The frequency and quantity of Alaskan groundfish catcher-vessel landings made with and without an observer

Abstract

Faunce, C. H., and Barbeaux, S. J. 2011. The frequency and quantity of Alaskan groundfish catcher-vessel landings made with and without an observer. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68: 1757–1763. The North Pacific Groundfish Observer Programme (NPGOP) is one of the largest on-board fishery-monitoring programmes in the world, and the data are used extensively for both in- and post-season management of fisheries. Within certain limits, Alaskan fishers determine when and where to carry observers. There may be an incentive to fish differently during observed trips because (i) observed trips carry higher costs than unobserved trips, and (ii) bycatch quanta for quota deduction are estimated by applying bycatch rates from observed trips to retained catches on unobserved trips. Such differences may be manifest through the skewed deployment of observers among fisheries, i.e. a deployment effect, and through unrepresentative activities by fishers when an observer is on board, i.e. an observer effect. Despite long-standing concerns expressed over the NPGOP's 40-year history, evidence of deployment and observer effects have been based largely on anecdotal information. In 2008, database changes allowed a comparison of industry landing reports for trips with and without an observer. A deployment effect was evidenced by significant deviations from the expected landing ratios between observed and unobserved trips, and linear mixed-effect models revealed differences in the landed weight and evidence for an observer effect within two of five fisheries examined.

Recreational charter fishery attributes and variation in key species catches and discards: Resource management considerations

“…In observer studies, several assumptions are usually required, including one that observed trips were representative of those done by all operators and that the fishing locations, times and practices covered were not influenced by the presence of an observer (Faunce & Barbeaux, ; Liggins, Bradley & Kennelly, ). Although not all operators participated in sampling, observed and non‐observed vessels from each port fished the same times and locations.…”

“…ered were not influenced by the presence of an observer(Faunce & Barbeaux, 2011;Liggins, Bradley & Kennelly, 1997). Although not all…”

Lessons on Marine Protected Area Management in Northern Boreal Regions from the United States and Norway

“…This monitoring can ensure compliance around MPA boundaries; however, enforcement can often be more complicated than just tracking presence or absence inside closed areas. Enforcing gear compliance can be more challenging and often requires close monitoring of activities, which can be accomplished by an observer program such as the ones used for fi sheries in the U.S (Faunce and Barbeaux, 2011) or increasingly effective electronic monitoring programs.…”

Approaches to fully documented fisheries: practical issues and stakeholder perceptions

“…fishing effort and location). Information collected by observers has been used extensively in stock assessments and the provision of management advice (Faunce and Barbeaux ). Observers can provide a strong direct link between fishers and science thereby promoting good communication (Cotter and Pilling ).…”