Forum Discussions - RTAngler

Bluefin Tuna in the Gulf

2010-05-23T11:38:59.000Z

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/the-atlantic-bluefin-tuna-the-gulf-oil-spills-unluckiest-aquatic-victim/19460612

Fish Oil

2009-12-16T13:01:59.000Z

A fisherman on fish oil production

HOW TO TIE FISHING KNOTS

2009-09-01T01:16:26.000Z

ALBRIGHT KNOT

Watch more YouTube videos on AOL Video

Tuna $takes Invitational 8/25/09

2009-08-26T01:29:47.000Z

SPECIES- What's Your Favorite

2009-06-09T15:58:35.000Z

short fin mako
The shortfin mako shark, Isurus oxyrinchus ("sharp nose"), is a large shark of the Lamnidae family. Along with the closely related longfin mako, Isurus paucus, it is commonly called just mako shark.

This species grows to an average full-grown length of 1.82–3.2 m (6–10 ft)[2][3] and to a weight of approximately 60-400 kg (135-880 lb).[4] The largest reported mako was said to be 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) and 4 m (13.2 ft), although the largest confirmed size is 3.96 m (13 ft) and 794 kg (1,750 lb).[5] It has a bluish back and white underside. Although the sexes grow at about the same rate, females are thought to have a longer life span, and grow larger and weigh more than the males. Shortfin makos are renowned for their speed and their ability to leap out of the water. In fact, there are cases when an angry mako will jump out of the water and into the boat after it has been caught on the hook. Mako sharks have a better hydrodynamic shape than all other sharks, and this, combined with the lamnidae's typical high aerobic muscle mass, reflects in the spectacular speed and agility of both the longfin and shortfin makos.

The shortfin mako shark is a sleek spindle-shaped shark with a long conical snout. This shark has short pectoral fins and a crescent shaped caudal (tail) fin. There is a distinct caudal keel on the caudal base. Its second dorsal fin is much smaller than the first. The teeth are slender and slightly curved with no lateral cusps and are visible even when the mouth is closed. There is marked countershading on this shark; dorsally it is a metallic indigo blue while ventrally it is white.[6]

The name "mako" comes from the Māori language,[7] meaning either the mako shark or a shark tooth. It may simply have originated from a dialectal variation as it is similar to the common words for shark in a number of Polynesian languages - makō in the Kāi Tahu Māori dialect,[8] mangō in other Māori dialects,[8] ma'o in Tahitian, and mano in Hawaiian. The first written usage is in Lee & Kendall's Grammar and vocabulary of the language of New Zealand (1820), which simply states "Máko; A certain fish".[9][10] Richard Taylor's A leaf from the natural history of New Zealand (1848) is more elaborate: "Mako, the shark which has the tooth so highly prized by the Maoris".[11]

The shortfin mako feeds mainly upon bony fishes including mackerels, tunas, bonitos, swordfish, and sailfish, but it may also eat other sharks, porpoises, sea turtles, and herons. In Ganzirri and Isola Lipari, Sicily, shortfin makos have been found with amputated swordfish bills impaled into their head and gills, suggesting makos are making the swordfish a major food source during late spring and early summer, corresponding to the swordfish's spawning cycle. This shark, like others, has a natural predatory instinct to attack prey while they are most vulnerable.[12]

An analysis of the stomach contents of 399 male and female mako sharks ranging from 67 to 328cm suggest makos from Cape Hatteras to the Grand Banks prefer bluefish to any other food source. In the study, bluefish constituted 77.5% of the diet by volume. The average capacity of the stomach was 10% of the body weight. Shortfin makos consumed 4.3 to 14.5% of the available bluefish between Cape Hatteras and Georges Bank. [13]

Shortfin makos over 3m (10 ft.) have been found to have anterior teeth considerably wider and flatter than smaller makos, which enables them to prey effectively upon dolphins, swordfish, and other sharks. [14]

In recent years it has been suggested that adult makos infrequently attack free-swimming dolphins. This hypothesis appeared validated when an amateur video, taken in Pacific waters, emerged, showing a moribund spotted dolphin whose tail was almost completely severed, just after a shark attack. The video shows a very large shortfin mako circling the dying dolphin. Makos also have the tendency to scavenge on long-lined and netted fish. [15]

The shortfin mako is found in offshore temperate and tropical seas worldwide. The closely related longfin mako shark, Isurus paucus, is found in the Gulf Stream or warmer offshore waters.

