Audio file
Podcast Series
On The Line
On The Line is a NOAA Fisheries podcast about marine fish and wildlife and their ocean habitats, with stories from people who study, manage and protect these valuable resources on behalf of the American public. Each podcast comes with photos and a short web feature story.
Podcast Transcript
Electronic Monitoring Episode 1
TRT 16:04
Announcer:
Welcome to On the Line, a NOAA Fisheries podcast.
Interviewer:
A large part of sustainably managing our nation’s fisheries revolves around data collection. Traditionally, NOAA has relied on a combination of catch data from fishermen, independent observers, and shoreside dealers. But in some fisheries today, it’s feasible and safer to use electronic monitoring or “EM” to collect data. The technologies range from electronic reporting of fishing trip data by fishermen, to using video cameras and gear sensors to capture information.
Today on On the Line we’re here with Brett Alger. Brett is NOAA Fisheries National Observer Program’s Electronic Technologies Coordinator. Brett has a Master’s degree in Fisheries Management and Science from Michigan State University and he grew up fishing on the Great Lakes. This is the first episode of a three-part series with Brett Alger about electronic monitoring.
Brett, can you tell us why is it so important to monitor our fisheries and how does that actually happen?
Brett Alger:
There are thousands of commercial and recreational fishing vessels all over the country, up and down the coasts, out to the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico, out to Hawaii, up to Alaska, and even internationally. And so from all of those fisheries and those fishing vessels we’re trying to collect information about what was caught and discarded. What was caught and landed. When was it caught? How was it caught? Where was it caught? Over time we’ve implemented a number of different tools and data collection programs from all these different fisheries. And I place those programs into four primary bins. We have vessel monitoring system programs, where the vessels have a GPS device so we can understand where they’re fishing. We have observers that we put out on fishing vessels all over the country to collect information about what’s happening at sea. We have reporting programs such as vessel captain logbooks or dealers and processors and tenders that have to report information. And then more recently, electronic monitoring, so starting to use cameras for doing a lot of the at sea monitoring.
Interviewer:
We know that U.S. Fisheries are managed regionally, so how are you involved at the national level and what do you do to support the Electronic Monitoring Programs?
Brett Alger:
So, I sit from a position of trying to understand and appreciate and listen to all the different challenges that are sometimes unique to each region or to each fishery and at the same time trying to measure all of those different programs against one another, to find where there might be some commonalities and consistencies, and even national level issues that need to be addressed. So, I see myself sitting between headquarters and what’s happening out in the field out in fisheries, so that I can best be attentive to what’s happening in both places and support those people and those programs as best I can.
Interviewer:
So, from a practical standpoint, let’s say on the water, what sort of challenges are there?
Brett Alger:
You can imagine having cameras installed and other pieces of gear and equipment on a commercial fishing boat that’s fishing 10, 20, 50, a hundred miles or more from shore, in nighttime, in harsh weather conditions, trying to maintain their own vessel and crew safety while you’re using cameras to collect information about what’s going on. It’s an extremely difficult challenge from a technical perspective, from a logistics perspective and more so I think we’ve started to appreciate, a policy perspective.
Interviewer:
So how wide spread is the equipment right now and how is it actually being used?
Brett Alger:
Right now we have about 600 vessels across the country that have cameras installed for a variety of purposes and data collection needs. That might be to collect information about what is being discarded. In some instances, the cameras are there to ensure that there’s compliance with certain regulations. I think there are some relatively consistent challenges that we face across all those programs.
Interviewer:
What are some of the challenges both in collecting data and being able to use it and how’s that being handled?
Brett Alger:
On the deck of the vessel itself, it’s respecting and understanding that the crew and the captain are an integral part of the electronic monitoring system. So, developing requirements and guidance around where they’re supposed to stand and not block a camera. Where they should move the fish and the catch before they discard it, where are they allowed to discard it. Making sure that the camera lenses are clean, and all those types of things need to happen before any data is even removed off the vessel. Then you have the logistics and the costs of getting all of the data off of the vessel, either via hard drive or a wireless transmission means, developing video review software shore side so that people can sit down and review all of that information and footage, and analyze it and process it into summary information and compliance reports. And then trying to understand how you’re going to use that information in fisheries management and science. On top of all that, you have valid concerns around data privacy, data confidentiality. Who’s going to access that information? Are all extremely important questions, I think sometimes more important than the technology itself, to ensure that there are shared expectations of how the EM program is designed and how that data is being managed and used. And you layer on top of that, the data science and the technology around artificial intelligence and machine learning and trying to develop an ability to process a lot of that imagery through technology rather than human review, holds a promise to a future where you can start to analyze that information much faster, much cheaper. Into the future we may be able to even analyze that data while the vessel is fishing at sea and not necessarily move all that imagery around and rather just move the data that comes from the imagery back to shore for managers and scientists.
