Northeast Fisheries Observer Program Fishermen's Comment Cards
Northeast Fisheries Observer Program Fishermen’s Comment Cards An Overview of Comment Cards Submitted by the Fishing Industry in the Northeast By Douglas Brander Industry Funded Scallop Observer, At Sea Monitor, Observer Advisory Committee
NEFOP Fishermen’s Comment Cards • Introduced in 2006 • Presented to fishermen by observers at the end of observed trips • Intended by NMFS to be used as a tool to evaluate how well observers perform duties at sea • Also serve as a line of communication between fishermen and the Observer Program
Comment Cards: Pages 1 & 2
Comment Cards: Pages 3 & 4
Methods of Analysis • 864 entries available (total number of Comment Cards in data base) • 86 entries sampled (roughly 10%) • Time series began in late 2006 with Comment Cards dated from as recent as January 2015 being available • Every 10th Comment Card reviewed • • • •
Entry number (ordered chronologically) Date (month/year) Fields 1-12 (related to obs performance) Comments (y/n, with contents of comments)
Returned Comment Cards 2009, 2010, 2011 compared to total number of observed sea days Returned Comment Cards
16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000
13950
14004
86
113
105
2009 (86)
2010 (113)
2011 (105)
8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0
6283
Series 1
Series 2
Number of Comment Cards Submitted by Year 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011 Series 1
* 2006 and 2015 have incomplete data sets
2012
2013
2014
2015
95.3%
99%
95.3%
2.3%
N/A 2.3%
1.2%
2.3%
N/A 1.2%
8
93.0%
7.0%
94.2%
3.5%
96.5%
2.3%
N/A 2.3%
N/A 1.3%
95.3%
2.3%
N/A 1.3%
91.9%*
7.0%*
N/A 1.2%
9.3%
N/A 1.3%
87.2%
Q8. Rewritten from 2006 version. Former version reads: “Did the observer have difficulty identifying species of fish caught? Y/N * Adjusted to reflect the intent of the question
76.9%*
23.1%*
76.9%*
17.9?*
N/A 5.1%*
15.4%*
82.1%*
N/A 2.6%*
2006 Version Q10: Did observer have any safety concerns during trip? Q11: Did you have any other concerns regarding the observer or observing procedures during the trip? If so, please explain (below). Q12: Were you given a data release form with the option to obtain a copy of your trip data? * Created averages from 2010 formatted questionnaire (based on 39 entries)
Fishermen’s Comments • 29 of 86 entries included comments • 70% (20) positive comments about observer • 6.9% (2) negative comments, one about observer, one about cost • 24.1% ‘other’ comments, including concerns about safety, weather, fish weights
Fishermen’s Comments • Entry 70: “It was a pleasure for all to have (observer Z) on board. She did a fantastic job. Also, she is welcome at any time back on our vessel.” • Entry 80: “The fish weight that he got did not match the actual weight. His weight was higher.” • Entry 40: “Storm with wind 50-60 mph. Seas 17-25 ft.”
Fishermen’s Comments • Entry 170: “(Observer X) was one of the most knowledgeable, courteous observers I have had in the six years I have been captain.” • Entry 720: “Very good observer, polite courteous, neat clean quiet. Stayed out of way-didn’t eat much, didn’t help in galley. Offered to help with a couple deck chores. No offer to help in galley or cleaning or food/food prep.” • Entry 860: “Grateful (that) observer was changed from one with very little experience to one with a lot of experience due to a bad weather forecast. (Observer Y) was a very professional observer and (I am) grateful to have her aboard.”
Acknowledgements Amy Sierra Martins Branch Chief, Fisheries Sampling Branch NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Debra Duarte Data Quality Lead, Fisheries Sampling Branch NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Jerry Cygler East West Technical Services Lori Steele, Terry Stockwell, and the Observer Policy Committee References: Comment Cards Excel Spreadsheet. Fisheries Sampling Branch. Van Atten, Amy Sierra, Jenna Christiansen. NMFS, NEFSC. NEFOP Fishermen’s Comment Card Program. Poster, IFOMC 2009.