It is a pelagic species that can be found from the surface down to depths of 150 m (490 ft.). The shortfin mako is found in blue waters, normally far from land though occasionally closer to shore, particularly around islands or inlets.[12] One of only four known exothermic sharks, it is seldom found in waters colder than 16° C (61° F). [16]

In the western Atlantic it can be found from Argentina and the Gulf of Mexico to Browns Bank off of Nova Scotia. In Canadian waters these sharks are not abundant as they prefer warm waters, but neither are they rare. Shortfin makos are often found in the same waters as swordfish as they are a source of food and both fish prefer similar environmental conditions.[17]

It is suggested shortfin makos travel long distances to seek adequate prey or fitting mates. In December 1998, a female shortfin mako tagged off California was captured in the central Pacific by a Japanese research vessel, meaning this fish traveled over 1,725 miles (2,780 kilometers).[14]

1. IUCN (2007-02-22). More oceanic sharks added to the IUCN Red List. Press release. http://www.iucn.org/en/news/archive/2007/02/22_pr_sharks.htm. Retrieved on 2007-02-25. "The global threat status was heightened for shortfin mako, a favorite shark among commercial and recreational fishermen, from Near Threatened in 2000 to Vulnerable today."
2.
3.
4. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/shortfinmako/shortfinmako.html
5. large shortfin makos
6. a b "Shortfin Mako". Australian Museum. May 2007. http://www.australianmuseum.net.au/fishes/fishfacts/fish/ioxyrinchus.htm. Retrieved on 2008-11-15.
7. "Maori language - a glossary of useful words from the language of the Maori New Zealand". http://www.maori.info/maori_language.htm. Retrieved on 2006-08-11.
8. a b H.W.Williams (1971). Dictionary of the Maori Language (7th ed.).
9. Oxford: The Dictionary of New Zealand English: New Zealand words and their origins. 1997.
10. "Online Etymology Dictionary". http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mako. Retrieved on 2008-03-08.
11. Richard Taylor (1848). A leaf from the natural history of New Zealand. xiii.
12. a b "The Shark Gallery - Shortfin Mako Shark (Isurus oxyrinchus)". "The Shark Trust". http://sharks-med.netfirms.com/med/mako.htm. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
13. "Food, Feeding Habits, and Estimates of Daily Ration of the Shortfin Mako (Isurus oxyrinchus ) in the Northwest Atlantic.". Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Vol. 39 (no. 3): pp. 407-414.. 1982. http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=226343&q=Shortfin+mako&uid=793124504&setcookie=yes. Retrieved on 2008-11-04.
14. a b R. Aidan., Martin (2003). "Open Ocean: the Blue DesertShortfin Mako". ReefQuest Centre for Shark Research. http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/ecology/ocean-mako.htm. Retrieved on 2008-11-14.
15. Fergusson, Ian. "Shortfin Mako Shark (Isurus oxyrinchus)". http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/sharktrust/mako.shtml. Retrieved on 2008-11-18.

FISHING HISTORY PART IV THE COD

2009-04-27T20:43:10.000Z

Cod is the common name for the genus of fish Gadus, belonging to the family Gadidae, and is also used in the common name of a variety of other fishes. Cod is a popular food fish with a mild flavor, low fat content and a dense white flesh that flakes easily. Cod livers are processed to make cod liver oil, an important source of Vitamin A, Vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA). Larger cod caught during spawning are sometimes called skrei. Young Atlantic cod or haddock prepared in strips for cooking is called scrod.

