![\"DSC_0036\"](\"\/\/ncseagrant.ncsu.edu\/coastwatch\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/13\/2014\/04\/DSC_0036-300x199.jpg\")
Baker and Von Harten theorized that EM would cost less than observers, be more reliable than self-reported logbooks, and not place an additional burden on the fishermen. The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans currently uses this method to validate self-reported data from fishermen. Also, EM can be deployed in instances where safety or space limitations prevent a human observer from being present.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
McGovern notes that EM could fill in critical missing information about discards within the fishery. \u201cThere is a need to characterize the entire catch of commercial fishermen, not just what is landed. The magnitude and composition of bycatch is not well known. Information from EM has the potential to enhance that knowledge,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Sea Grant specialists wanted to assess EM\u2019s price tag. \u201cWe couldn\u2019t really understand that until we figured out how these boats fished, how the cameras worked on the boats, how much of the data can be analyzed accurately, and how to hone down the handling practices of the fish on board to capture that data that you need,\u201d Von Harten notes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another goal was to determine if EM could bridge the informational quality and quantity gap between observers\u2019 data and fishermen\u2019s logbooks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cFrom a larger perspective, this study is: Can we collect the same level of information that they\u2019re collecting but at a reduced cost and reduced hassle to human observers?\u201d Baker explains. Available research states that this is possible, depending on the fishery, he adds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
SETTING UP<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
For the study, Baker and Von harten worked with boats that use vertical hook-and-line reels, known as bandit gear. These electric or hydraulic reels are so nicknamed because of their resemblance to casinos\u2019 one-armed bandit slot machines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThey are fast, mobile vessels that can quickly traverse to the fishing grounds and have large enough fish holds to stay out for an extended period of time,\u201d Von Harten explains. These boats are configured so that the reels are positioned to fish off the port, starboard and stern of the vessel, allowing fishermen to use three or more reels at once.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The team contracted with Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. for equipment and services to carry out a pilot study on six boats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt\u2019s a complex fishery to monitor,\u201d recalls Howard McElderry, Archipelago\u2019s head of fishery monitoring technologies. \u201cWe had done some work with the vertical longline fishery before but not a lot, and certainly not as complicated as the South Atlantic.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, these very issues made the work interesting. \u201cJust the vast number of species and the speed at which the fish are coming up from a variety of points on the boat \u2014 that presented quite a unique challenge for us in terms of being able to capture all this fishing activity accurately and completely,\u201d points out Adam Batty, the Archipelago project manager.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Each boat had four cameras, a sensor to turn on the cameras when a reel moved, a GPS device and a control box. The fixed cameras were pre-focused such that all fishing activity on the back deck could be recorded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The system recorded video streams on hard drives, and once those were full, Baker and Von Harten replaced them. Then Baker sent the drives to Archipelago to analyze for species caught and fishing effort, among other details.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition, the fisheries specialists provided local tech support, going to service the equipment after trips or when there were problems. They did a lot of tweaking to adjust the EM devices for the individual boats and for how the anglers fished \u2014 fast, in tight spaces, on long trips that could last up to two weeks, and often in rough seas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By the close of the study, the pair had picked up some new skills. \u201cWe really felt like we were handymen by the end of the project after troubleshooting problems with the equipment and using our toolboxes to fix and tweak adjustments on camera lenses and hardware,\u201d Von Harten jokes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The fishermen took 93 trips during the eight-month study with EM systems onboard. An independent observer went out on five of those trips, and his records were compared with the data that were collected by the EM systems. Baker and Von Harten also created a special project logbook for fishermen to record catch and effort details to compare with the EM data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The researchers found that EM and observer data matched well for overall fish count, but fish counts recorded by fishermen varied in levels of agreement to EM. Some fishermen were better at data collection than others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe project also demonstrated that there was the potential to obtain information on species identification and length of discarded fish,\u201d McGovern says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe hard part was breaking down the identity of those species that may come across the camera, including the ones that are discarded,\u201d Baker says. \u201cAs you can imagine, a lot of them look very similar.\u201d For example, some common species such as vermilion snapper were easily identified, while others such as black sea bass were harder to distinguish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, reviewers had to contend with the different fishing styles and the speed at which the anglers fished. Often, very little time elapsed between the end of one fishing event and the beginning of another. That made it difficult to come to a consensus on how to define a single fishing event, which would be necessary if EM is to be further explored for this fishery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cTime is money to them,\u201d Von Harten explains. \u201cThe faster they can discard the fish that they\u2019re not going to keep or get the fish on board that they are going to keep, it makes all the difference.