Saving Seafood

Satlink leading shift from human fishery observers to land-based electronic monitoring

August 11, 2020 — Madrid, Spain-based Satlink, which specializes in technological solutions and developments based on satellite communications, has launched a program designed to train on-board human fishery observers to perform fishery monitoring through video data and satellite imaging.

The program will give regional fishery management organizations (RFMOs), governments, and fishing companies a method of observational compliance that sidesteps complications regarding placing observers on-board vessels during the coronavirus pandemic.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

NOAA Fisheries’ Procedural Directive on Data Retention for 3rd-Party EM Programs

April 6, 2020 — The following was released by NOAA:

NOAA Fisheries has reviewed the feedback and developed final guidance for Councils and NOAA Fisheries to develop data retention requirements for EM programs. As part of this guidance, our recommendation is that programs retain electronic monitoring (EM) data for at least 12-months once fishing is over and the catch monitoring processes are completed. This recommendation balances the fishing industry’s request to reduce unnecessary costs, while considering the length of time data must be retained to meet various program objectives. As noted in this guidance, as we learn more about program functions and costs, we can revisit this guidance in the future. The final procedural directive is published here and is attached.

NOAA Fisheries published a draft procedural directive in August 2019 on how long to retain data collected under an EM service provider “third-party” model. In these programs, the fishing industry is responsible for the data storage costs. As you know, the use of EM is an effective tool for collecting critical fishery-dependent data for science and management purposes. Unlike traditional means of data collection in fisheries (e.g., via at-sea observer programs or logbooks), the raw EM data video, imagery, or sensor data during fishing operations—can require substantially more storage capacity and make up a large portion of EM costs. We appreciate the expressed concerns over EM data storage costs, received and responded to input, and expect this guidance will resolve some uncertainty as EM programs continue development. We recognize there are other remaining questions too, such as retention of federal records. NOAA Fisheries is working on this issue and will provide an update shortly.

Highlighting Women in Electronic Technologies: Part 1

March 25, 2020 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

Electronic monitoring and electronic reporting technologies are being developed to support science-based management decisions in commercial and recreational fisheries. NOAA Fisheries is working with fishermen and industry organizations, fishery management councils, and many other partners. We will improve the timeliness, quality, cost effectiveness, and accessibility of fishery-dependent data by integrating technology into fishery reporting and monitoring programs. Learn about nine women from around the country that are helping shape the future of electronic technologies in U.S fisheries.

Julie Bonney

Owner and Executive Director
Alaska Groundfish Data Bank, Inc.
Kodiak, Alaska

Julie Bonney was born and raised in Colville, Washington, a small logging and farming community in eastern Washington. She earned her bachelor’s degree in biology from University of Puget Sound and her master’s in environmental science from Drexel University. In 1984, Julie moved with her husband to Kodiak, Alaska. In the early 1990s, Julie reached out to the then-owner of Alaska Groundfish Data Bank (AGDB), Chris Blackburn, for advice about joining the observer program. As a mother of three young children, Julie soon realized that being an at-sea observer was not feasible. Instead, Chris offered Julie a job as an analyst. She continued to work there and eventually bought the business. 

Julie and her company have been involved in three electronic monitoring projects since 2007.  First, AGDB tested at sea electronic monitoring for vessels that participated in the Central Gulf of Alaska (CGOA) Rockfish Limited Access Privilege program in 2007 and 2008. The results of this project showed that observer coverage was similar in cost to monitoring with cameras. Currently, AGDB is involved in two projects:

  • The Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) for pelagic trawl pollock fishing using electronic monitoring (EM) for compliance monitoring in both the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea pollock fisheries.
  • EM as an audit tool so that fish ticket counts of salmon reported by processors can be used in the catch accounting system to inform the hard Chinook salmon cap for the rockfish fishery in the CGOA (1,200 fish).

Within her current role, Julie enjoys problem solving and working with fishermen and processors. She also enjoys improving fishery management in collaboration with the trawl sector and NOAA Fisheries personnel.

“As a woman in fisheries, you must demonstrate your capacity and be one of the smartest people in the room. Have the confidence and be strong-willed enough to step outside traditional roles. Women have the ability to think more globally and be more multidimensional which is essential to solve our fishery problems since the fishing industry is so complicated and multilayered.  As a mother and a woman, I tend to mother my membership (some of the people I work for actually call me ‘mom’).”