The Atlantic cod, which can change color at certain water depths, has two distinct color phases: grey-green and reddish brown. Its average weight is 5 kg to 12 kg (10 lb to 25 lb), but specimens weighing up to 100 kg (200 lb) have been recorded. Cod feed on molluscs, crabs, starfish, worms, squid, and small fish. Some migrate south in winter to spawn. A large female lays up to five million eggs in midocean, a very small number of which survive.

The pollock, and coalfish are related species found in cool waters of the Atlantic. Pollock have shovel-shaped tails and pale lateral lines and grow to 1 m (3 ft) and 15 kg (30 lb). Some grow to 2 m (6 feet) in length.

Cod is moist and flaky when cooked and is white in color. In the United Kingdom, Atlantic cod is one of the most common kinds of fish to be found in fish and chips, along with haddock and plaice. It is also well known for being largely consumed in Portugal and the Basque Country, where it is considered a treasure of the nation's cuisine.

Cod are currently at risk from overfishing in the UK.[1]
Cod has been an important economic commodity in an international market since the Viking period (around 800 AD). Norwegians used dried cod during their travels and soon a dried cod market developed in southern Europe. This market has lasted for more than 1000 years, passing through periods of Black Death, wars and other crises and still is an important Norwegian fish trade.[4] The Portuguese since the 15th century have been fishing cod in the North Atlantic and clipfish is widely eaten and appreciated in Portugal. The Basques also played an important role in the cod trade and are claimed to have found the Canadian fishing banks before the Colombus' discovery of America[5]. The North American east coast developed in part due to the vast amount of cod, and many cities in the New England area spawned near cod fishing grounds.

Apart from the long history this particular trade also differs from most other trade of fish by the location of the fishing grounds, far from large populations and without any domestic market. The large cod fisheries along the coast of North Norway (and in particular close to the Lofoten islands) have been developed almost uniquely for export, depending on sea transport of stockfish over large distances.[6] Since the introduction of salt, dried salt cod ('klippfisk' in Norwegian) has also been exported. The trade operations and the sea transport were by the end of the 14th century taken over by the Hanseatic League, Bergen being the most important port of trade.[7]

William Pitt the Elder, criticizing the Treaty of Paris in Parliament, claimed that cod was "British gold"; and that it was folly to restore Newfoundland fishing rights to the French.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, the New World, especially in Massachusetts and Newfoundland, cod became a major commodity, forming trade networks and cross-cultural exchanges. In 1773, Britain tried to gain control over trade between New England and the British Caribbean by imposing the Molasses Act, which they believed should have eliminated the trade by making it unprofitable. After Britain began to tax the American settlers, the cod trade grew instead of being eliminated because the “French were eager to work with the New Englanders in a lucrative contraband arrangement” (p. 95). The American settlers traded cod with the French Caribbean for molasses to make rum at this time, and the increase in trade benefited the American market because of the contraband agreement. In addition to increasing trade, the New England settlers were organized into a “codfish aristocracy”. The American settlers rose up against British “tariff on an import, instigated by merchants, including John Hancock and John Rowe, in which the scions of the codfish aristocracy” disguised themselves, boarded their own ships, and disposed of their own goods into the harbor in protest to the tariff, more commonly known as the Boston Tea Party (p.96). [8] In the 20th century, Iceland re-emerged as a fishing power and entered the Cod Wars to gain control over the north Atlantic seas. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, cod fishing off the coast of Europe and America severely depleted cod stocks there which has since become a major political issue as the necessity of restricting catches to allow fish populations to recover has run up against opposition from the fishing industry and politicians reluctant to approve any measures that will result in job losses. The 2006 Northwest Atlantic cod quota is set at 23,000 tons representing half the available stocks, while it is set to 473,000 tons for the Northeast Atlantic cod.

The Pacific Cod is currently enjoying a strong global demand. The 2006 TAC for the Gulf of Alaska and Berning Sea Aleutian Island was set at 260,000,000 kg (574 million pounds).