Interviewer:
Looking toward the future what are your expectations of growth over the next few years?
Brett Alger:
There is a lot of interest in electronic monitoring regionally, nationally, across the globe. Right now, in the U.S. we probably have about 600 commercial fishing vessels that operate cameras in some form or fashion with the expectations over the next probably two to three years to start increasing that number as we expand some of our pilot projects and move some of our programs over to implementation. And in behind that are a lot of fisheries that are interested in the tool itself.
Interviewer:
Can you describe the differences between onboard observers and electronic monitoring in terms of maybe the costs, the benefits, and how big a part do you think each will play in the future?
Brett Alger:
There’s been a lot of interest in comparing observers and electronic monitoring going back six, seven, eight, nine, ten years, focused for the most part on costs. It’s a valid concern. It’s an important question. But I think sometimes that it glosses over some of the other important factors with determining what is the right tool for the job. Certainly, electronic monitoring systems in some instances are less expensive than observers when you factor in that you’ve got to purchase the EM system and get it installed and you’ve got to work through all the data transmission and data review challenges and things like that. But presuming the system holds up over the long term, most systems do last quite a long time, then you do start to see some of those cost savings promised by technology. That said, there are things that observers can do really well, can be on the boat. The eyes and the ears, to collect certain types of information and so independent of cost you have to have observers on fishing boats. So, it’s important to recognize not only the cost between what it takes to deploy an observer versus deploy an EM system both short, medium and long term. But what is the data that you’re looking to collect from that particular fishery? Do you need really fine scale precise information on the fishing gear that’s being deployed? You might need to have observers on some of those fishing boats. Do you need very precise species identification? Do you need precise length and weight information? Are there rare species that you need to collect information on? Those types of things lend themselves towards making sure that you have observers deployed in a particular fishery. That said, electronic monitoring systems when configured appropriately and when you get the participation and buy in from the fishing crew, in terms of making sure that the camera lenses are cleaned and the camera views aren’t blocked and there’s adherence to sort of the protocols on deck of how fish are going to be brought on board and managed on deck and discarded, then EM systems can actually do a lot of those things traditionally done and collected by observers. So, you can get an EM system to make sure that there’s compliance with discarding regulations. You can get EM systems to identify species and get lengths and get weights.
Interviewer:
Do you think electronic monitoring can do what on board observers do and is it possible that EM is going to replace observers at some point in time?
Brett Alger:
The idea that we are comparing observers and EM because we’re going to get rid of observers and replace them entirely with the EM, I just don’t see that ever happening in U.S. fisheries. I think we are always going to continually revisit the cost effectiveness of collecting certain types of data. Examining the different tools in the toolbox and trying to make those programs more cost effective both for the agency and for the fishing industry. I’ve taken part in a lot of cost conversations over the last number of years, I’ve helped with looking at and developing reports on comparing observers and EM, I just don’t see it as such a static conversation that you can say in one particular program or in one particular fishery that it’s X over Y and it’s always going to be that way. Because I think effective fisheries management and science is continually looking at all the different tools trying to understand what data needs to be collected and trying to optimize and maximize data collection in selecting the right tool for the job.
Interviewer:
So, what do you see as the future of monitoring fisheries?
Brett Alger:
I see a future where we’re going to continue to have observers, we’re going to continue to expand electronic monitoring. We may start to deploy both in some fisheries. That’s already occurring in some instances. That might continue. So, the comparison question it’s a great debate if you will. People want to make sure the costs are affordable, but I just don’t see it as a one-time question. I think it just needs to continually be revisited.
Interviewer:
Any idea how many vessels are using electronic monitoring right now and how did they get started with it?
Brett Alger:
There’s about 600 fishing vessels around the country that run electronic monitoring systems. And a vast majority of them explored electronic monitoring because they had a requirement in their fishery to fund their own monitoring. And before they were using human monitors to go out and collect a lot of information, but because they were paying for it, they wanted to explore other more cost-effective tools. And so you see a lot of Electronic Monitoring programs in fisheries where there’s an industry funded monitoring requirement.
Interviewer:
Which fisheries are those and is the interest limited mostly to fisheries that have had that requirement?
