GEARNET: Summary and successes of a new approach to conservation - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

GEARNET: Summary and successes of a new approach to conservation engineering

Michael Pol Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Steve Eayrs Gulf of Maine Research Institute Pingguo He School for Marine Science and Technology, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Jon Knight Superior Trawl, Inc Mike Walsh Integrity Fishing Corp. Erik Chapman University of New Hampshire

www.gearnet.org

GEARNET was…

• a Federally-funded, collaborative research network
• Supported by a PI group varied expertise (research,

industry, management)

• Flexible approach
• Collaborative decision making
• that worked closely with groundfish sectors/common pool
• to identify and fund priority projects identified by industry,

to test/try

• Technology transfer
• Pilot innovative projects

GEARNET was…

• new fishing gears and methods that support a mission to
• Driven by Sector priorities
• help groundfish fishermen develop and adopt equipment
• Improves efficiency and selectivity
• Reduces environmental impact (e.g. seabed)
• Helps secure a sustainable, profitable groundfish

resource and industry

GEARNET Process – Bottom up

• Sectors/Common pool plus PI(s)

developed proposals (2-3 pages) based on sector priorities through meetings/discussions.

• Proposals reviewed by Technical

Committee made up of experts with wide expertise.

• Proposals revised and approved by

PIs plus NMFS Cooperative Research personnel.

• Projects initiated.
• Ended April 2014.

GEARNET Projects

• Two rounds of projects (2011,

2013)

• All sectors contacted; some did

not participate

• Total: 35 or so projects/~$35K ea.
• >125 participants
• Vessels from 12 - 30 m
• Encouraged vessel contribution
• Trawls, gillnets, cod pots
• Some completed, some

cancelled, some nearing completion.

• Six main categories

Saving Fuel (11 projects)

• Mesh diameter reductions (7 – most popular)

– Replacement of standard twine with Sapphire (3) or Dyneema (4) high tensile twines and installation of fuel flow meter (gal/hr; nm/gal) – Outcomes:

• General improvement in catch rates, with small

improvement in fuel savings (3%)

• Information from some users of fuel meters indicated

immediate savings

• Twine damage a concern on bottom sheet

Saving Fuel (11 projects) – Outcomes (cont.):

• Range of responses and enthusiasm

– Some meters not installed – limited fishing activity;

• ne project cancelled

– One project with mechanical problems and poor fish abundance; also timing – not completed

• Inadequate sample sizes

– Completely different outcomes between vessels: comparative fishing in full experiment needed; no solid conclusions – Adequate catch of haddock needed

Saving Fuel (11 projects)

• Semi-pelagic trawl doors (2+1)

– Low response to door finance: not well understood – complexity?

• Continues in another form

– Vessel purchased doors and continues involvement in research.

• Energy audit and fuel conservation

workshop (1)

– Did not occur, due to loss of focus and inability to find appropriate expertise on hull design.

• Low-drag paravane (bird/stabilizer) (1)

– Still promising, although not in exact original direction due to inadequate expertise on initial bird design.

Trawl Selectivity (9)

• “Topless” nets (3)

– Remove or modify top of net to target flatfish and avoid Atl. cod (2) or white hake (1) – Outcomes:

• Strong potential to reduce catch of cod without loss of yellowtail

flounder

• Continuation cancelled due to quota challenges and permit issues
• Hake “topless” net showed some promise to reduce white hake but

with loss of grey sole and other targets, and gear performance was questionable.

