WHEN FISHERMEN SAVE SEALS

William M. Johnson
Alexandros A. Karamanlidis



A young monk seal rescued from a Greek fisherman’s net in the Aegean has recently highlighted the risks that this endangered species faces from entanglement.

On the face of it, it was a familiar tale. A hungry seal raids a fishing net but suddenly finds itself ensnared. In its desperation, it bites and tears and struggles until the net is reduced to shreds. The harder it struggles to escape, the tighter the surviving rope and mesh entwines it. In the end it lies at the water’s surface, gasping, exhausted, the remnants of the net wound tight around its throat.


Images courtesy of MEGA Channel, Greece
The following morning, the unfortunate owner of the tattered nets set out from the little fishing village of Komi on Chios to bring in his night’s catch, only to discover the seal still struggling to liberate itself. He tried to free the animal himself, but without luck.

Towing the seal behind his boat, he headed back to harbour, where the loud shrieks of the bewildered animal attracted the attention of other fishermen, locals and members of the port police authority.

The rescue effort that followed was documented by television film crews from various stations and became an absorbing news item on virtually every channel that evening (13 November 1999). The loud human voices and the hands reaching out to help must have terrified the young seal, which in its own defense tried to attack the boats surrounding it.

At last set free, the seal proceeded to express its gratitude in a rather "seal-like" way – by trying to turn over the boat of the fisherman that had just saved it… After throwing a few last, hurt glances at the strange creatures living above water, our seal disappeared into a blue horizon.

Those searching for a moral to this story may find several. First, the seal can count itself lucky to have escaped with a fright and few bruises to its dignity. Next time, it may not be so fortunate. Second, not all fishermen hate the seal enough to kill it. Third, monk seals may find themselves trapped in fishing nets more often than is generally assumed. And fourth, traditional fishermen and monk seals both find themselves caught in a vicious circle of industrial overfishing, net damage and dwindling catches.


Entanglement – an extinction factor

Entrapment of marine mammals, turtles and sea birds in fishing gear remains a global problem of staggering proportions (Johnson 1987 & 1988, Woodley & Lavigne 1991, Walker et al. 1997, Morizur et al. 1999). Millions of animals representing non-target species fall victim to drift nets and other types of fishing gear, many suffering an agonizing death in the process. Marine mammal species may be particularly susceptible to serious population depletion because of their innate biological characteristics – being slow growing, long-lived animals, with low fecundity.

The Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) is no exception, with incidental entanglement in fishing gear considered a major threat contributing to the overall decline of the species (UNEP 1988, Reijnders 1991, Johnson & Lavigne 1998).

Monk seals can become ensnared in all kinds of fishing gear, but unlike pelagic species appear to be most vulnerable to entanglement in static gear and discarded nets in coastal areas (Harwood 1987, Panou et al. 1987, Israëls 1992). It has also been suggested that young monk seals may be attracted to lampara fisheries (gri-gri boats) and may fall victim to entanglement in these purse seines (Panou et al. 1987). There is no evidence to suggest that any age or sex category is particularly vulnerable (Texel 1990).

Rather more ominously, entanglement involving different types of gear appears to have been widespread throughout the species’ former range. Monk seals have been accidentally ensnared on baited hooks in the Danube Delta (Schnapp et al. 1962), on tuna nets in France in the 1930s-1940s (Cheylan 1974), in a trammel gill net in the bay of Tunis (Ben Othman et al. 1971) and in unspecified nets on the coast of the Spanish Sahara in 1913 (Boettger 1951). In the Balearic Islands, it was reported that most losses occurred in tuna nets and that entanglement was second only to shooting as a source of mortality. Of 26 seals in which the cause of death was known, 9 had perished in nets (Sergeant et al. 1978).

