A Solution for Fishermen and the North Atlantic Right Whale

May 2020

Kim Sawicki Kim.sawicki@uconn.edu

#3245 © Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2006 NOAA permit 775-1600-10

About the Author Kim Sawicki is a Fulbright-Schuman Program Alumni affiliated with the University of

Connecticut, the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, and the Marine Institute in the Republic of Ireland. In addition to her ongoing research, the author fosters informed discussion of coastal community and cetacean conservation through innovation on her website, Sustainable Seas. Since November 2018, she has served as a liaison between eight underwater technology companies and entrepreneurs that have mature products or are actively developing ropeless technologies. She is a volunteer for the Scottish Marine Animal Stranding Scheme, the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group, and the State of Connecticut’s Region 4 Incident Management Team (since 2010). She is one of the founding members of the Irish Entanglement Alliance, and with the guidance of the gear manufacturers listed below, she advised the New England Fishery Management Council’s (NEFMC) gear research group on the standardization of research methodologies for ropeless. Currently, she is involved in ongoing research in Georgia, Ireland, and the UK on the implementation of ropeless fishing technologies and recently completed a pilot study with Scottish creel fishers.

Author’s Notes Much of the information contained in this report has informally been shared with the

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT), which advises the National Marine Fisheries Service in its marine mammal conservation efforts.

The retail prices of gear included in the report are estimates based on the best available information and are for illustration and comparison purposes only. These estimates have not been offered, redacted, or authorized by any of the collaborators. They are extrapolations of the author’s research only.

The opinions, calculations, and summary points are those of the author only, derived through research, conversations, data sharing, and collaboration with many of the listed parties below.

The author would like to thank the contributing authors and collaborators for their generosity, insights, and cooperation; the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) for its support of this report; and members of the Ropeless Consortium, a group of researchers, scientists, fishing industry representatives, manufacturers, conservationists, and regulators who regularly share their expertise, experience, and feedback. The author would also like to thank the Scottish Entanglement Alliance for their continued international support of ropeless fishing technologies, and last, but certainly not least, all the fishers who offer their time, expertise, thoughtful comments, and spirit of collaboration to this important research. For more information about the Ropeless Consortium’s research and work visit www.ropeless.org.

This report represents original research by the author and was commissioned by the IFAW. The author must directly approve any duplication of this report.

Contributing Authors and Collaborators Authors: John Fiotakis, Marco Flagg, Cormac Hondros-MacCarthy, James A.R. McFarlane, Robert Morris, Michael Shegog, Annika Toth, Jacob Wolf, Ted Zhu. Collaborators: Russ Mullins, Maxwell Poole, Rich Riels, Aaron Stevenson, Michael Stocker, Edward Wyman.

Table of Contents

About the Author……………………………………………………………………………… 1 Author’s Notes………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Contributing Authors and Collaborators ………………………………………………… 1 Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………….. 2 Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………………. 2 I. Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………….. 4 II. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………. 4 III. The Evolution of Lobster Fisheries………………………………………………….. 7 IV. The Need for Ropeless Fishing Gear………………………………………………… 9 V. The Reality of Ropeless Fishing Gear……………………………………………… 11

Origins of Ropeless Fishing ............................................................................... ….11 Options for Ropeless Fishing Systems .................................................................. 12

VI. Testing of Ropeless Fishing Gear………………………………………………….. 22 Testing of Ropeless Concepts ............................................................................... 22 Testing and Use of Ropeless Systems .................................................................. 22 Qualitative Data from Recent Testing of Ropeless Systems .................................. 25 Current and Future Testing of Ropeless Systems ................................................. 26

VII. Ropeless Fishing Gear: A Snapshot of Success………………………………… 28 VIII. Cost Analysis of Ropeless Fishing Gear………………………………………….. 28 IX. Current Retrieval Practices: The True Cost of Inaction………………………… 31

