Six Fishing Traps in a Protected River Put Fish Stocks at Risk

A resident of a riverside community set up six fishing traps made from bamboo and mesh along a stretch of river within a protected area. He believed he was simply continuing a long-standing local custom, but an inspection uncovered a more serious issue: the devices caught fish of varying sizes and species, including animals that had not yet reached breeding age.

Why did he choose to place the traps in the river?

Fishing had been part of his family’s daily life for decades. The traps were positioned at narrow points in the current, where fish naturally travelled, allowing the family to collect food without spending hours in the river with a rod or net.

In his view, there was no distinction between this method and what he had watched older relatives do as a child. However, the stretch of river was now within a conservation area, subject to particular rules on catches, breeding seasons and permitted fishing methods.

What did inspectors find in the six fishing traps?

Officers followed the riverbank and found the traps secured one after another. Some were empty, while others held fish of widely differing sizes, illustrating why the method was banned in that location:

• Adult fish were trapped alongside juvenile specimens;
• The structures continued catching animals for many hours;
• They did not sort catches by species or size;
• Some animals were held during the breeding season;
• Small fish could die before the traps were even removed;
• The line of structures restricted free passage through that section of river.

Why can catching juvenile fish harm fishing in the following years?

During the inspection, the explanation that affected him most was not about the size of the fine, but about the fish life cycle itself. An animal caught before reaching maturity cannot reproduce, reducing the number of offspring that could replenish that stretch of river in later years.

The same principle applied to adult fish during breeding. When many fish are taken at that particular time, the effect goes beyond reducing the amount available that day and begins to disrupt the renewal of fish stocks.

Why did tradition and subsistence conflict with the law?

The resident maintained that the traps were part of the community’s heritage, while inspectors explained that certain methods had been restricted precisely because pressure on the river was no longer what it had been decades earlier. More residents, more equipment and fewer preserved areas had changed the impact of an old technique:

• A traditional practice can expand when more people begin using it;
• Protected areas are governed by different rules from ordinary stretches of river;
• Breeding periods require specific restrictions;
• Some traditional methods catch more animals than they appear to;
• Subsistence and conservation must account for the natural replenishment of species;
• Not knowing the rules does not prevent an offence from being recorded.

An older fisherman explained why he had stopped using the traps

After the inspection, he sought out an older fisherman from the community, who was known to have used similar traps for many years. He expected criticism of the ban, but heard something different: the man said he had stopped when he noticed that large fish were becoming scarcer and that certain times of year no longer produced the same catches.

The R$210,000 fine remained difficult to accept, but the conversation changed how he viewed the six fishing traps. What had seemed merely an inherited method could also prevent fish from reaching breeding age, turning an immediate way of putting food on the table into a problem for those who would still depend on that river in the future.