Brett Alger:
Alaska has several fisheries, the west coast groundfish fishery is exploring electronic monitoring and has been developing a program for a number of years. The same for the New England groundfish fishery. I’d say a vast majority of the interest is because of these industry funded monitoring programs. But at the same time I think there’s also a lot of interest because electronic monitoring may be able to collect more data than traditionally collected in a fishery. It can get it faster and may be able to get it cheaper and more cost effective.
Interviewer:
So, what’s the status now in terms of the number of programs and what do you see happening over the next few years?
Brett Alger:
Right now we have seven programs that have been implemented. We have six or seven programs that are going to be implemented over the next two to three years. And we probably have another five, six, seven different pilot programs underway in the United States. And in behind that there are a lot of conversations that are happening with people that are interested in EM. Working groups and committees, and different industry groups are interested in electronic monitoring. So, if I had to project over the next two to three years we might start to bump up towards seven to eight hundred fishing boats operating electronic monitoring. Maybe in the three to five year horizon we’d be getting over a thousand. But I think a lot of that, the expansion and the implementation, relies heavily on some of the other things that I’ve mentioned.
Interviewer:
Can you tell us what are some of the most immediate problems that need to be solved before EM can move forward?
Brett Alger:
I think it’s finalizing a lot of our policies around confidentiality and privacy and things of that nature. I think it’s trying to invest in and expand upon our artificial intelligence and machine learning applications so we can drive down the video review and storage costs. And I think it’s just a lot of familiarity and comfort and trust-building that needs to happen between the agency, NGOs, but especially the fisherman, the fishing industry.
Interviewer:
Do you see the perspective of the industry changing over time as far as the acceptance and use of EM?
Brett Alger:
I think as more boats tie up to the docks with cameras on board you’re going to see incremental trust building and conversations happening around electronic monitoring. And fishermen being able to share their stories and tell their experiences about how their system works and how their fishery operates and how the data gets used and what the costs specifically are. So, we have electronic monitoring in a number of different regions used for a variety of purposes and I fully expect to see that continue to grow over the short, medium, and hopefully long-term.
Interviewer:
You've been listening to the NOAA Fisheries’ podcast On the Line. Join us again to hear more about electronic monitoring with Brett Alger, or for more information visit NOAA Fisheries at: fisheries.noaa.gov. On the Line is a production of the NOAA Fisheries Office of Communications. Thanks for listening.
TRT 16:04
Announcer:
Welcome to On the Line, a NOAA Fisheries podcast.
Interviewer:
A large part of sustainably managing our nation’s fisheries revolves around data collection. Traditionally, NOAA has relied on a combination of catch data from fishermen, independent observers, and shoreside dealers. But in some fisheries today, it’s feasible and safer to use electronic monitoring or “EM” to collect data. The technologies range from electronic reporting of fishing trip data by fishermen, to using video cameras and gear sensors to capture information.
Today on On the Line we’re here with Brett Alger. Brett is NOAA Fisheries National Observer Program’s Electronic Technologies Coordinator. Brett has a Master’s degree in Fisheries Management and Science from Michigan State University and he grew up fishing on the Great Lakes. This is the first episode of a three-part series with Brett Alger about electronic monitoring.
Brett, can you tell us why is it so important to monitor our fisheries and how does that actually happen?
Brett Alger:
There are thousands of commercial and recreational fishing vessels all over the country, up and down the coasts, out to the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico, out to Hawaii, up to Alaska, and even internationally. And so from all of those fisheries and those fishing vessels we’re trying to collect information about what was caught and discarded. What was caught and landed. When was it caught? How was it caught? Where was it caught? Over time we’ve implemented a number of different tools and data collection programs from all these different fisheries. And I place those programs into four primary bins. We have vessel monitoring system programs, where the vessels have a GPS device so we can understand where they’re fishing. We have observers that we put out on fishing vessels all over the country to collect information about what’s happening at sea. We have reporting programs such as vessel captain logbooks or dealers and processors and tenders that have to report information. And then more recently, electronic monitoring, so starting to use cameras for doing a lot of the at sea monitoring.
Interviewer:
We know that U.S. Fisheries are managed regionally, so how are you involved at the national level and what do you do to support the Electronic Monitoring Programs?
Brett Alger:
So, I sit from a position of trying to understand and appreciate and listen to all the different challenges that are sometimes unique to each region or to each fishery and at the same time trying to measure all of those different programs against one another, to find where there might be some commonalities and consistencies, and even national level issues that need to be addressed. So, I see myself sitting between headquarters and what’s happening out in the field out in fisheries, so that I can best be attentive to what’s happening in both places and support those people and those programs as best I can.
