On 11th Feb. 2002 I had been to the on-sea field trial of TED off New Fishing Harbour, Paradeep along with others in a private vessel. We had conducted different experiments in different conditions of sea.
The first haul was made at 17 fathom and the second at 15 fathom. While our haul at 17 fathom was going on, we had seen other 3 boats doing their haul at the same depth of 17 fathom also. We saw no turtle on the surface of sea or in the net while hauling at 17 fathom. However we came to learn that another experimental boat hauling at 15 fathom did catch a turtle, which was found in the second cod end.
So my observation is that nearer the shore, more possibility of getting the turtles in the catch. So I endorse the views expressed by our Fisheries Department and concerned NGOs that the turtle congregation is thicker in near-shore waters, and should concentrate our conservation efforts in these areas.
In my opinion, we should respect the world opinion for conservation of sea turtles. In areas upto 10 km off the coastline, where the turtle congregation is thick, the TED should be used in trawl fishing.
While analyzing the fish catch hauled up, I found that as much as 35% of the total catch belonged to the miscellaneous category, which is used only for fish meal and taken away by the operators. The trawl owner does not get anything out of this miscellaneous category. The 5% of the total catch we found to be consisting of valuable species, which is taken fully by the trawl owner. The remaining 60% of the total catch is B Class mixed with C Class fishes. We call this category as economic variety, which is sold at a price of Rs. 20/- to Rs 25/- per kg. The fish accidentally escaping through the TED hole falls under this category. The percentage of escape as claimed by different persons is 5%, 10% and so on and so forth. We can ascertain the authentic percentage of fish escape by undertaking more of experimental hauls.
But the most valuable of the species in the catch, that is, shrimp which virtually sustains the trawling industry is not at all hampered by the use of TED.
In view of my suggestion for use of TED in areas upto 10 km off the coast lines, I now consider it open to debate whether the TED should be applied beyond 10 km or not.
We should keep in mind another important factor in this connection i.e. the fishing vessels are coming from outside, intruding into our coastal waters and taking away the fishes, over which we are not able to exercise any control. What is the use of becoming too rigid towards our own trawlers? How to regulate the intrusion of outside trawls into our waters and their consequent plunder of our resources is the crucial agenda before us, which however cannot materialize without the co-operation of the local trawl owners of our coast.
Now coming to the apprehension of the trawl owners that 30 to 40% of the fish catch is getting lost due to TED from the B and C Classes of fish, I feel, it is not true and you should reexamine it. In monetary terms, you are not losing much, since there is no escape of precious shrimp. Quantity-wise we might lose much but not in terms of price. Our trawler industry shall have to sacrifice the percentage of fish loss for a noble cause of turtle conservation, about which the whole world is deeply concerned.
If we oppose TED on the ground of fish loss, we shall only expose our weaknesses before the whole world and let others know about the fact of turtle killing by our trawl nets.
Let us first use TED within 10 km off the coastline and see what happens to the turtles. If the turtles still die, then we can point our finger at other factors responsible for turtle killing, not the trawling. Then only we can say with surety that the trawling industry should not be blamed for turtle death.
As a matter of fact, we are yet to know the very many factors for which turtles are killed in large numbers. Most of the people are superficial in their allegation against the trawlers as turtle killers. In order to disprove such wild changes leveled against the trawling industry, let us use TED and bear some losses at least for a period of one year as we do on so many fronts.
At last I want to know from the house, whether TED should be applied in areas beyond 10 km off the coastline.
THANKS
I was in the Departmental boat MV Crown. Such persons as Dr. Sudhakar Kar a Wildlife Scientist, Sri Manoj Kar from Project Swarajya, Sri Niranjan Nayak of Balasore Trawl Owners Association, and Sri Uday Kumar Das a Wildlife Scholar along with a photographer were in the boat among others.
There were two hauls made. The First haul was made without TED off Nehru Bunglow at 14 fathom depth in a low opening net for a duration of one hour. The total catch we got was 54.80 kg only. Most of the catch consisted of B and C class fishes, the amount of shrimp component was negligible, i.e. only 1.4kg.