References:

1. Pollack sales rise, as public gets message on cod - Green Living, Environment - Independent.co.uk
2. Piper, Ross (2007), Extraordinary Animals: An Encyclopedia of Curious and Unusual Animals, Greenwood Press.
3. "Cod", Encyclopedia Britannica online 2008
4.James Barrett, Roelf Beukens, Ian Simpson, Patrick Ashmore, Sandra Poaps and Jacqui Huntley (2000). "What Was the Viking Age and When did it Happen? A View from Orkney.". Norwegian Archaeological Review 33(1): 1. doi:10.1080/00293650050202600.
5.Kurlansky, Mark (1997). Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World. New York: Walker. ISBN 0-8027-1326-2.
6. G. Rolfsen (1966). "Norwegian fisheries Research.". FiskDir. Skr. Ser. HavUnders. 14(1): 36.
7. A. Holt-Jensen (1985). "Norway and sea the shifting importance of marine resources through Norwegian history". GeoJournal 10(4).

Fishing History Part III

2009-03-14T04:00:56.000Z

Gillnetting began with aboriginal fishermen using canoes and cedar fiber nets. They would attach stones to the bottom of the nets as weights, and pieces of wood to the top, to use as floats. This allowed the net to suspend straight up and down in the water. Each net would be suspended either from shore or between two boats. Native fishers in the Pacific Northwest, Canada, and Alaska still commonly use gillnets in their fisheries for salmon and steelhead.

By around 1864, gillnetting had expanded to European, Japanese, and other international fisheries. The boats used by these fisherman were typically around 25 feet (8 m) long and powered by oars. Many of these boats also had small sails and were called "row-sail" boats. At the beginning of the 1900s, steam powered ships would haul these smaller boats to their fishing grounds and retrieve them at the end of each day. However, at this time gas powered boats were beginning to make their appearance, and by the 1930s, the row-sail boat had virtually disappeared.

In 1931, the first powered drum was created by Laurie Jarelainen. The drum is a circular device that is set to the side of the boat and draws in the nets. The powered drum allowed the nets to be drawn in much faster and along with the faster gas powered boats, fisherman were able to fish in areas they had previously been unable to go into, thereby revolutionizing the fishing industry.

During World War II, navigation and communication devices, as well as many other forms of maritime equipment (ex. depth-sounding and radar) were improved and made more compact. These devices became much more accessible to the average fisherman, thus making their range and mobility increasingly larger. It also served to make the industry much more competitive, as the fisherman were forced to invest more into their boats and equipment in order to stay up to date with the current technology.

The introduction of fine synthetic fibres such as nylon in the construction of fishing gear during the 1960s marked an expansion in the commercial use of gillnets. The new materials were cheaper and easier to handle, lasted longer and required less maintenance than natural fibres. In addition, multifilament nylon, monofilament or multimonofilament fibres become almost invisible in water, so nets made with synthetic twines generally caught greater numbers of fish than natural fibre nets used in comparable situations.

Nylon is highly resistant to abrasion and degradation, hence the netting has the potential to last for many years if it is not recovered. This ghost fishing is of environmental concern. Attaching the gillnet floats with biodegradable material can reduce the problem.[1] However it is difficult to generalize about the longevity of ghost-fishing gillnets due to the varying environments in which they are used. Some researchers have found gill-nets to be still catching fish and crustaceans for over a year after loss[1], while others have found lost nets to be destroyed by wave action within one month[2] or overgrown with seaweeds, increasing their visibility and reducing their catching potential to such an extent that they became a microhabitat used by small fishes[3].

This type of net was heavily used by many Japanese, South Korean, and Taiwanese fishing fleets on the high seas in the 1980s to target tunas. Although highly selective with respect to size class of animals captured, gill nets are associated with high numbers of incidental captures of cetaceans, (whales and dolphins). In the Sri Lankan gill net fishery, one dolphin is caught for every 1.7-4.0 tonnes of tuna landed[4]. This compares poorly with the rate of one dolphin per 70 tonnes of tuna landed in the eastern Pacific purse seine tuna fishery. Gillnets were banned by the United Nations in 1993 in international waters, although their use is still permitted within 200 nautical miles (400 km) of a coast.

