber, S. J. (2000). The impacts of fishing on marine birds. ICES 

Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 57, 531–547.

Tschernij, V., and Larsson, P. O. (2003). Ghost fishing by lost cod gill nets in the Baltic Sea. Fisheries Research 64, 151–162.

Uhrin, A., Matthews, T., and Lewis, C. (2014). Lobster Trap Debris in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: Distribution, Abundance, 

Density, and Patterns of Accumulation. Marine and Coastal Fisheries, 20–32.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS),Center for Coastal Resources Management. (2013). “CCRM Marine Debris Location & Removal 

Project- Bycatch”. http://ccrm.vims.edu/marine_debris_removal/bycatch/index.html

Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), Center for Coastal Resources Management. (2013). 

CCRM Marine Debris Location & Removal Project. Retrieved from: http://ccrm.vims.edu/marine_debris_removal/index.html

Volgenau, L., Kraus, S. D., and Lien, J. (1995). The impact of entanglements on two substocks of the western North Atlantic humpback whale, 

Megaptera novaeangliae. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73, 1689–1698.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2013). Lower Columbia River Fisheries Reform Process. Retrieved from http://wdfw.wa.gov/

conservation/fisheries/lower_columbia/

Way, E. (1977). Lost Gill Net, (ghost Net), Retrieval Project, 1976. Environment Canada, Fisheries Development, Newfoundland Region.

Wiig, H.C. (2004). A cost comparison of various methods of retrieving derelict fishing gear. Paper presented at the APEC Seminar on Derelict 

Fishing Gear and Related Marine Debris, Honolulu, Hawaii Jan 2004.

Williams, R., Ashe, E., and O’Hara, P. D. (2011). Marine mammals and debris in coastal waters of British Columbia, Canada. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 62, 1303–1316.
Penny Pritzker

United States Secretary of Commerce 

Dr. Kathryn D. Sullivan

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere

Dr. Russell Callender 

Acting Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service