Authors: Timothy Emery, Rocio Noriega, Mahdi Parsa, Don Bromhead, Trent Timmiss and James Woodhams
Overview
For the Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector of the Southern, Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery and the Eastern Tuna and Billfish fishery, these reports assess the similarity between electronic monitoring (cameras) and fishers own reported logbook data. In general, the records were similar for retained catch, but less similar for discarded catch, and varied significantly between individual boats.
The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) will use the results to consider improvements to their electronic monitoring program.
Key findings – Gillnet, Hook and Trap fishery
- Similarity between logbook and electronic monitoring data was superior for key commercial species compared to byproduct/bycatch species. Similarity was also higher for retained compared to discarded catch.
- Similarity was variable for reported interactions with threatened, endangered and protected species (TEPS)
- Fleet-wide estimates of similarity concealed significant inter-annual and inter-vessel variation for some key commercial species.
Key findings – Eastern Tuna and Billfish fishery
- Similarity between logbook and electronic monitoring data was superior for tuna and billfish species compared to shark and marlin species. Similarity was also higher for retained compared to discarded catch.
- Similarity was higher for threatened, endangered and protected (TEP) groups (i.e, seabirds, marine turtles, marine mammals) than at a species taxonomic level.
- Fleet-wide estimates of similarity concealed significant inter-annual and inter-vessel variation for some tuna and billfish species.