The Second haul was made with TED in a high opening net for one and half hours .The total catch as found in the main cod end was 40.200 kg while the 2nd cod end had 7kg only. In my view, while pulling the net up, some fishes of the main cod end do slip off to the second cod end, which remains attached to it. Moreover, one haul is not at all sufficient to prove the amount of fish escape. In needs more of trials. Again the TED also needs further modification with a view to minimize the escape of fish.
In my opinion, we cannot oppose TED, since it is the international obligation of our country. However, further research is necessary in ensure the escape of turtle on one had, and maximum retention of fish catch on the other.
We do understand the problems faced by the trawl owners owing to price hike of diesel and other inputs, for which they don't get the return in comparison to the investment made. Such a situation calls for modification of TED design so as to help the trawlers catch more of fish.
Be that as it may, we have to save the turtles too, in the very interest of environment protection and therefore go for the use of TED of appropriate design. THANKS.
We had conducted two hauls of bottom trawling at 15 to 16 fathom depth and about 11 to 12 km off the coastline, each of hour duration. Though in both hauls TED was used, in the first haul, the extra cod end was used, while in the next it was not used. In the first haul, the total fish found in the main cod end was 41 and odd kg while there was 2 kg 600 g. in the extra cod end. Thus the percentage of fish escape was 5.87% only. In the next haul where we didn't use the extra cod end, the total fish caught was 26 kg only.
As we compared our amount of catch with that of other 3 trawlers, ours was the lowest one. Perhaps the ground where we fished was not a suitable fishing ground.
Two members of trawl owners association who accompanied us opined that the real amount of escape would be much more than what we found at last in the extra cod end. But I don't agree with them. A number of experimental hauls are required to ascertain whether the escaping amount of fish would be more or less.
We didn't catch any big fish. Neither was any turtle caught in our net. We had only noticed two dead turtles floating on the surface of sea at a distance.
Our main aim was to see how much fish escaped through the TED hole. But as I said, quite a good number of comparative hauls need to be conducted to arrive at a conclusion on this point.
I was the group leader of Deva Sabya trawler, in which a total of 12 persons accompanied me including 3 trawl owners, CIFT scientist Dr. R. Raghu Prakash and Mr. K.Gopal Krishnan of FSI. We conducted two hauls at 15 fathom depth using TED for one hour duration each.
In the first haul, there was no turtle and only 5 kg of fish was found in the main cod end, while 100 gm of fish in the extra cod end.
In the second haul, the total fish catch was 75 kg. One adult male Olive ridley turtle in live condition was found inside the extra cod end. We took the measurement and photo of the turtle. Sri Kishore Rath, Secretary of OMFPA (Orissa Marine Fish Producers Association) who was present there, could see for himself how the turtle escaped from the net through the exit hole of TED.
Again, in the second haul, in which there was 75 kg of fish in the main cod end, the percentage of fish escape seemed to be relatively higher i.e. more than 3 kg We had noted down details of composition of fish escape as found in the 2nd cod end.
In my opinion, the application of TED won't guarantee 100 percent protection to sea turtles. Moreover the use of TED is bound to cause some loss of fish catch. As we saw in yesterday's experiments, some large fishes which could not pass through the narrow space between the bars of TED, were found covering the large area of TED surface. If this happens, the fishes getting blocked at the TED door, might damage the net and consequently the trawler might show mechanical errors.
As you know, way back in 1996 we had conduced a Workshop on TED, and now in 2002 after the long lapse of about six years, we are having the present one. If such a large time gap is allowed in TED experiments, we cannot expect much. Now the trawl owners should be encouraged to carry out the TED experiments by themselves. There are sensible and intelligent persons among them no doubt. They have got a large experience in the field too. So we should not impose anything on them.
However, TED being a novel device should be given a fair trial. Though they have seen yesterday's experiments, the trawl owners should have more of them by their own efforts in future. In course of such experiments, the design of TED may get modified to suit the trawl owners. Other issues and problems might be sorted out in due course of these experiments.
If I am asked to prioritise, I would say, first comes the interest of the trawling fishermen, and then that of the turtles. So anything required for conservation of sea turtles with the help of TED need be implemented in full co-operation of the trawl owners themselves.
