Close
today i learned (til)

Ghost Fishing – Small Action Big Impact

April 24, 2026

Have you ever gone fishing and got something that is not a fish? I’m not talking about shrimps, squids, or seaweed. If I could get a dollar every time I fish a hook, I would have gotten 3 dollars. Three dollars is not a lot, but weirdly it happened three times, and I only go fishing like once a year! 

Not that it was entangled with another angler’s hook. The hooks were abandoned in the water, attached to a long fishing line (cord). It’s nothing but an annoying occurrence. One can simply spend at most 5 minutes removing it. However, this is nothing but the tip of an iceberg that implies a bigger problem. What if it wasn’t a hook, but something bigger? Something that is way more difficult to remove, like a net? And it wasn’t your hook that was entangled, but rather tons of marine creatures were trapped?

What is Ghost Fishing?

Ghost fishing was defined as “the ability of fishing gear to continue fishing after all control of that gear is lost by the fisherman.” (Matsuoka et al., 2005) Specifically, fishing gear (either recreational or commercial) can become a derelict fishing gear (DFG) where the equipment continues to capture the intended targets or non-intended marine animals, potentially endangering protected species (Lively & Good, 2019). One uncontrolled piece of equipment can continue to fish from days to years, and it can reach as shallow as less than 1 meter, or as deep as 900+ meters. According to World Wild Life, fishing gear accounts for roughly 10% of 12 million tons of plastics that end up in the oceans every year. In the most recent update, 46% of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is made up of discarded nets, lines, and ropes (World Wild Life). This doesn’t just happen within a single patch: it’s a worldwide issue!

Impacts of Ghost Fishing

Fishing gear used to be made of natural materials like wood and cotton.The introduction of highly durable fishing gear made of long-lasting synthetic materials makes the matter worse (NOAA Marine Debris Program, 2019). As technology advances, new fishing equipment uses stronger and long-lasting materials like plastics, vinyl coated steel, etc. These equipment now take years to bio-degrade, and hence started to accumulate within the oceans. Ghost fishing started to pose a threat to the marine ecosystem. As the 20th century progressed, it started to become a more widespread issue. By the 1970s, The International Maritime Organization Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) prohibited the abandonment or dumping of fishing gear in the oceans (Lively & Good, 2019). 

By late 1980s, more researches worked on the total number of mortality per gear after gear loss for gillnets and trammel-nets (Matsuoka et al., 2005). Traps continue to ghost fish as long the bait remains. Nets can ghost fish way longer due to their scale and property of getting things entangled when attached to natural marine traps like corals (Lively & Good, 2019). There were an increasing number of reports on incidental catch of non-fishery animals such as marine mammals, reptiles and seabirds along with fishing gear entangled on seabed (Matsuoka et al., 2005). Marine protected areas now accumulate a large number of DFG. These regions are designated and managed by laws and regulation for the long-term conservation of marine resources, ecosystems services, or cultural heritage.

According to the Marine Debris Program, overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), ghost fishing can impose a variety of harmful impacts to marine ecosystems. The impacts are not limited to “killing target and non-target organisms, including endangered and protected species; causing damage to underwater habitats, such as coral reefs and benthic fauna; economic losses from target species mortalities and replacement costs; and contributing to marine pollution” (NOAA Marine Debris Program, 2019). According to Lively and Good (2019), between 1991 to 2008, the red king crab caught in derelict nets may account for 1%–3% of the local red king crab population per year in Women’s Bay Kodiak Island, Alaska. Some studies estimate that over 90 percent of species caught in DFG are of commercial value, which can contribute to a significant loss of revenue for jobs surrounding marine species such as fishermen. 

Below is a comparison table between major types of fishing gears and their impacts regarding ghost fishing (Lively & Good, 2019) .

Prevention & Mitigation

Unfortunately, these DFG might not just be the consequences of abandonment of vandalism. Environmental factors such as storms, floods, or hurricanes can contribute as well (Lively & Good, 2019). Prevention is difficult to implement, but better gear management can help reduce the impacts.

Around the world, World Wild Life joined hands with fishers, government agencies, and others to remove abandoned nets from the water. They increased establishments for gear collection and recycling programs. Better technology for tracking and recovery of gear are under development (World Wild Life). GPS and bottom mapping technology can identify obstructions that might result in accidental loss of gears. A cost-free solution is provided to fishermen to dispose of unusable fishing equipment (NOAA, 2011). Others suggest encouraging arts to monetize unused gears at proper disposal. The NOAA Marine Debris Program has collected more than 1,814,369.48 kilograms (4 million pounds) of gear from 56 locations across the United States. Everyone is working to recover the marine ecosystem.

What Can YOU Do?

Individuals cannot contribute much to the grand scale of technology and initializing these programs. However, every effort counts! Raising awareness is very important. Word should travel that everyone should try their best to minimize the garbage and gears that can make their way to the ocean freely. Otherwise, these beautiful creatures might go extinct. And before you know, the King Crabs will become protected species.

References:

Lively, J. A., & Good, T. P. (2019). Ghost fishing. World Seas: An Environmental Evaluation, 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-805052-1.00010-3

Matsuoka, T., Nakashima, T., & Nagasawa, N. (2005). A review of Ghost Fishing: Scientific Approaches to evaluation and solutions. Fisheries Science, 71(4), 691–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-2906.2005.01019.x

NOAA. (2005). Turtle entangled in marine debris (ghost net). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Turtle_entangled_in_marine_debris_(ghost_net).jpg.

NOAA. (2011, September 27). What is ghost fishing?. NOAA’s National Ocean Service. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ghostfishing.html

NOAA. (2019, February 24). What we know about “ghost fishing” | marine debris program. NOAA Marine Debris Program. https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/what-we-know-about-ghost-fishing-0

World Wild Life. (n.d.). Ghost fishing gear: Ocean’s Silent killer | world wildlife fund. https://www.worldwildlife.org/resources/explainers/ghost-fishing-gear/

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
The True Nightmare
today i learned (til)
Human Perception and the Paranormal
shearwater bird
Articles, today i learned (til)
Marine Birds Fly Into Storms to Survive?
today i learned (til)
Why Does Hot Water Freeze Faster?

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.