Read the full release here

Fisherman’s Perspective: Electronic Monitoring Needs to Pay Off for Fishermen

January 28, 2020 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

This is part two of our interview Rick Bellevance, a charter fisherman out of Point Judith, Rhode Island and a member of the New England Fishery Management Council, about his experiences using electronic monitoring and reporting. In this part, we focus on electronic monitoring. Read Part 1 for Rick’s take on electronic reporting.

Getting Started in Electronic Monitoring

You just recently started a pilot project using cameras to attempt to verify eVTR recreational fishing reports. Why did you start this project?

I started the project on electronic monitoring as a way to validate my electronic vessel trip reports. I grow frustrated with folks who feel like they need to double, triple, and quadruple check our vessel trip reports. I honestly believe that we all try hard to accurately report what we catch and what we throw back. This was my way of being able to show a full season of how my business works. So those cameras are, in my opinion, recording what I already know, and I want to have an opportunity to show that to people.

Where are the cameras located on your boat?

One camera is on the railing on my bridge that shoots down into the cockpit and captures all the anglers in the back of the boat and all of the fishing activity. There is a second camera that is focused straight down on the station where we generally measure all the fish to determine if they are legal-sized or not. And so as I understand it, they can take the images from the angler reeling in the fish. Then the fish is then captured by the camera where it gets measured, and you can see whether the fish is discarded or retained. That system validates the numbers of discards and kept fish that we reported.

Have you seen the video? How are the cameras on the vessel working out so far?

I did see a little snippet from the program. It’s really cool how you can see the fish get caught on the first camera, and then see the fish measured and tossed or kept on the second camera.

Read the rest of the interview on our website.

Fisherman’s Perspective: Electronic Reporting Saves Time, Needs to Be Standardized Across Fisheries

December 18, 2019 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

NOAA Fisheries caught up with Rick Bellavance over the summer to ask about his experiences using electronic reporting and electronic monitoring. He’s a charter fisherman out of Point Judith, Rhode Island and a member of the New England Fishery Management Council. This is the first of a two-part interview focusing on electronic reporting.

How did you get started in fishing?

I got my first boat when I was 10 years old, and would run around Narragansett Bay fishing for winter flounder, quahogs, and hardshell clams. When I was 22, I was hired by the fire department, and one of the other firefighters was a charter boat captain. He offered me a crew position on his charter boat, and I ended up working for him for seven seasons, and really learned the business. In 1996, my father and I went in together on the Priority Too and I started working for myself.

Why did you start using electronic reporting to submit your catch reports?

One of my good friends calls me a “closet data geek”—I’ve always been interested in my own data, always kept a logbook. Even as a teenager digging hard shell clams in Narragansett Bay, I meticulously maintained a log of what I caught and when I caught it. So I’ve always had an interest in data. But the real catalyst was when I received a “nastygram” from the Regional Office. It said that if I didn’t complete my vessel trip reports, I wasn’t going to be eligible to reapply for annual permit. So, I sat down in front of my wood stove in December after fishing all year and filled out a hundred vessel trip reports.

After that, I decided I was taking the family out to dinner because I had lost the desire to cook. At the restaurant, I watched the staff tap things on a computer and hand me a bill, and I thought, “I want that for fishing! It would be so much easier.” That’s when I started looking into it. I love it now. We do electronic vessel trip reports all the time, and it really is so much easier.

Read the full release here

Electronic Monitoring Can Provide Better Data: A Fisherman’s Perspective

August 12, 2019 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

Jim Ford has been fishing in the Gulf of Maine since he was in sixth grade. Ford’s first job was working as a deckhand on party boats. Later, he began operating a small gillnet vessel and a small trawler, in addition to longlining. He currently owns and operates the Lisa Ann III, a 50-foot dragger. He targets groundfish from his home port of Newburyport, Massachusetts.

In 2018, we issued an exempted fishing permit to the Gulf of Maine Research Institute to create a  pilot project to test electronic monitoring in the Northeast. Ford signed up as one of the first project participants, and currently uses electronic monitoring on 100 percent of his trips.