Interviewer:
So, from a practical standpoint, let’s say on the water, what sort of challenges are there?
Brett Alger:
You can imagine having cameras installed and other pieces of gear and equipment on a commercial fishing boat that’s fishing 10, 20, 50, a hundred miles or more from shore, in nighttime, in harsh weather conditions, trying to maintain their own vessel and crew safety while you’re using cameras to collect information about what’s going on. It’s an extremely difficult challenge from a technical perspective, from a logistics perspective and more so I think we’ve started to appreciate, a policy perspective.
Interviewer:
So how wide spread is the equipment right now and how is it actually being used?
Brett Alger:
Right now we have about 600 vessels across the country that have cameras installed for a variety of purposes and data collection needs. That might be to collect information about what is being discarded. In some instances, the cameras are there to ensure that there’s compliance with certain regulations. I think there are some relatively consistent challenges that we face across all those programs.
Interviewer:
What are some of the challenges both in collecting data and being able to use it and how’s that being handled?
Brett Alger:
On the deck of the vessel itself, it’s respecting and understanding that the crew and the captain are an integral part of the electronic monitoring system. So, developing requirements and guidance around where they’re supposed to stand and not block a camera. Where they should move the fish and the catch before they discard it, where are they allowed to discard it. Making sure that the camera lenses are clean, and all those types of things need to happen before any data is even removed off the vessel. Then you have the logistics and the costs of getting all of the data off of the vessel, either via hard drive or a wireless transmission means, developing video review software shore side so that people can sit down and review all of that information and footage, and analyze it and process it into summary information and compliance reports. And then trying to understand how you’re going to use that information in fisheries management and science. On top of all that, you have valid concerns around data privacy, data confidentiality. Who’s going to access that information? Are all extremely important questions, I think sometimes more important than the technology itself, to ensure that there are shared expectations of how the EM program is designed and how that data is being managed and used. And you layer on top of that, the data science and the technology around artificial intelligence and machine learning and trying to develop an ability to process a lot of that imagery through technology rather than human review, holds a promise to a future where you can start to analyze that information much faster, much cheaper. Into the future we may be able to even analyze that data while the vessel is fishing at sea and not necessarily move all that imagery around and rather just move the data that comes from the imagery back to shore for managers and scientists.
Interviewer:
Looking toward the future what are your expectations of growth over the next few years?
Brett Alger:
There is a lot of interest in electronic monitoring regionally, nationally, across the globe. Right now, in the U.S. we probably have about 600 commercial fishing vessels that operate cameras in some form or fashion with the expectations over the next probably two to three years to start increasing that number as we expand some of our pilot projects and move some of our programs over to implementation. And in behind that are a lot of fisheries that are interested in the tool itself.
Interviewer:
Can you describe the differences between onboard observers and electronic monitoring in terms of maybe the costs, the benefits, and how big a part do you think each will play in the future?
Brett Alger:
There’s been a lot of interest in comparing observers and electronic monitoring going back six, seven, eight, nine, ten years, focused for the most part on costs. It’s a valid concern. It’s an important question. But I think sometimes that it glosses over some of the other important factors with determining what is the right tool for the job. Certainly, electronic monitoring systems in some instances are less expensive than observers when you factor in that you’ve got to purchase the EM system and get it installed and you’ve got to work through all the data transmission and data review challenges and things like that. But presuming the system holds up over the long term, most systems do last quite a long time, then you do start to see some of those cost savings promised by technology. That said, there are things that observers can do really well, can be on the boat. The eyes and the ears, to collect certain types of information and so independent of cost you have to have observers on fishing boats. So, it’s important to recognize not only the cost between what it takes to deploy an observer versus deploy an EM system both short, medium and long term. But what is the data that you’re looking to collect from that particular fishery? Do you need really fine scale precise information on the fishing gear that’s being deployed? You might need to have observers on some of those fishing boats. Do you need very precise species identification? Do you need precise length and weight information? Are there rare species that you need to collect information on? Those types of things lend themselves towards making sure that you have observers deployed in a particular fishery. That said, electronic monitoring systems when configured appropriately and when you get the participation and buy in from the fishing crew, in terms of making sure that the camera lenses are cleaned and the camera views aren’t blocked and there’s adherence to sort of the protocols on deck of how fish are going to be brought on board and managed on deck and discarded, then EM systems can actually do a lot of those things traditionally done and collected by observers. So, you can get an EM system to make sure that there’s compliance with discarding regulations. You can get EM systems to identify species and get lengths and get weights.