Trawl Selectivity (9)

• Haddock nets (2)

– Test drive of Ruhle/Eliminator trawl – New haddock design by Reidar’s – Outcome for both was inconclusive due to inadequate resource availability, bycatch reduction observed in Reidar’s design

• Seven-inch (178 mm) codends (3)

– Reduce discards, improve multispecies selectivity – Outcome successful in part, but use deterred in one case by change in minimum fish sizes; loss of enthusiasm after initial trials showed target loss; in another project, positive results led to uptake by one vessel, but concern over wisdom of targeting larger cod

• Rigid window (1)

– PVC and chain rectangular panel across the belly to encourage flatfish escape in a cod fishery – Results not encouraging; sample size small

Gillnet Selectivity (7 projects)

• “Raised footrope”/norsel gillnets to avoid

cod and target pollock by raising the fishing panel height of a gillnet (5)

– Some evidence that at greater heights, cod and pollock can be separated – Overall, selectivity through raised gillnets had mixed results and should be further studied

• LED pingers to alert harbor porpoises (1)

– Over 4500 pingers exchanged across an array of sectors – LED pinger program has limited success (mechanical failure, access to closed area)

• Seal deterrent pingers (1)

– Outcome uncertain but other causes for lost fish suggests opportunities to reduce the economic impact of depredation (sharks, sand fleas, other)

Alternate Gear (4 projects)

• Floating cod pots (2)
• One cancelled due to permitting issues

and lack of available fish

• Second was not completed; perhaps due

to disconnect through sector manager; or resource abundance; or loss of enthusiasm

• Rod and reel for pollock (1)
• Target pollock in the WGOM with electric

rod and reels

• Higher abundance or more compensation

needed to maintain progress

• BreakBag (1)
• Low cost self-closing codend to reduce
• vercatch
• Awaiting uptake; perhaps hindered by low

resource abundances or risk intolerance

Seabed impact (2 projects)

• Low impact semi-pelagic (LISP) trawl (1)
• Semi-pelagic doors and ground cables raised by bobbins
• Ground cables (1)
• Add rubber disks to ground cables

– Outcomes: – Savings in fuel – Catching performance unclear due to experimental design and execution – Reduction in contact – Some evidence of species-specific flatfish selection – But, effort would have to increase 35% to compensate for losses

Figure 1: Standard, bottom

• tending trawl system (top) and the trawl with

semi

• pelagic doors and

raised , semi

• pelagic

ground cables (bottom). Note the use of small bobbins to lift the ground cable seabed.

Education (1 project)

• Flume tank workshop (1)
• Twenty plus industry members for one week
• Mix of instruction and demonstration on variety of mobile gear topics
• Three videos produced and online: www.gearnet.org
• Outcomes

– Increased knowledge of selective fishing gear. – Increased knowledge of fuel saving modifications & opportunities. – Relationship building between participants. – Anecdotally positive

Outreach

• Publicly available flume tank videos on gear design, selectivity, etc.
• New Bedford Working Waterfront Festival

– Model flume tank demonstrations – Posters, literature, etc.

• Maine Fisherman’s Forum

– Oral presentations and static gear displays

• Gloucester Maritime Centre, Reidar’s, Yankee Coop, Superior Trawl

– Static gear displays, general discussions

• Sector Mgrs workshop
• Boston Seafood Show

– Static gear displays; discussions with NGOs/others regarding ‘value’ of working with fishermen

• FAO/ICES FTFG Annual Working Group Meeting (x2)
• GEARNET FB page & website (both maintained voluntarily by Eayrs and Pol)
• NOAA Navigator, other articles, radio interviews
• Topless manuscript in Fisheries Research

Challenges and Issues Rational – Resource abundance changed or was lower than expected.

– Regulations obviated research need. – Unforeseen breakdown, project abandoned. – Permit conditions unacceptable.

www.gearnet.org Irrational (seemingly)

– Research opportunity neglected. – Started, lost focus, project abandoned. – Requested fuel meters not installed. – No cost door upgrade under-subscribed. – Inadequate knowledge at start. – Enthusiasm overstated.

Summary

• Our ideas on lack of success

– Too busy

• Lack of bandwidth/over commitment/capacity

– Risk aversion/change resistance – Funding level/style

• fishermen buy-in vs. commitment
• scientific rigor & fishing knowledge
• inadequate sample size

– Uncontrollable factors

• Resource abundance/scarcity
• Regulation changes
• Permit definition does not include fuel savings as a

qualifying scientific activity

www.gearnet.org