Abandoned, Lost, or Discarded Fishing Gear ........................................................ 31 Gear Loss and Initial Lost Catch ............................................................................ 32 Ghost Fishing ......................................................................................................... 34 Habitat Damage and Marine Debris Cleanup ........................................................ 35 Fishing Area Closures............................................................................................ 36 Navigational Hazards ............................................................................................. 36 Loss to Ecosystem: The Value of Whales as Climate Engineers ........................... 37

X. Addressing Ropeless Fishing Gear Concerns…………………………………… 38 Scientific Barriers to Ropeless Gear Development ................................................ 38 Reactions to Ropeless Fishing from Industry Leaders ........................................... 39

XI. Advancing Ropeless: Next Steps & Solutions……………………………………. 41 Cost Subsidies and Lower Cost Transitions Options ............................................. 41 Incentives for use by Fishermen ............................................................................ 41 Education and Training .......................................................................................... 42 Interoperability of all Systems for Virtual Marking .................................................. 43 Policy and Regulations .......................................................................................... 43

XII. Conclusion: The Promise of Ropeless Fishing Gear……………………………. 44 Appendix 1 – Data Form for Success Rate of Ropeless Gear Deployments……... 46 Appendix 2 – Estimated Impact of Derelict Gear on Harvests………………………. 47 References……………………………………………………………………………………. 48

Abbreviations ALDFG – Abandoned, Lost, or Discarded Fishing Gear

ALWTRT – Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team

ASMFC – Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

BREP – Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program

BSB – Black Sea Bass

DMR – Department of Marine Resources

GTR – Galvanic Timed Release

IMF – International Monetary Fund

MMC – Marine Mammal Commission

MLA – Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association

NARW – North Atlantic Right Whale

NMFS – National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA – National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

SMELTS – Sea Mammal Education Learning Technology Society

WHOI – Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Page 4

I. Introduction There are more than one million vertical lines off the North American coast of the Atlantic

Ocean used by the lobster and crab fishing industry (Hayes et al., 2018). Pot/trap fishing gear, specifically the vertical lines attached to traps, poses an ongoing danger to both mariners and marine mammals, such as right whales.

In fact, entanglement in fishing gear is the leading cause of death for the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale (NARW), Eubalaena glacialis. With an estimated population of about 400 individuals and only 100 breeding-age females, the species lies on the brink of extinction (Pettis et al., 2020, NOAA, 2019a). Since June 2017, thirty right whales have died, nearly twice as many as the previous five years (NOAA, 2020).

Since 1986, researchers and fisheries managers have identified geographic areas “of special concern” with regard to entanglements of right whales: the Gulf of Maine (ME), the Georges Bank (MA), and the Great South Channel (MA), which are also home to the American lobster and a robust commercial pot/trap fishery (Prescott and Best, 1986). In the past five years, entanglement has also been an increasing concern in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada, related to their snow crab fishery (Daoust et al., 2017). Of the right whales remaining, 85 percent have been entangled at least once, and over 50 percent show signs of having been entangled more than once (Knowlton et al., 2012; Pettis et al., 2020). These entanglements not only lead to whale deaths but also decrease whales’ ability to produce calves, further endangering the species (Sharp et al., 2019).

Despite the recognition of gear entanglements as a significant threat to the endangered North Atlantic right whale, efforts to modify gear, such as sinking ground lines and weak links, have not eliminated this threat.(Myers et al., 2019) The most effective way to reduce or eliminate fisheries-related entanglements and mortality would be to reduce lobster fishing in the same geographic areas as

marine animals, a principle known as “reduction of effort” (Smolowitz, 1978b). Any reduction in the number of buoys, endlines, and traps would lead to a reduction in entanglements, gear loss, and navigational hazards (Smolowitz, 1978a; Johnson, 2000; Macfadyen et al., 2009).

Introducing ropeless fishing gear is the natural solution: it would reduce vertical lines in the water without reducing lobster fishing, particularly in the areas of concern. Ropeless fishing gear is an innovative technology that removes the need for buoys and vertical lines in the water, except during active retrieval. The gear combines regular pot/trap fishing with a sophisticated acoustic release system that allows fishermen to retrieve their gear without the need of a vertical line and buoy connecting the trap to the surface. More detailed descriptions of ropeless systems are described in Section V.