Yesterday's experiments do not prove TED to be a foolproof device for preventing the turtle death. Moreover, taking the large width of the trawl nets into account, we cannot say with certainty that the turtles die inside the net. We conducted fishing experiments in 4 trawlers, each for 2 hauls. Only in only one haul, we could see a turtle caught.
No turtle dies so quickly. It has a sound longevity. As we know, the turtle is a reptile and breathes through its lungs. It can hold its breath for 3 to 5 hours. Whenever a turtle is caught in the net alive, we can bring it up on board and then let it go free in the waters.
At last I hope that in the present scenario of controversy around TED, each party has to make some adjustment or the other, and then only we can reach the solution acceptable to all.
I would like to request all of you to maintain some decorum, while the talks are being delivered. I now request Dr.C.S. Kar, the Wildlife Scientist to deliver his talk. Let me tell you further that myself and Dr.Kar had been to Australia and Malaysia where the use, modification and benefits of TED have been observed by Dr. Kar. He has also great field experience over years in turtle conservation.
Yesterday I was in a fishing vessel, which conducted 2 hauls. The first haul showed some technical handicaps, which were observed by the technical personnel and fishery officers and then rectified. Accordingly, after making some readjustments, the 2nd haul was conduced for one and half hours in place of the earlier duration of one hour only. The fish catch we got was to our satisfaction. One turtle was also caught as found in the 2nd cod end. That TED would exit the turtle was proved beyond any shade of doubt. The catch loss was minimal, 3 to 4 percent only.
In an area, such as the one we visited, where there is average availability of fish, the operation of TED is no doubt effective. But when there are a large shoal of fishes getting into the net, the TED might pose a problem. The Secretary of OMFPA( Orissa Marine Fish Producers Association) who was present in our boat yesterday, told me that once in January last, in only a single haul of 3 hours duration, they had got as much as 3 tons of fish. In such a situation, how far the TED would help or hinder, is to be probed.
Thus in areas, where there is thin congregation of turtles, the TED would be effective as was found yesterday. But in an area like Gahiramatha, Devi Mouth or Rushikulya mouth, where there is thick congregation of turtles, it is next to impossible for the mass of turtles (say, 10 or above at a time) to get out of the net, irrespective of whether you have TED or any other device fixed to the trawl net. That is why the fishing in such areas, where the turtle congregation is thick, is banned. If the mating pairs of turtles get disturbed some how or other by the fishing activities, it would lead to a totally chaotic scenario for them.
Coming again to the question of TED, as you know, it was developed in 80s in USA and underwent a lot of modifications thereafter. Some quarters had raised the question of patent rights of US TED. For about 5 years a lot of controversy raged around it. Then it became clear that US or for that matter any body didn't hold any patent rights over the device. As you would see, different countries are developing different designs of TED and give them the names of their choice such as Thai TED, Australian TED, etc.
Particularly in Australia and Malaysia, I found that the trawler associations of these countries have been entrusted with the responsibility of designing the TED of their choice. They are just given a standard model of TED and told to modify it as per their need. The fishery scientists and Government officials are also called to participate in the experiments of the new designs of TED model by the trawler associations. No specific design of TED can be said to be the final one. There is a constant process of modification and experimentation of TED designs going on in those countries.
In case of India as you know, the Central Institute of Fisheries Technology (CIFT) with the help of their gear technicians have come up with a particular TED model. Here also in India, as you know, the fishing conditions differ from coast to coast. In my opinion, keeping all these factors in view, there should be constant experimentation made on the devices like TED and review thereof from time to time.
We should not insist on a particular design of TED to be made mandatory for all trawlers and for all coasts. As you know, the TED was called Trawling Efficiency Device in USA and meant for shrimp trawling only. But here in India we want mixed catch of all varieties. We don't throw away any thing from our fish bag, but make use of every catch some how or the other. What is required here is therefore the constant experimentation for evolving the necessary new, new designs of TED to suit our different fishing conditions, involving all concerned- trawler associations, fishery officials, gear technologists, and wildlife scientists etc. So let us start a coordinated endeavour for such experimentation of TED designs and continue it regularly all through till we are able to develop the commonly accepted models for our coasts. If we come up in this process with a viable model for Orissa coast, we may give it a different name, say for instance ORITED in place of the existing CIFT-TED. THANKS.