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Data analysis \u2014 mainly the time spent identifying and counting fish \u2014 turned out to be the most expensive part of the project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA lot of the costs are actually going to be in coming up with a plan to figure out how you\u2019re going to analyze and use that information,\u201d Baker says. \u201cYou\u2019ve got to figure out which information is important for you to use.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Without that plan in place, the EM system \u201ccould just be an expensive piece of equipment on your boat,\u201d he adds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNonetheless, the data will be there,\u201d counters the council\u2019s Cheuvront, \u201cwhich is something we\u2019ve never had before.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fex, the sole North Carolina fisherman in the project, has praise for the pilot study. \u201cThe good thing about it is that it\u2019s true science,\u201d he explains. \u201cAnd it made me realize the amount of discards and things like that.\u201d However, he has reservations about deploying the system across the entire snapper grouper fleet, mostly because of cost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In fact, Baker and Von Harten recommend that with tweaking, EM has the potential to augment, rather than replace, existing data collection programs. One possible use of EM is as an audit system to verify a portion of the fishermen\u2019s logbook data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And even though EM was effective in collecting data, \u201cthere\u2019s certainly a big learning curve that needs to be incorporated for this to be effective,\u201d Baker acknowledges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cPutting technology on a boat isn\u2019t something you just do and forget about. You have to actively work with it,\u201d Archipelago\u2019s Batty concurs. \u201cVery often it affects the way catch is handled, places where discarding occurs, all those sort of things. So it becomes a bigger method.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, others are learning from these lessons. When the Ocean Conservancy started a similar pilot study in the Gulf of Mexico for reef fish, Baker was invited to share advice and lessons learned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cScott\u2019s knowledge of the challenges in maintaining equipment and traveling to multiple sites helped us prepare for the amount of work that would realistically be needed to successfully complete the tasks. Scott also shared guidance on the qualifications we should look for in an observer,\u201d says Kristy Tavano, the coordinator for the Gulf project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe work that we did with Sea Grant really helped us to know what we were up against and plan a little bit better for the installations,\u201d adds Batty, who also is managing the Gulf project for Archipelago. In addition, he used some of the video feed from Baker\u2019s study to familiarize his technicians with the type of fishery they would encounter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although Von Harten doesn\u2019t see the EM system being deployed on all boats in the fleet, she suggests there could be a potential follow-on project in the snapper grouper fishery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf there was a small segment of the fleet that wanted to do more pilot testing of the equipment to really hone down on how this could effectively work on their boats, I think that would probably be the next step,\u201d she suggests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But even though he agrees that the EM technology is very useful, Cheuvront has several caveats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cFor this to work, we need to get the buy-in from the fishermen and we need to get the resources from management to actually deploy the technology,\u201d he cautions, citing the need to have funding to support the EM work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe link between deploying the gear and its use in management has to happen very rapidly or it\u2019s going to lose whatever support it has from the fishermen,\u201d Cheuvront advises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To learn more about the snapper grouper complex and its related management plan, go to: www.safmc.net and click on Fishery Management Plans in the Quick Links box. Then search for snapper grouper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Scott Baker and Amber Von Harten recently surveyed 773 snapper grouper permit holders on electronic video monitoring research. Fifteen percent, or 116 people, responded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Responses were grouped according to coastal region. Fifty-four percent of permit holders responding from North and South Carolina, and Georgia were supportive of additional testing of EM systems. However, 75 percent of the Florida respondents were opposed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When asked if a third-party data review method such as EM might be considered as a tool to validate self-reported logbook records, more than 60 percent in each group were opposed to the concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Likewise, when asked if they would support the adoption of standardized fish-handling guidelines to improve the video-review process if EM was to be further evaluated, more than 75 percent of respondents were not in favor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This article was published in the Autumn 2012<\/a> issue of Coastwatch.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"Computer](\"\/\/ncseagrant.ncsu.edu\/coastwatch\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/13\/2014\/04\/P1000223-300x225.jpg\")
ANALYZING THE DATA<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Amber](\"\/\/ncseagrant.ncsu.edu\/coastwatch\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/13\/2014\/04\/RB-install-for-poster-300x296.jpg\")
LOOKING AHEAD<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"EM](\"\/\/ncseagrant.ncsu.edu\/coastwatch\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/13\/2014\/04\/P1000200-225x300.jpg\")
Electronic Video Monitoring Survey<\/h2>\n\n\n\n