4. Potter, E.C.E. & Pawson, M.G. (1991) Gill Netting. MAFF Fisheries Leaflet 69.

PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS AND THIER AGENDA

2009-03-11T15:14:30.000Z

HIJACKING FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
(document copied from RFA Website) www.joinrfa.org
How Pew Charitable Trusts has co-opted the management process using paid-for science and a well-oiled media machine.
In late 2006, “Fisheries Face Collapse by 2048!” was the headline read and heard around the world – at least in the world of Washington, DC. It just so happens that Congress was debating the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act at that precise moment. The press stories sighted a study led by Dr. Boris Worm of Dalhousie University. While objective observers might question elements of the study, it was the media hype that the Pew Charitable Trusts (“Pew” or “the Trust”) wanted out there as part of a carefully orchestrated campaign to influence the Congressional debate on the Nation’s primary fisheries law. Dr. Worm, a regular recipient of funding from Pew, working with SeaWeb, a Pew-funded public research group that specializes in media campaigns, worked on the message and the timing to get as much media coverage as possible. They were successful. Big media loves a crisis, and when you have the money and the manpower it’s easy to plant a good fish tale.
Dr. Worm’s article was quickly labeled by top fisheries scientists and managers for what it really was – a Pew advocacy piece like much of his prior work funded by the Trust. The kicker at the end of the piece calling for “no-fishing marine reserves” as the cure was the final giveaway, a goal high on the agenda of most Pew funded organizations! Worm’s work in the past had been branded “invalid”, “misleading” and “undermining the trust placed in science.” As it turns out this was a textbook study in disseminating misinformation disguised as science to a willing media with the express purpose of influencing Congressional debate. Such scare tactics have become the darling of the radical environmental movement.
The media firestorm was part of a broader, coordinated attack that included misleading ad campaigns aimed at smearing key politicians facing re-election. The targeted Members of Congress just happened to be those involved in crafting scientifically sound legislation that also recognized the needs of recreational fishermen and industry. This campaign was led by another Pew-funded environmental group, the Marine Fish Conservation Network.
The Pew Charitable Trusts is the 800-pound gorilla of ocean issues. Created with funding from the Sun Oil Company and sitting on a $4.1 billion war chest, it is an organization that refuses to let reality get in the way of their agenda. In public documents their self-mandated mission is to “save” the oceans. They claim that the primary purpose (of the Trust) ‘is to award grants to other organizations as well as direct planning and conducting projects and initiatives that carryout the organizations religious, charitable, scientific, literary and educational purposes.’ This validates that Pew grant recipients are carrying out the ideas and motivations of Pew. The impact of such tactics is changing the direction of fisheries policy. True management and conservation is gradually being replaced by a call to stop all fishing through the use of paid-for science funneled to the media through Pew-financed conduits, and touted by Pew-funded environmental organizations. Much of their agenda is anti-fishing, even on well managed, rebuilt or rebuilding fish stocks, to the point of being little more than a cleverly disguised attack on the public’s access to the ocean. That’s recreational fishermen like us.
For example, Pew funding has enabled ecologists to drive the scientific agenda for the implementation of California’s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), which is now on course to close 20% of that state’s waters to recreational fishing. Pew Fellows serve on the Science Advisory Team of the MLPA, where they push closures while ignoring current fishery management practices, which, on the West Coast, are already the most restrictive in the world! Fishermen proposed a constructive network of MPA’s that exceeded Pew-funded scientific guidelines, but the political faction wanted blood! Their network lobbied the Governor for an even more extreme proposal and now California’s angling community is fighting a losing battle to stop a runaway train that is making it harder to find a place to fish.
Pew is a major grant provider to universities and professors in the marine sciences and the major provider of funds to environmental groups that push the party line. Those groups include The National Environmental Trust, Oceana, Earthjustice Legal Defense, the New England Aquarium, the Public Interest Research Group, National Audubon Society, National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Conservation Law Foundation, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Marine Fish Conservation Network, Wildlife Conservation Society, Friends of the Earth and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. Combined, these groups have received over $200 million of Pew money and most have openly endorsed the implementation of arbitrary no-fishing zones!
The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is particularly worrisome. It is attempting to become an umbrella group for sportsman’s organizations and has attracted the participation of some fishing organizations with the lure of Pew money. The American Sportfishing Association and the Coastal Conservation Association are among the board members of the Partnership. And when the going got tough during the Magnuson Act reauthorization, they ended up on the same page as the Pew-funded groups.
This is what Congressman Pombo, then chair of the House Resources Committee had to say recently. “Throughout the long process to reauthorize the Magnuson Act the RFA was consistently at the table, insisting on sound conservation policies based on the most accurate science. Their goal was clear, a sustainable fishery so that this generation of recreational fishermen and the following generations would have fish to catch. Most of the other organizations engaged in this debate had other agendas or were totally missing in action. At the end of the 109th Congress it was clear to me that the RFA was the only player left insisting on protecting the future of recreational fishing. I will always be grateful to them and respect their tenacity during what proved to be a difficult reauthorization.”
Since the implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996 the management of U.S. fisheries, while far from perfect, has become a model for the rest of the world. Yet Pew continues to use scare tactics to drive its agenda domestically while the most egregious problems can easily be found abroad. Their agenda may sound laudable, but the reality is that their goal is to stop fishing. Pew used the money of its well-heeled donors like a school-yard bully during the debate and attacked those who stood in their way. Pew has seriously damaged the ability of recreational fishermen to do what we love to do – go fishing.