A similar picture emerges from the species’ current range. In Algeria, eight drownings were recorded between 1987 and 1990 on the west central coast (Boutiba 1996). Research conducted in the Ionian islands of Greece has shown that accidental entanglement accounted for 23% of all recorded monk seal deaths (Panou et al. 1993). Prior to the establishment of a protected area, the extensive use of gill nets constituted a major threat to the survival of the small surviving monk seal colony in the Desertas Islands of Madeira. Animals had been dying frequently by entanglement in abandoned ‘ghost’ nets (Anselin & van der Elst 1988). A major clean-up operation, coupled with an initiative to have fishers convert from net gear to long lines effectively solved the problem (Neves 1991). Up until 1987, monk seal colonies inhabiting the Côte des Phoques in Mauritania and the Western Sahara were largely shielded from the effects of incidental entanglement because of warfare. With the resumption of both industrial and artisanal fishing, however, the risk of entrapment returned in force, together with a possible reduction in food availability for the colony. Although no deaths have been directly linked to fishery interactions, there is concern that some seals – most notably weaned pups or juveniles – may fall victim to entanglement (Texel 1990, Francour et al. 1990, Manel Gazo pers. comm. 2000). In Morocco, 27 out of 40 dead seals reported to Avella between 1980 and 1990 had died entangled in nets (Texel 1990). Research along the southern Aegean and western Mediterranean coasts of Turkey in the mid-1970s found that entanglement could almost rival shooting as a cause of mortality. Out of 7 known seal deaths, 4 could be attributed to direct killing, and three to drowning by entanglement (Berkes et al. 1979). More recently, entrapment in fishing nets has been implicated in the death of a monk seal pup in the Foça Specially Protected Area (SPA) in February 1997 and a seal found at Kas in 1999 (Johnson 1999, Harun Güçlüsoy pers. comm. 2000).


Entanglement – a risk assessment

While available data illustrates the severity of entanglement for the survival of the monk seal, it is likely that such research paints a distorted picture of the phenomenon, for several reasons. First, scientific enquiry of this type is hampered by the inherent difficulty of studying a rare, elusive marine mammal along thousands of kilometres of remote coastline. Second, fishers, seafarers or pleasure boaters may be reluctant to report the finding of a dead monk seal. In fact, evidence suggests that the discovery of a monk seal trapped in a fishing net may often be the all too literal trigger for fishers to take their revenge and finally rid themselves of a net-destroying, fish-stealing pest. Given the illegality of that act, many fishers may be reluctant to admit that seals have drowned in their nets. Reported deaths by entanglement may thus represent only the tip of the iceberg. By the same token, however, seals recorded killed by fishers while trapped in fishing nets will normally be assigned statistically to the category of "deliberate kills" rather than "incidental entrapment", casting further doubt on the accuracy of such surveys.


Why do monk seals get entangled in fishing nets?

Ask any self-respecting monk seal why it raids fishers’ nets and the inevitable answer will be "because I’m hungry". Given the high casualty rate associated with this behaviour, however, it may also be necessary to ask why the species is prepared to risk its life and liberty in this way.

Over the years, two separate explanations have found their way into the knowledge base of the species. One sees this behaviour as a form of compulsion driven by external influences, while the other views it as being driven by the nature of the species itself.

First, overfishing. Industrial seining and trawling have resulted in dwindling fish stocks throughout the Mediterranean and have exacerbated the conflict between traditional coastal fishers and the monk seal. As some coastal fishing grounds verge on collapse, research suggests that seals may become dependent on fishermen for food and will seek out fishing boats, stealing fish and damaging nets (Ronald & Yeroulanos 1984, Johnson 1988, Karavellas 1994). Monk seals have been observed following fishing boats for up to 20 nautical miles (Duguy 1975) and to wait until the fishermen have laid their nets to feed (Johnson 1988, Neves 1986). Fishermen at Zakynthos even swear that monk seals know their fishing routes and "lie in wait" for their fishing boats to appear (Mascha Konstapel pers. comm. 1999).

To what extent such behaviour is driven by overfishing is uncertain. However, exhausted fishing grounds have been implicated in the decline in monk seal numbers in Algeria (Boudouresque & Lefevre 1988), and have also been linked to an apparent increase in the frequency of attacks by seals on fishing nets in Greece (Jacobs & Panou 1988, Texel 1990). According to Jacobs and Panou (1990), fishers on Kefallonia "reported that illegal fishing (including dynamiting by locals) and overfishing have reduced the marine resources, forcing the monk seals to take fish from their nets." Faced with the same scarcity, other marine species such as dolphins, dogfishes and marine turtles may also attack fishers’ nets with increased frequency.

