According to a new study, the practice of drone fishing has surged in popularity in countries such as South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia. This practice, which is poorly documented, could pose risks to various fish, including sharks, writes Alexander Claus Winkler from Rhodes University.

There’s almost no regulation for this practice, with one notable exception: South Africa. But the practice is taking off in New Zealand and Australia as well.

How we know it’s happening

Drone fishing involves using drones, to fly baited fishing lines far beyond what can be achieved by casting from shore. The drone carries the line, bait, and hook to targeted areas of water. These areas are often difficult to reach, such as deeper waters or spots beyond the surf. Once the line is positioned, the angler releases the bait and waits for a fish to bite. Drones equipped with cameras can also help spot schools of fish or ideal fishing locations, increasing the chances of a successful catch.

The origins of this practice can be traced back to the mid-2010s when drones became more readily available. As recreational fishermen began experimenting with drones and finding success, word spread quickly. In 2016, a popular YouTube video of an angler catching a longfin tuna using a drone from an Australian beach triggered a huge spike in interest. By the end of that year, online searches related to drone fishing had increased by 357%.

The surge of interest was confirmed by monitoring platforms such as Google Trends and dedicated social media groups, where thousands of users regularly share videos, tips, and drone fishing successes. Some Facebook groups have over 17,000 members, with hundreds of drone fishing videos uploaded each month.

Interest has remained constant for the past 5-6 years, yet there’s not much policy recognition or research on this matter. Quite simply, we don’t really understand how widespread this phenomenon is nor what its effects are.

Problems in South Africa

One of the primary worries surrounding drone fishing is its potential to exacerbate overfishing, especially in regions where fish stocks are already under pressure.

The study tracked the rise in drone fishing and analyzed 100 YouTube videos from the three countries where interest is highest. The findings revealed that while recreational fishermen in New Zealand and Australia typically target red snapper the situation in South Africa is markedly different. The red snapper is not currently facing significant conservation concerns. Meanwhile, in South Africa, 97% of the catches observed on drone fishing videos were sharks. This included species like the dusky shark, which are at a serious risk of extinction.

In the grand scheme of things, drone fishing shouldn’t cause that big of an impact. However, for a species that’s already under threat, even small differences can trigger cascading effects down ecosystems.

Sharks play a critical role as apex predators. Their presence helps to maintain the balance of species below them in the food chain. Overfishing of shark populations can have ripple effects that disrupt entire marine ecosystems. Still, sharks are frequently targeted in South Africa’s drone fishing scene because they are large and present a challenge.

The practice may also exacerbate problems among South Africa’s fishing community.

South Africa’s long coastline of 2,850 kilometers is home to an estimated 400,000 marine shore-based anglers. Many of them fish for subsistence or to supplement their household income. In addition, around 2,400 small-scale boat fishers and 30,000 small-scale shore-based fishers rely on line fishing to support their families. Drone fishing, which is mostly practiced by wealthier, recreational fishers, has the potential to fuel conflict.

Can we regulate drone fishing?

As drones enable anglers to catch more fish in a shorter amount of time, competition for marine resources is likely to intensify. Without adequate regulations in place, this could further strain fish stocks, pushing traditional fishers to the margins and exacerbating inequalities within coastal communities.

It was some of the study authors who communicated the findings to the government.

So in 2022, South Africa’s government issued a public notice warning anglers that the use of drones for fishing was illegal under the Marine Living Resources Act. This is likely the first-ever act regarding drone fishing.

However, this move sparked a legal battle. Several companies that customized drones for fishing had already emerged, and these drone companies sought an appeal, but this appeal was denied and the ban was upheld. The Supreme Court of Appeal also upheld the ban and it is currently illegal for recreational anglers to use drones or remote-controlled boats to assist them when fishing in South Africa.

By contrast, New Zealand has not introduced a nationwide ban. Drone fishing remains legal there, provided anglers follow Civil Aviation Authority rules, fishing regulations, and local restrictions. While there is currently no conservation-driven push for prohibition (especially since the main targeted species, red snapper, is not endangered) some environmental groups have warned that the lack of specific policy could leave ecosystems vulnerable if the practice scales up significantly.

Globally, however, the practice of drone fishing remains unrecognized. With drones becoming more and more popular, this type of fishing could exacerbate existing pressures on fish stocks, increase conflicts between recreational and traditional fishers, and threaten marine ecosystems. But with the right policies in place, it could also be an exciting and sustainable part of the future of fishing.

Where is drone fishing is headed

While today’s debate centers on whether drone fishing should be allowed (or at least more tightly regulated) the technology itself is racing ahead. Manufacturers are no longer simply modifying consumer drones; they’re building purpose-made fishing UAVs with waterproof bodies, heavy payload capacities, and AI-assisted fish detection. Specialized models seem particularly popular in New Zealand, where they can carry up to two kilograms of bait, shrug off salt spray, and navigate back to the same GPS coordinates with centimeter-level precision.

For recreational anglers, this means more than just longer casts. High-resolution cameras, live video feeds, and GPS integration allow operators to scout vast stretches of coastline in minutes, identifying underwater structures, schools of baitfish, and depth changes invisible from shore. The same tools are being adapted for aquaculture monitoring, habitat mapping, and even illegal fishing surveillance.

In some ways, drone fishing is an extreme example of “technology creep,” the tendency for new tools to make harvesting wildlife more efficient and, potentially, more destructive. In commercial fisheries, similar jumps in efficiency have historically led to overfishing unless accompanied by strong management measures. Drone fishing allows anglers to target spots that once served as safe havens for fish, potentially erasing those natural refuges. And while drones can reduce the need for fuel-burning boats, they also create new environmental footprints — from battery waste to wildlife disturbance.

The future may bring even more radical changes. Developers are experimenting with solar-powered drones that can stay airborne for hours, fiber-optic tethered models for secure communications, and even swarm fishing systems, where multiple drones work together to scout and deploy bait. Whether these innovations become tools for sustainable fisheries or accelerators of resource depletion will depend on how quickly policy catches up.

As the study suggests, this is a rare moment when technology, recreation, and conservation are all colliding in real time. The question is not just whether we can fish farther and faster — but whether we should.

The study was published in the journal Ambio.

This article was originally published in October 17, 2024 and has been edited to include more information.