Fishing History Part 2 Ancient Fishing History

2009-03-10T03:52:19.000Z

The ancient river Nile was full of fish; fresh and dried fish were a staple food for much of the population.[9] The Egyptians invented various implements and methods for fishing and these are clearly illustrated in tomb scenes, drawings, and papyrus documents. Simple reed boats served for fishing. Woven nets, weir baskets made from willow branches, harpoons and hook and line (the hooks having a length of between eight millimetres and eighteen centimetres) were all being used. By the 12th dynasty, metal hooks with barbs were being used. As is fairly common today, the fish were clubbed to death after capture. Nile perch, catfish and eels were among the most important fish. Some representations hint at fishing being pursued as a pastime.

There are numerous references to fishing in ancient literature; in most cases, however, the descriptions of nets and fishing-gear do not go into detail, and the equipment is described in general terms. An early example from the Bible in Job 41:7: Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?.
Fishing with nets, tacuinum sanitatis casanatensis (XIV century)

Fishing scenes are rarely represented in ancient Greek culture, a reflection of the low social status of fishing. There is a wine cup, dating from c. 500 BC, that shows a boy crouched on a rock with a fishing-rod in his right hand and a basket in his left. In the water below, a rounded object of the same material with an opening on the top. This has been identified as a fish-cage used for keeping live fish, or as a fish-trap. It is clearly not a net. This object is currently in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.[10]

Oppian of Corycus, a Greek author wrote a major treatise on sea fishing, the Halieulica or Halieutika, composed between 177 and 180. This is the earliest such work to have survived intact to the modern day. Oppian describes various means of fishing including the use of nets cast from boats, scoop nets held open by a hoop, spears and tridents, and various traps "which work while their masters sleep". Oppian's description of fishing with a "motionless" net is also very interesting:

The fishers set up very light nets of buoyant flax and wheel in a circle round about while they violently strike the surface of the sea with their oars and make a din with sweeping blow of poles. At the flashing of the swift oars and the noise the fish bound in terror and rush into the bosom of the net which stands at rest, thinking it to be a shelter: foolish fishes which, frightened by a noise, enter the gates of doom. Then the fishers on either side hasten with the ropes to draw the net ashore.