The second explanation suggests that in raiding nets, the monk seal may simply be fulfilling some of its deepest biological instincts. In this, there may be a grain of truth in the fishers’ long held view of the seal as too lazy to catch its own dinner (Johnson 1988). All mammals – seals included – tend to expend as little energy as possible in living their daily lives since food-derived energy is a finite resource. In other words, fishers laying their nets in the vicinity of monk seal caves may be providing hungry seals with an irresistible target.

Research in the Ionian Sea underscores this contention. During one particular experiment, a new trammel net was placed in front of a cave occupied by a large male monk seal for seven nights. In two of the seven nights when the seal was encountered in the cave, the net was found to be severely damaged the following morning (Panou et al. 1993).

But is the seal’s net-raiding simply another tortured legacy of industrial age?

"For the Seal no hooks are fashioned nor any three-pronged spear which could capture it: for exceeding hard is the hide which it has upon its limbs as a mighty hedge. But when the fishermen have unwittingly enclosed a seal among the fishes in their well-woven nets, then there is swift labour and haste to pull the nets ashore. For no nets, even if there are very many at hand, would stay the raging seal, but with its violence and sharp claws it will easily break them and rush away and prove a succour to the pent-up fishes but a great grief to the hearts of the fishermen. But if betimes they bring it near the land, there with trident and mighty clubs and stout spears they smite it on the temples and kill it: since destruction comes most swiftly upon seals when they are smitten on the head."

Given its uncanny resemblance to today’s stormy relationship between fishers and monk seals, readers may be surprised to learn that this particular passage was penned by the Latin poet Oppian of Cilicia in the second century A.D. Does this, then, lend credence to the theory that it is the seal’s natural inclination to save energy – its alleged "laziness" – that drives it to raid the nets of fishermen? Not necessarily, since coastal overfishing during Oppian’s time may have been as severe in some areas as it is today (Johnson & Lavigne 1999a).

In fact, it seems likely that both explanations – overfishing and the natural urge to save energy – hold an element of truth. Since it is impossible to determine which of the two holds the greatest merit, how should both be viewed in terms of conservation of the species?


Assessing damage

Fishermen have always asserted that the damage inflicted upon them by seals is severe enough to warrant compensation for destroyed nets and reduced catches. Most also claim to be able to identify the animal species attacking their nets by the type of damage each causes. In snatching fish from the net, monk seals tear holes about 20-30cm in diameter (Marchessaux & Duguy 1977). They often leave a characteristic triangular three-hole pattern, representing the animal’s mouth and foreflippers (Goedicke 1981, Johnson 1988). When entangled, however, monk seals will often tear the net to shreds in their desperation to escape. In contrast, dolphins and dogfish are reputed to tear large, single holes (Berkes 1976), while moray eels (Muraena helena) produce holes about 10cm in diameter (Marchessaux & Duguy 1977).


An Aegean fisherman mending his seal-damaged net

Despite the lack of thorough scientific research in this field, there appears to be little disagreement regarding the capacity of monk seals to inflict substantial financial losses upon traditional fishers whose livelihoods may already be precarious because of other factors.

But what type of fishing is most vulnerable to seal attack? Research in the Ionian Sea monitored three types of fishing gear for monk seal damage. These were [1] Gill nets (a net suspended vertically in the water, and traditionally set close to the shore from where it extends into open water). [2] Trammel nets (a three layer construction, with two outer nets having a large mesh sandwiching a middle one with fine mesh, usually set close to the bottom near the shore or in shallow water). [3] Bottom long lines, consisting of a series of baited hooks on a line laid close to the seabed.

Of the 1,864 fishing trips monitored during the survey, 136 (7,3%) reported damage. Inshore trammel nets suffered the highest frequency, followed by offshore trammel nets and gill nets. Bottom long lines sustained the least damage, possibly because the fine nylon lines tend to elude discovery (Panou et al. 1993). These findings appear to corroborate the opinions of fishers from Karpathos, who claim that monk seals take few fish out of nets set deeper than 30m (Ronald & Healey 1974). Turkish Aegean fishermen have also reported that most seal damage occurs within a depth of 20m (Sergeant et al.1978).

Although fishers may have good reason to accuse the monk seal for damaging their nets and reducing their catch, there can be no justification for blaming the animal for the overfishing crisis. To begin with, marine mammals often consume species of no commercial value to humans. Even more importantly, if the 750 kg daily intake of fish by the entire Greek Aegean monk seal population can be regarded as reliable, then the total mass of fish consumed would not exceed the by-catch of a large fishing vessel (Ronald 1984).