Interviewer:
Do you think electronic monitoring can do what on board observers do and is it possible that EM is going to replace observers at some point in time?
Brett Alger:
The idea that we are comparing observers and EM because we’re going to get rid of observers and replace them entirely with the EM, I just don’t see that ever happening in U.S. fisheries. I think we are always going to continually revisit the cost effectiveness of collecting certain types of data. Examining the different tools in the toolbox and trying to make those programs more cost effective both for the agency and for the fishing industry. I’ve taken part in a lot of cost conversations over the last number of years, I’ve helped with looking at and developing reports on comparing observers and EM, I just don’t see it as such a static conversation that you can say in one particular program or in one particular fishery that it’s X over Y and it’s always going to be that way. Because I think effective fisheries management and science is continually looking at all the different tools trying to understand what data needs to be collected and trying to optimize and maximize data collection in selecting the right tool for the job.
Interviewer:
So, what do you see as the future of monitoring fisheries?
Brett Alger:
I see a future where we’re going to continue to have observers, we’re going to continue to expand electronic monitoring. We may start to deploy both in some fisheries. That’s already occurring in some instances. That might continue. So, the comparison question it’s a great debate if you will. People want to make sure the costs are affordable, but I just don’t see it as a one-time question. I think it just needs to continually be revisited.
Interviewer:
Any idea how many vessels are using electronic monitoring right now and how did they get started with it?
Brett Alger:
There’s about 600 fishing vessels around the country that run electronic monitoring systems. And a vast majority of them explored electronic monitoring because they had a requirement in their fishery to fund their own monitoring. And before they were using human monitors to go out and collect a lot of information, but because they were paying for it, they wanted to explore other more cost-effective tools. And so you see a lot of Electronic Monitoring programs in fisheries where there’s an industry funded monitoring requirement.
Interviewer:
Which fisheries are those and is the interest limited mostly to fisheries that have had that requirement?
Brett Alger:
Alaska has several fisheries, the west coast groundfish fishery is exploring electronic monitoring and has been developing a program for a number of years. The same for the New England groundfish fishery. I’d say a vast majority of the interest is because of these industry funded monitoring programs. But at the same time I think there’s also a lot of interest because electronic monitoring may be able to collect more data than traditionally collected in a fishery. It can get it faster and may be able to get it cheaper and more cost effective.
Interviewer:
So, what’s the status now in terms of the number of programs and what do you see happening over the next few years?
Brett Alger:
Right now we have seven programs that have been implemented. We have six or seven programs that are going to be implemented over the next two to three years. And we probably have another five, six, seven different pilot programs underway in the United States. And in behind that there are a lot of conversations that are happening with people that are interested in EM. Working groups and committees, and different industry groups are interested in electronic monitoring. So, if I had to project over the next two to three years we might start to bump up towards seven to eight hundred fishing boats operating electronic monitoring. Maybe in the three to five year horizon we’d be getting over a thousand. But I think a lot of that, the expansion and the implementation, relies heavily on some of the other things that I’ve mentioned.
Interviewer:
Can you tell us what are some of the most immediate problems that need to be solved before EM can move forward?
Brett Alger:
I think it’s finalizing a lot of our policies around confidentiality and privacy and things of that nature. I think it’s trying to invest in and expand upon our artificial intelligence and machine learning applications so we can drive down the video review and storage costs. And I think it’s just a lot of familiarity and comfort and trust-building that needs to happen between the agency, NGOs, but especially the fisherman, the fishing industry.
Interviewer:
Do you see the perspective of the industry changing over time as far as the acceptance and use of EM?
Brett Alger:
I think as more boats tie up to the docks with cameras on board you’re going to see incremental trust building and conversations happening around electronic monitoring. And fishermen being able to share their stories and tell their experiences about how their system works and how their fishery operates and how the data gets used and what the costs specifically are. So, we have electronic monitoring in a number of different regions used for a variety of purposes and I fully expect to see that continue to grow over the short, medium, and hopefully long-term.
Interviewer:
You've been listening to the NOAA Fisheries’ podcast On the Line. Join us again to hear more about electronic monitoring with Brett Alger, or for more information visit NOAA Fisheries at: fisheries.noaa.gov. On the Line is a production of the NOAA Fisheries Office of Communications. Thanks for listening.
Google Search Result Description
Hear from Brett Alger, NOAA Fisheries electronic monitoring coordinator, on the ins and outs of the program.