Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Fishing Is Big Data and Artificial Intelligence (civileats.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: New England's groundfish season is in full swing, as hundreds of dayboat fishermen from Rhode Island to Maine take to the water in search of the region's iconic cod and haddock. But this year, several dozen of them are hauling in their catch under the watchful eye of video cameras as part of a new effort to use technology to better sustain the area's fisheries and the communities that depend on them. Video observation on fishing boats -- electronic monitoring -- is picking up steam in the Northeast and nationally as a cost-effective means to ensure that fishing vessels aren't catching more fish than allowed while informing local fisheries management. While several issues remain to be solved before the technology can be widely deployed -- such as the costs of reviewing and storing data -- electronic monitoring is beginning to deliver on its potential to lower fishermen's costs, provide scientists with better data, restore trust where it's broken, and ultimately help consumers gain a greater understanding of where their seafood is coming from.
[...] Human observers are widely used to monitor catch in quota-managed fisheries, and they're expensive: It costs roughly $700 a day for an observer in New England. The biggest cost of electronic monitoring is the labor required to review the video. Perhaps the most effective way to cut costs is to use computers to review the footage. Christopher McGuire, marine program director for TNC in Massachusetts, says there's been a lot of talk about automating the review, but the common refrain is that it's still five years off. To spur faster action, TNC last year spearheaded an online competition, offering a $50,000 prize to computer scientists who could crack the code -- that is, teach a computer how to count fish, size them, and identify their species. The contest exceeded McGuire's expectations. "Winners got close to 100 percent in count and 75 percent accurate on identifying species," he says.
[...] Human observers are widely used to monitor catch in quota-managed fisheries, and they're expensive: It costs roughly $700 a day for an observer in New England. The biggest cost of electronic monitoring is the labor required to review the video. Perhaps the most effective way to cut costs is to use computers to review the footage. Christopher McGuire, marine program director for TNC in Massachusetts, says there's been a lot of talk about automating the review, but the common refrain is that it's still five years off. To spur faster action, TNC last year spearheaded an online competition, offering a $50,000 prize to computer scientists who could crack the code -- that is, teach a computer how to count fish, size them, and identify their species. The contest exceeded McGuire's expectations. "Winners got close to 100 percent in count and 75 percent accurate on identifying species," he says.
Because we're devastating the oceans in every way we know how. CO2 acidification, plastic pollution, chemical pollution, radioactive pollution, oil spills, dispersants sprayed on oil spills...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Or you can call it AI or big data. Plan for tomorrow.
To your fishing expedition, funded by an ICO? Slashdot might as well write a generator that says $INDUSTRYs future is AI.
Sounds like you do more fishing than catching.
And the quality of a lot of other food is lower than it used to be.
Lower levels of nutrients and more sugar. Mass market tomatoes are obscenely sweet these days but at least they are not woody any more like they were in the late 90s. Tomatoes are not naturally sweet. They taste like tomatoes. Nothing else tastes like them. Tomatoes should not taste like grapes. I had some recently on a salad bar that literally tasted like grapes. Not a hint of tomato flavor. Just sugar.
But, anyway. Our population has exceeded maltusian limits with regard to fish. So the price of fish is going up and some areas of the sea are dead with regard to fishing. If left alone they would rise to higher levels and we could have higher sustainable levels but that isn't happening and probably won't happen.
The serious shit starts in 30 years or so with chromium (i.e. stainless steel), magnesium, manganese, and so on. We used more chromium in 2014 than from 1901 to 2000 combined.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
For me, the future of fishing is tossing a line off Cayucos Pier at 6:30am with a doob in my mouth and strip of mussel on my hook (you can wade under the pier and find all the mussels you need). Sometimes, I don't bother with the hook and line. If I happen to catch some surfperch or starry flounder, we'll eat surfperch or flounder. If not, there's a place there that serves fish tacos for breakfast that are spectacular.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I know this article is more about management than fishing effectiveness, but I will ignore that and share my anecdote, damnit! Having grown up in Southeast Alaska, I have fished since I was very young, and met numerous fisherman of just about every background and skill level. It was always interesting to me that one man in particular out-fished everyone else I have ever met (I'm talking about charter fishing, not commercial - so, small-scale stuff). This man kept a meticulous, digitized (and searchable) journal of every fish he ever caught - including location, size, weight, species, water temperature, current direction, weather, etc. Perhaps as an obvious result, this guy always knows were to go to get any kind of fish during any time of the year. In recent years, the stricter, necessary rules on all of the fisheries have made catching large quantities of fish significantly more difficult, but he is one of the few that will consistently catch the limit for multiple species nearly every trip. I always thought it was a cool to see such an effective use of data on a small scale. And it is a small scale - charter fishing is hardly one of the larger factors in depleted fisheries. In Alaska, at least.
You'll fish however much your tribal government allows. They are probably wiser than you as an individual.
You'll fish however much your tribal government allows. They are probably wiser than you as an individual.
Governments are ideas; they are not wise or unwise. They are made up of people, who are wise or unwise — and subject to manipulation.
People like him can easily get elected to their tribal government. I've seen what that looks like. It's ugly. Tribes with multi-million dollar casinos whose members live in shit shacks with bursting pipes, for example. Whole families being removed from the rolls of who is and ain't an Indian. And I'm not even a tribal member, I just worked in a casino for a while and got a front-row seat.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I live in the last major land mass to be colonised by humans, so it is still possible to catch a reasonable sized fish close to shore and fishing is a popular sport.
However, the fishing industry has done what it does everywhere and taken every fish it can possibly get hold of despite rules to prevent this happening.
A few years we were being sold the bull that "our" fishing industry was the "most sustainable" on the planet and we had nothing to worry about.
Of course fish stocks have plummeted anyway, and so now we are being bombarded with propaganda about "pledges" the industry is making to "be sustainable".
It's all lies.
WTF? For counting fish? Where do I apply?