A vicious circle

Despite the undeniable damage the species does inflict, there can be little doubt that the monk seal has long been a convenient scapegoat for coastal fishers (Johnson 1988). The attitude is epitomised by a former fisher on Leros, who is quoted as saying: "The seals are our enemies; they take the bread out of the mouths of our children, consequently we will eliminate them" (Goedicke 1979).

Unfortunately, while hostility is focused on monk seals, there appears to be little time or inclination to confront threats far more damaging to the livelihoods of traditional fishers. Fishing grounds begin to collapse under fierce commercial competition, and staggering waste. Regulation drives up operating costs. Spawning grounds are damaged by dynamite fishing, fishing with chemicals such as chlorine, and by the capture of young fish for aquaculture installations. Industrial trawlers encroach into coastal fishing grounds, further depleting stocks. Purse seiners deploy nets with illegally-small mesh (Karavellas 1994). Hobby fishers – in some areas responsible for landing the same volume of fish as their professional counterparts – drive up pressure on the ecosystem (Boudouresque & Lefevre 1991, Johnson & Lavigne 1999b) and compete with locals in selling their catches (Karavellas 1994).

These are some of the much-neglected issues that continue to fuel the conflict between fishers and seals (Karavellas 1994, Johnson & Lavigne 1999b). But how can this knowledge be applied to the conservation of the species, and act as a catalyst to preserve the culture of traditional fishers?


Conservation measures

Established threats to the survival of Monachus monachus have long been categorised by rank according to perceived severity. Largely since the Rhodes Conference 1978, these have been ordered as:

    1. Increased adult and juvenile mortality because of deliberate killing (mostly by fishers).
    2. Increased adult and juvenile mortality caused by incidental entanglement in fishing gear.
    3. Increased adult and juvenile mortality due to human disturbance.
    4. Increased pup mortality caused by pupping in unsuitable locations, due to loss of preferred habitat.
    5. Poor condition due to lack of food as a result of overfishing.
    6. Reduced fecundity and pup survival (possibly caused by inbreeding depression).

Although such categorisation may be useful in conveying the rudiments of the issue, it also tends to obscure the fact that most mortality factors are inter-related, a fact that has long eluded a conservation movement mired in its own fragmentation (Johnson 1988, Johnson & Lavigne 1998).

The categorisation of monk seal mortality is no exception to the rule. Studying the list above, we can safely conclude that the six categories actually fall into two broader groups. The first, habitat loss, is responsible for threats 3 and 4. The second group, covering points 1, 2 and 5 relate almost exclusively to fisheries. (Point 6 may be regarded as a consequence of the preceding threats.)

Logic dictates that conservation measures must ensure the protection of sufficient habitat to hold a minimum viable population. Despite the fact that interconnecting networks of reserves have been proposed since the 1970s, little progress has been made towards achieving that goal. Furthermore, even if this were to be accomplished, monk seals would still be vulnerable to the wrath of fishers when venturing or dispersing beyond the boundaries of their reservations. The social and breeding interaction between monk seal colonies, the mechanism responsible for sustaining a healthy and stable population, would almost certainly be jeopardised unless parallel action can be taken to combat mortality factors associated with fishing.

Public awareness programs and financial compensation (long considered an onerous and unsustainable burden by those who hold the purse strings) may soothe fishers’ hostility towards the monk seal, but how can conservation hope to combat incidental entanglement? It is here that the motivating cause of this particular behaviour becomes particularly significant. If monk seals become trapped in fishing nets out of coincidence, then there is little conservation can do about it. Conservation probably faces the same limited options if monk seals raid fishing nets because they present an easier, energy-saving target than hunting. Acoustic devices can theoretically drive marine mammals away from stationary nets, but there remains doubt over their long-term effectiveness, and the costs associated with their deployment over a wide geographical area is likely to be prohibitive. Fishers might be dissuaded from setting their nets in the immediate vicinity of monk seal caves, but it is unlikely that a social group renowned for its strong traditions and its suspicion of regulation would take kindly to such a restriction. If, on the other hand, seals are driven to attack nets due to food scarcity caused by overfishing, then more avenues are open to conservation action.

