The so called pragmatic approach to the welfare of aquatic animals (Arlinghaus et al. 2007) measures welfare status using a variety of well-established, un-controversial physiological and functional parameters (Rose et al. 2014, Browman et al. 2019). For example, all finfish, crustaceans and cephalopods can experience stress, which can lead to poor welfare outcomes (Rose et al. 2014). From an animal welfare perspective, the overall aim to maximise fish welfare during capture is to minimise stress within the constraint of practices inherent to the relevant fishing sector (Mazur and Bodsworth 2022).
Using this pragmatic approach, the Aquatic Animal Welfare Working Group (AAWWG) which was formed under the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy (AAWS, 2005-2014), developed a range of Overarching Welfare Principles which related to finfish harvested from the wild in commercial fishing industries.
Out of the eight Overarching Principles developed by the AAWWG, as pointed out by Mazur and Bodsworth (2022) the three that are most relevant to the commercial wild harvest industry are:
1. Timely handling from capture to death is essential to minimise stress;
2. Capture methods should be designed to minimise the capture of unwanted species
3. Any fish selected for harvest should be killed as rapidly as possible, by humane means suitable for the species.
To address the legislative issues under the new Act, meet current and future fish welfare challenges, and maintain their social license to fish, commercial fishers targeting sharks in the NT need to develop workable and effective standards for handling and dispatching sharks which can be recognised and prescribed under the new Regulations.
Since shark fisheries are specialist fisheries which were not covered by the AAWWG during the AAWS, there is a need to develop specific resources to assist the industry with humane dispatch of sharks.
Science shows that brain destruction by pithing or “iki-jime” is the fastest way to dispatch finfish, resulting in the lowest levels of stress and maximising the quality and shelf life of the resulting fish product (Poli et al. 2005, Diggles 2015). However, the brains of sharks are small and vary in location between species, which is why this project is being proposed and is necessary to determine the brain location of the sharks most commonly captured in the NT shark fishery, and then examine various methods of rapidly destroying the brain, in order to develop guidelines and best practice protocols for their humane dispatch. Importantly, it should be noted that this is an industry driven project.

References

Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ, Schwab A, Cowx IG (2007). Fish welfare: A challenge to the feelings based approach, with implications for recreational fishing. Fish and Fisheries 8: 57-71.

Browman HI, Cooke SJ, Cowx IG, Derbyshire SWG, Kasumyan A, Key B, Rose JD, Schwab A, Skiftesvik AB, Stevens ED, Watson CA, Arlinghaus R (2019). Welfare of aquatic animals: where things are, where they are going, and what it means for research, aquaculture, recreational angling, and commercial fishing. ICES Journal of Marine Science 76: 82–92. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsy067

Diggles BK (2015). Development of resources to promote best practice in the humane dispatch of finfish caught by recreational fishers. Fisheries Management and Ecology DOI: 10.1111/fme.12127

Mazur N, Bodsworth A (2022). Practicing aquatic animal welfare: Identifying and mitigating obstacles to uptake and adoption by the Australian Seafood Industry. Final Report for FRDC Project No 2019-023, March 2022. 60 pgs.

Poli BM, Parisi G, Scappini F, Zampacavallo G (2005). Fish welfare and quality as affected by presaughter and slaughter management. Aquaculture International 13: 29-49.

Rose JD, Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ, Diggles BK, Sawynok W, Stevens ED, Wynne CD (2014). Can fish really feel pain? Fish and Fisheries 15: 97–133.

Fish are totemic and a primary food source; and so are part of the deep cultural, spiritual and economic connections Aboriginal communities have to their waterways that are part of ‘Country’. Cultural knowledge tells us that when there’s more water availability cultural fishers experience increased total catches and greater diversity of target species, and they fish more (e.g. increase in recreational and subsistence fishing). These narratives also suggest that as a result of these improved cultural fishing opportunities, there are flow on socio-economic benefits to household budgets, diets of communities, social behaviours and mental health and well-being.

Water is sacred and living; and central to the cultural, social and spiritual identity of Aboriginal people, as well as to their livelihoods. Conceptual models underpinning western water management frameworks and decision making do not incorporate Aboriginal/First Nations socio-cultural complexity, local knowledge and governance arrangements. These are critical – Aboriginal/First Nations people have strong connections with fish, water, rivers and knowledge to contribute to planning, as well as a fundamental right to participate. Water and fish are central to the way of life, two-way knowledge and planning frameworks will support reciprocity in engagement and participation.

Two-Eyed Seeing Frameworks (Ganma, Yolgnu for two-ways) provide a way forward for cultural fishery assessments supporting equitable and sustainable access to shared resources. In this framework, knowledge systems (western and cultural) contribute in parallel, on an equal footing, and both serve as evidence bases to produce an enriched picture of mutual understanding. Application of this framework can empower Aboriginal communities to participate more equitably and negotiate by using their science and values and providing a method for inclusion.

The overall objective of this proposed project is to empower Aboriginal communities through application of a “Two-Eyed seeing framework” (Reid et al. 2020) to participate more equitably and negotiate for cultural fishing practices and water allocation and management. This project will define the cultural fishery and quantify the socio-economic value of cultural fishing in two NSW river regions, and assist communities to identify water management needs for key cultural fish species to support ongoing planning and negotiations. It will improve our current fishery and water management by providing a pathway for cultural fisheries and cultural science to be included. Overall, it will increase our current knowledge of fish and fisheries, by bridging the gap between cultural science and western science practitioners and knowledge holders to share understandings, insights and skills. The application and extension of this framework to a national project will be considered for future use in addressing cultural fishery allocations and management.