The Greek historian Polybius (ca 203 BC–120 BC), in his Histories, describes hunting for swordfish by using a harpoon with a barbed and detachable head.[11]

Pictorial evidence of Roman fishing comes from mosaics which show fishing from boats with rod and line as well as nets. Various species such as conger, lobster, sea urchin, octopus and cuttlefish are illustrated.[12] In a parody of fishing, a type of gladiator called retiarius was armed with a trident and a casting-net. He would fight against the murmillo, who carried a short sword and a helmet with the image of a fish on the front.

The Greco-Roman sea god Neptune is depicted as wielding a fishing trident.
Dutch fishermen using tridents in the 17th century

In India, the Pandyas, a classical Dravidian Tamil kingdom, were known for the pearl fishery as early as the 1st century BC. Their seaport Tuticorin was known for deep sea pearl fishing. The paravas, a Tamil caste centred in Tuticorin, developed a rich community because of their pearl trade, navigation knowledge and fisheries.

In Norse mythology the sea giantess Rán uses a fishing net to trap lost sailors.

The Moche people of ancient Peru depicted fisherman in their ceramics. [13]

From ancient representations and literature it is clear that fishing boats were typically small, lacking a mast or sail, and were only used close to the shore.

In traditional Chinese history, history begins with three semi-mystical and legendary individuals who taught the Chinese the arts of civilization around 2600 BC: of these Fu Hsi was reputed to be the inventor of writing, hunting, trapping, and fishing.

9. Fisheries history: Gift of the NilePDF.
10. Image of an ancient angler on a wine cup.
11. Polybius, "Fishing for Swordfish", Histories Book 34.3 (Evelyn S. Shuckburgh, translator). London, New York: Macmillan, 1889. Reprint Bloomington, 1962.
12. Image of fishing illustrated in a Roman mosaic.
13. Berrin, Katherine & Larco Museum. The Spirit of Ancient Peru:Treasures from the Museo Arqueológico Rafael Larco Herrera. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1997.

FISHING HISTORY Part 1

2009-03-09T03:03:24.000Z

Fishing is an ancient practice that dates back at least to the Upper Paleolithic period which began about 40,000 years ago.[1][2] Archaeological features such as shell middens,[3] discarded fish bones and cave paintings show that sea foods were important for survival and consumed in significant quantities. During this period, most people lived a hunter-gather lifestyle and were, of necessity, constantly on the move. However, where there are early examples of permanent settlements (though not necessarily permanently occupied) such as those at Lepenski Vir, they are almost always associated with fishing as a major source of food.

Spearfishing with barbed poles (harpoons) was widespread in palaeolithic times.[4] Cosquer cave in Southern France contains cave art over 16,000 years old, including drawings of seals which appear to have been harpooned.

The Neolithic culture and technology spread worldwide between 4,000 and 8,000 years ago. With the new technologies of farming and pottery came basic forms of all the main fishing methods that are still used today.

In the time epoch 10,000 to 3000 years before present, Native Americans were known to engage in fishing with nets and with hook and line tackle; in addition, some tribes are known to have used plant toxins to induce torpor in stream fish to enable their capture.[5]

Copper harpoons were known to the seafaring Harappans[6] well into antiquity.[7] Early hunters in India include the Mincopie people, aboriginal inhabitants of India's Andaman and Nicobar islands, who have used harpoons with long cords for fishing since early times.[8]

1. African Bone Tools Dispute Key Idea About Human Evolution National Geographic News article.
2. Early humans followed the coast BBC News article.
3.Coastal Shell Middens and Agricultural Origins in Atlantic Europe.
4. Guthrie, Dale Guthrie (2005) The Nature of Paleolithic Art. Page 298. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226311260
5. C.Michael Hogan (2008) Morro Creek, ed. by A. Burnham [1]
6.Ray 2003, page 93
7.Allchin 1975, page 106
8. Edgerton 2003, page 74