This approach, which sees traditional fishers playing a key role in the conservation process, has long been advocated (Ronald & Duguy 1979, Johnson 1988), yet its application has been hampered by a lack of political will and by the potent lobbying power of industrial fishing fleets. In spite of this handicap, fishers, seals and protected habitat have all benefited from this holistic approach in several areas. In the Northern Sporades Marine Park in Greece and the Foça SPA in Turkey, there is compelling anecdotal evidence (not least of all, the testimony of local fishers) that fish stocks have recovered since the implementation of regulations prohibiting industrial fishing within protection zone boundaries. Although fishers are also being brought into the conservation process in other areas, such as the Cilician Basin, the examples of where this principle is being applied remains few and far between.

While schemes of this type yield undoubted conservation benefits, continued fishing in protected areas by traditional fishers cannot help but pose some risk of entanglement. An adult female seal known to researchers as Disi Korsan, for example, was found dead in the Foça SPA in 1998. The health and welfare of the animal had been an issue of deep concern for several years due to the rope that was observed cutting deep into her head – most probably the result of entanglement in fishing gear (Johnson 1998). In February 1997, a monk seal pup was also found dead in the Foça SPA, apparently the victim of entanglement (Harun Güclüsoy pers. comm. 2000). Possibly reflecting political sensitivities, little similar data has been reported by groups operating in other protected areas. Regardless, accidents of this type might conceivably be prevented with tighter regulation of core zones, where all types of human activity should ideally be prohibited.

While fishers will undoubtedly continue to complain – as they have done for a thousand years or more – about the damage they suffer from the teeth and claw of the monk seal, and as politicians continue to dodge their obligations, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that a conservation blueprint has been slowly evolving in protected areas for a number of years. At centre stage is the traditional fisher as a partner in conservation. Although there is a long, long way to go, it appears that the message is gradually making its way through the Aegean. Hearing of recovering fish stocks in the Sporades Marine Park, fishers who once viewed monk seal conservation with disdain and suspicion are suddenly sitting up and taking notice. Others are even beginning to demand their own protected areas.



References

Anselin, A., & M. van der Elst (eds.). 1988. Monk Seal Bulletin. No. 7. September 1988. Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Brussels: 1-5.

Ben Othman, S., Mokhtar, F., and Quignard, J.P. 1971. Presence d' un Phoque Moine Monachus monachus (Hermann, 1779) dans le Golfe de Tunis. Inst. Natl. Sco. Tech. Oceanogr. Peche, Salammbo, Bull. 2 (2): 267.

Berkes, F. 1976. Monk Seals on the Southwest Coast of Turkey. Doc. SC/109. Food & Agricultural Organisation, Advisory Committee on Marine Resources Research, Scientific Consultation on Sea Mammals, Bergen, Norway: 1-5.

Berkes, F., H. Anat, M. Esenel, & M. Kislalioglu. 1979. Distribution and Ecology of Monachus monachus on Turkish Coasts. In: K. Ronald & R. Duguy, eds. First International Conference on the Mediterranean Monk Seal, Rhodes, Greece, 1978. Pergamon Press. Oxford, UK: 113-127.

Boettger, C.R. 1951. Notizen zur Verbreitung und über die Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen der Mönchsrobbe (Monachus albiventer Boddaert). Zoologischer Anzeiger (147 /148): 303-310.

Boudouresque, C.F., & J.R. Lefevre. 1988. Nouvelles donnees sur le statut du phoque moine Monachus monachus dans la region d' Oran (Algerie). GIS Posidonie Publ., Marseille, France: 1-30.

Boudouresque, C.F., & J.R. Lefevre. 1991. Ressources alimentaires, phoque moine (Monachus monachus) et stratégie de protection. Seminar on Conservation of the Mediterranean Monk Seal – Technical and Scientific Aspects, Antalya, Turkey, 1-4 May 1991. Environmental Encounters No. 13, Council of Europe Press, Strasbourg, France: 73-77.

Boutiba, Z. 1996. Disappearing Species: The Case of the Monk Seal in Algeria. In: W.D. Swearingen & A. Bencherifa, eds. The North African Environment at Risk. Westview Press Inc., Boulder, Colorado & Oxford, UK: 191-204.