When I met Ford on his boat on a foggy May morning, he showed me the equipment he uses. In the wheelhouse, there’s a monitor with a four-way split screen that shows him the feed from the four cameras on his boat. In order to record all of the catch coming onboard, two cameras are positioned above the trawl net off the back of his boat. Two are above the deck to give a bird’s eye perspective.

Read the full release here

New England council joins Mid-Atlantic in push to require electronic trip reporting

July 19, 2019 — The New England Fishery Management Council has decided to join with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in requiring all vessels to use electronic vessel trip reports (eVTR), replacing physical reports.

The action was initiated after the Mid-Atlantic council started investigating the possibility of switching all trip reporting in December 2018. The move, under an omnibus framework action, would require that all vessels use eVTR, a method that has been available since 2013.

“The Mid-Atlantic Council has been interested in eVTR for the past several years,” Karson Coutre, of the Mid-Atlantic council, told SeafoodSource in May. “Many stakeholders have voiced the desire to move in the direction of electronic reporting with technological advances and eVTR being an established means to submit VTRs since 2013.”

Electronic reporting would eliminate the need to individually scan thousands of reports: In 2018, the Mid-Atlantic council had to process over 70,000 reports. Every single one needs to be entered into a database, and sometimes clarity issues caused by handwriting or other problems makes information less accurate than it would be in an electronic report.

As a result of the Mid-Atlantic council’s investigation into using eVTR, the New England council had to initiate its own investigations. Many permit-holders in the region hold permits belonging to both councils, estimates by the New England council places at least 2,514 vessels holding permits in both regions, or nearly 90 percent.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Rep. DeFazio Applauds Fisheries Decision to Use Electronic Monitoring

June 25, 2019 — Congressman Peter DeFazio is applauding a decision by the National Marine Fisheries Service to allow ground vessels in the Pacific Northwest to monitor their catch restrictions electronically instead of using expensive on-board human observers.

DeFazio said he has been pushing for years to get rid of “onerous restrictions on our coastal fishing industry”. He said lifting what he called “an outdated rule” will finally level the playing field between Pacific Northwest and Alaska fisherman and many of the nation’s other fishers, who are “not subject to the same archaic rules”.

Read the full story at KQEN

Electronic Fishery Monitoring Gets Big Boost in US

November 30, 2018 — The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a pair of foundations are funding a suite of projects around the country designed to improve electronic fisheries monitoring.

Fisheries in the U.S. are subject to monitoring to help inform future rules. Some in fisheries and government have advocated for more electronic monitoring, as opposed to monitoring by humans, to make data collection more efficient.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at U.S News and World Report

CHRIS BROWN & BOB DOOLEY: Electronic monitoring will help restore trust to fishery

June 13, 2018 — Two years ago in the pages of The Standard-Times we delivered some straight talk about New England’s fisheries and the opportunities that groundfish fishermen and regulators will realize when they embrace comprehensive catch monitoring. As the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) prepares to meet this week, we felt it was important to communicate again how critical “full accountability” is to the successful stewardship of this fishery.

“It is based on the straightforward idea that fishermen need to keep track of their catch, both the fish they bring to the dock and any unwanted ‘bycatch’ they may discard at sea. Why? Because in the absence of comprehensive catch monitoring, there is no basis upon which fishermen and (government) scientists can establish a productive level of trust and cooperation. This means that fishery managers often assume the worst when they estimate fish stocks and are required, under federal law, to take very conservative approaches in order to account for that uncertainty when they set catch limits and allocations. Completing the negative feedback loop, fishermen interpret low allocations as bad science and the cycle of mistrust rolls on.”

That cycle of mistrust is what the NEFMC is addressing as they consider alternatives for establishing catch accountability, particularly whether and how to advance electronic monitoring (EM) in the New England groundfish fishery from pilot project to widespread implementation. What we said two years ago is precisely what we would say to the council today.

“In fisheries where catch monitoring is in place, an entirely different … feedback loop is established. Reliable catch and discard data from fishermen, combined with scientific survey results, give fishery managers not just critical and complete information, but the ability to eliminate a major source of uncertainty and to set catch limits with confidence. Over time, as more-reliable and verifiable data comes in, confidence grows and cooperation develops between fishermen and managers.”

Read the full opinion piece at the New Bedford Standard-Times