NEFOP Fishermen’s Comment Cards • Introduced in 2006 • Presented to fishermen by observers at the end of observed trips • Intended by NMFS to be used as a tool to evaluate how well observers perform duties at sea • Also serve as a line of communication between fishermen and the Observer Program
Comment Cards: Pages 1 & 2
Comment Cards: Pages 3 & 4
Methods of Analysis • 864 entries available (total number of Comment Cards in data base) • 86 entries sampled (roughly 10%) • Time series began in late 2006 with Comment Cards dated from as recent as January 2015 being available • Every 10th Comment Card reviewed • • • •
Entry number (ordered chronologically) Date (month/year) Fields 1-12 (related to obs performance) Comments (y/n, with contents of comments)
Returned Comment Cards 2009, 2010, 2011 compared to total number of observed sea days Returned Comment Cards
16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000
13950
14004
86
113
105
2009 (86)
2010 (113)
2011 (105)
8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0
6283
Series 1
Series 2
Number of Comment Cards Submitted by Year 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011 Series 1
* 2006 and 2015 have incomplete data sets
2012
2013
2014
2015
95.3%
99%
95.3%
2.3%
N/A 2.3%
1.2%
2.3%
N/A 1.2%
8
93.0%
7.0%
94.2%
3.5%
96.5%
2.3%
N/A 2.3%
N/A 1.3%
95.3%
2.3%
N/A 1.3%
91.9%*
7.0%*
N/A 1.2%
9.3%
N/A 1.3%
87.2%
Q8. Rewritten from 2006 version. Former version reads: “Did the observer have difficulty identifying species of fish caught? Y/N * Adjusted to reflect the intent of the question
76.9%*
23.1%*
76.9%*
17.9?*
N/A 5.1%*
15.4%*
82.1%*
N/A 2.6%*
2006 Version Q10: Did observer have any safety concerns during trip? Q11: Did you have any other concerns regarding the observer or observing procedures during the trip? If so, please explain (below). Q12: Were you given a data release form with the option to obtain a copy of your trip data? * Created averages from 2010 formatted questionnaire (based on 39 entries)
Fishermen’s Comments • 29 of 86 entries included comments • 70% (20) positive comments about observer • 6.9% (2) negative comments, one about observer, one about cost • 24.1% ‘other’ comments, including concerns about safety, weather, fish weights
Fishermen’s Comments • Entry 70: “It was a pleasure for all to have (observer Z) on board. She did a fantastic job. Also, she is welcome at any time back on our vessel.” • Entry 80: “The fish weight that he got did not match the actual weight. His weight was higher.” • Entry 40: “Storm with wind 50-60 mph. Seas 17-25 ft.”
Fishermen’s Comments • Entry 170: “(Observer X) was one of the most knowledgeable, courteous observers I have had in the six years I have been captain.” • Entry 720: “Very good observer, polite courteous, neat clean quiet. Stayed out of way-didn’t eat much, didn’t help in galley. Offered to help with a couple deck chores. No offer to help in galley or cleaning or food/food prep.” • Entry 860: “Grateful (that) observer was changed from one with very little experience to one with a lot of experience due to a bad weather forecast. (Observer Y) was a very professional observer and (I am) grateful to have her aboard.”
Acknowledgements Amy Sierra Martins Branch Chief, Fisheries Sampling Branch NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Debra Duarte Data Quality Lead, Fisheries Sampling Branch NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Jerry Cygler East West Technical Services Lori Steele, Terry Stockwell, and the Observer Policy Committee References: Comment Cards Excel Spreadsheet. Fisheries Sampling Branch. Van Atten, Amy Sierra, Jenna Christiansen. NMFS, NEFSC. NEFOP Fishermen’s Comment Card Program. Poster, IFOMC 2009.