Cheylan, G. 1974. Quand il y avait des phoques en Provence. Le Chasseur Francais (No. 926): 48.

Duguy, R. 1975. Contribution à l'étude des mammifères marins de la côte Nord-ouest Afrique. Rev. Trav. Inst. Pêches marit. 39 (3): 321-332.

Francour, P., D. Marchessaux, A. Argiolas, P. Campredon and G. Vuignier. 1990. La population de phoque moine (Monachus monachus) de Mauritanie. Rev. Ecol. 45: 55-64.

Goedicke, T.R. 1979. Survey for Monk Seals Monachus monachus. Preliminary Results: Kalymnos, Leros, Paros. Inner Space Research Foundation / R.V. Atoll II. Unpublished ms.: 1-3.

Goedicke, T.R. 1981. Life Expectancy of Monk Seal Colonies in Greece. Biological Conservation 20: 173-181.

Harwood, J. 1987. Population biology of the Mediterranean Monk Seal in Greece. Contract ENV 853 U.K., DG XII. A report on research conducted by the Natural Environment Research Council's Sea Mammal Research Unit with financial assistance from the Commission of the European Communities and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Camridge, UK: 1-72.

Israëls, L.D. 1992. Thirty Years of Mediterranean Monk Seal Protection – A Review. Netherlands Commission for International Nature Protection, Instituut voor Taxonomische Zoölogie/Zoölogische Museum, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 28: 1-65.

Jacobs, J., & A. Panou. 1988. Conservation of the Mediterranean Monk Seal, Monachus monachus, in Kefalonia, Ithaca and Lefkada Islands, Ionian Sea, Greece. Final report for the Institut Royal des Sciences de Belgique, Brussels as part of project A.C.E. 6611/28, "Descriptive Analysis and pilot Project for the Establishment of a Conservation Strategy for the Monk seal and its habitat", financed by the Directorate for the Environment, Consumer Protection and Nuclear Safety of the Commission of the European Communities. December 1988. Institute of Zoology, University of Munich, Germany: 1-221.

Jacobs, J., & A. Panou. 1990. Monk seal conservation in the Eastern Mediterranean . Project Progress Report of the WWF Project 3871, Greece. February 1990. Institute of Zoology, University of Munich, Germany: 1-21.

Johnson, W. 1987. Océans: Le Plastique Qui Tue. Illustré 42 (87): 148-153.

Johnson, W. M. 1988. The Monk Seal Conspiracy. Heretic Books, London: 1-206. Internet edition: http://www.iridescent-publishing.com.

Johnson, W. M. (ed.). 1998. The Monachus Guardian 1 (1) May 1998. IMMA Inc. Guelph, Canada. http://www.monachus-guardian.org/mguard01/01mguard.htm.

Johnson, W. M. (ed.). 1999. The Monachus Guardian 2 (2) November 1999. IMMA Inc. Guelph, Canada. http://www.monachus-guardian.org/mguard02/02mguard.htm.

Johnson, W. M., & D. M. Lavigne. 1998. The Mediterranean monk seal. Conservation guidelines. Multilingual Edition. IMMA Inc., Guelph, Ontario, Canada: 1-152. Internet edition: http://www.monachus-guardian.org/libread.htm

Johnson, W.M., & D.M. Lavigne. 1999a. Monk seals in antiquity. The Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) in ancient history and literature. Mededelingen 35: 1-101. The Netherlands Commission for International Nature Protection. [Online abstract: http://www.monachus-guardian.org/mguard03/03scien1.htm].

Johnson, W.M., & D.M. Lavigne. 1999b. Mass Tourism and the Mediterranean monk seal. The role of mass tourism in the decline and possible future extinction of Europe's most endangered marine mammal, Monachus monachus. The Monachus Guardian. Monachus Science. 2 (2). IMMA Inc. Guelph, Canada. http://www.monachus-guardian.org/mguard04/04scien11.htm.

Karavellas, D.P. 1994. The State of Fisheries in the Ionian Sea with Particular Reference to the Habitat of the Mediterranean Monk Seal, Monachus monachus: First draft. March 1994. WWF - Greece, Athens, Greece: 1-71.

Marchessaux, D., & R. Duguy. 1977. Le phoque moine, Monachus monachus (Hermann, 1779), en Grèce. Mammalia 41 (4): 419-439.

Morizur, Y., S.D. Berrow, N.J.C. Tregenza, A.S. Couperus, S. Pouvreau. 1999. Incidental catches of marine-mammals in pelagic trawl fisheries of the northeast Atlantic. Fisheries Research 41 (3): 297-307.

Neves, H.C. 1986. Six years of protection and monitoring of the Monk Seal (Monachus monachus) in the Archipelago of Madeira. Unpublished ms. Funchal, Madeira: 1-18.

Neves, H.C. 1991. The Monk Seal (Monachus monachus): Conservation and Monitoring on the Desertas Islands – Madeira. In: Seminar on Conservation of the Mediterranean Monk Seal – Technical and Scientific Aspects., Antalya, Turkey, 1-4 May 1991, Council of Europe Press, Strasbourg, France. Environmental Encounters No. 13: 21-24.

Panou, A., R. Beudels, & J. Harwood. 1987. Interactions Between Monk Seals and Fishermen. In: J. Harwood (ed.), Population Biology of the Mediterranean Monk Seal in Greece. Natural Environmental Research Council. Sea Mammal Research Unit, Cambridge: 45-50.

Panou, A., J. Jacobs, & D. Panos. 1993. The Endangered Mediterranean Monk Seal Monachus monachus In the Ionian Sea, Greece. Biological Conservation (64): 129-140.

Reijnders, P.J.H. 1991. Conservation efforts for the Mediterranean Monk Seal: Commitment and concrete actions are needed more than ever. Seal Specialist Group report No. 17: 63-64.

Ronald, K. 1984. Action for the Conservation of the Monk Seal. In: K. Ronald & R. Duguy, eds. Second International Conference on the Monk Seals, La Rochelle, France, Annales de la Société des Sciences Naturelles de la Charente-Maritime. Supplément, décembre 1984: 109-112.

Ronald, K., & R. Duguy. 1979. Plan of Action for the Conservation of the Monk Seal. In: First International Conference on the Mediterranean Monk Seal, Rhodes, Greece, 2-5 May, 1978. United Nations Environment Programme / Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK: 21-28.

Ronald, K., & P. Healey. 1974. Present Status of the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus). Migration Series 100. IUCN Working Group on the Mediterranean Monk Seal, October 5, 1974, London, U.K. World Conservation Union (IUCN), Morges, Switzerland: 1-38.

Ronald, K., & M. Yeroulanos. 1984. A Conservation Plan for Monachus monachus on Greek Islands and Coasts. In: K. Ronald & R. Duguy, eds. Second International Conference on the Monk Seals, La Rochelle, France. Annales de la Société des Sciences Naturelles de la Charente-Maritime. Supplément, décembre 1984: 31-40.

Schnapp, B., S. Hellwing, & G. Chizelea. 1962. Contributions to the knowledge of the Black Sea Seal (Monachus monachus) Herm. Trav. Muz. Natl. Int. Nat. ‘G. Antipa’ (Bucharest) 3: 383-400

Sergeant, D., K. Ronald, J. Boulva, & F. Berkes. 1978. The Recent Status of Monachus monachus, the Mediterranean monk seal. Biological Conservation 14: 259-287.

Texel (anon). 1990. Urgent Action Meeting for Safeguarding the Mediterranean Monk Seal as a Species. 10-11 December 1990, Texel, The Netherlands: 1-12.

UNEP. 1988. Action Plan for the Management of the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus). Annex 4. In: Report of the Joint Expert Consultation on the Conservation of the Mediterranean Monk Seal, 11-12 January 1988, Athens, Greece. IUCN/UNEP/MEDU/MM-IC, 1 March 1988: 1-8 + 5 Annexes.

Walker, T.R., K. Reid, J.P.Y. Arnould, & J.R. Croxall. 1997. Marine Debris Surveys at Bird Island, South Georgia 1990-1995. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34(1):61-65.

Woodley, T.H., & D.M. Lavigne. 1991. Incidental capture of Pinnipeds in Commercial Fishing gear. International Marine Mammal Association. IMMA Technical Report No 91-01: 1-53. Online version: http://www.imma.org.




                                    

Copyright © 2000 W.M. Johnson, A. Karamanlidis, The Monachus Guardian. All Rights Reserved