The concept of ropeless gear for pot/trap fishing was first introduced in 1998 when the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued its first contract to develop an acoustic release system (DeAlteris, 1999). Subsequently, ropeless fishing developed and multiple innovative and viable systems were created. In fact, after more than 20 years of innovation and sustained research, and thanks to both private and federal funding, many technological developments have moved the market forward from what was merely a theoretical concept to a real solution to marine mammal entanglements.

The 400 right whales remaining in the Atlantic Ocean migrate every year through more than 1 million vertical lines off the North American coast.

85% of all North Atlantic right whales have been entangled at least once and over 50% have been entangled more than once.

Page 5

However, commercial pot/trap fishing operations utilizing ropeless gear currently exist only in New South Wales, Australia (Porter, 2018). There are no jurisdictions in the United States where regulations have been changed to allow ropeless fishing gear, and little to no dedicated federal or state funds for testing and product deployment. Only as of fall 2019 has the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), through the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program, funded the Sea Mammal Education Learning Technology Society and the New England Aquarium to test ropeless gear and technology (NOAA, 2019b). In addition, the U.S. Congress allocated $1 million in FY20 Appropriations for a pilot program to develop and test fishing gear that is designed to reduce right whale entanglements, including ropeless (Division, 2020). With the population of North Atlantic right whales soon reaching a point of functional extinction, serious fact-based discussions on options to transition to ropeless fishing practices are urgently needed (Sharp et al., 2019). This report is intended to provide information that will help facilitate such discussions.

Specifically, this report outlines technological advancements in the lobster industry, traces the origins of acoustic release systems, and provides a detailed description of ropeless designs and ropeless testing that have taken place over two decades. An analysis of success rates and a detailed look at the individual costs of a transition to ropeless technology was developed by the

author and presented in Table 5 and Table 6. The cost analysis can be used by stakeholders to begin an evaluation of the economic feasibility of (and multiple scenarios for) an industry transition to ropeless fishing practices.

This report also details additional negative impacts caused by the use of vertical lines, such as the cost of lost gear, “ghost fishing,” habitat damage, related marine debris clean up, fishing area closures, and whale

extinction, all of which constitute the true cost of continuing to rely on vertical lines. Finally, the report addresses concerns about ropeless technology and lays out considerations for government, industry officials, and fishermen as they move toward ropeless fishing and a more long-term and sustainable fishery.

II. Abstract Only approximately 400 North Atlantic right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, remain in the Atlantic Ocean, including fewer than 100 breeding females (Pettis et al., 2020, NOAA, 2019a). The species is on the brink of extinction and entanglements in pot/trap fishing gear are the leading cause of death. Research conducted in 2018 found that 85 percent of known right whales have been entangled at least once in their lifetime (Knowlton et al., 2012a; Moore, 2019). It is estimated that more than one million vertical fishing lines of lobster and crab gear are found in Atlantic waters of the United States and Canada (Hayes et al., 2018), presenting life-threatening challenges for right whales migrating along the coast. Ropeless fishing gear is an innovative technology that removes vertical buoy lines in the water, except during active retrieval, eliminating the threat of marine mammal

After 20 years of innovation and research, technological developments have moved ropeless technology forward from a theoretical concept to a real solution.

With a right whale population soon reaching a point of functional extinction, fact-based discussions on a transition to ropeless fishing practices are urgently needed.

Page 6

entanglement at its source. The gear combines traditional pot/trap fishing configurations with a sophisticated galvanic timed-release (GTR) or an on-demand acoustic release system that allows fishermen to retrieve their gear without the need for a fixed buoy line connecting the trap to the surface. After over 20 years of development, ropeless fishing gear has become a promising solution for reducing vertical lines along the Atlantic Coast, while promoting local lobster and crab fishing industries.

The author compiled all ropeless research projects conducted in the past 20 years; over 30 ropeless studies have been conducted, ranging from concept building to at-sea testing. Successful testing has occurred in California, Massachusetts, Australia, Canada, and Scotland. An analysis of data from over 1,000 ropeless gear deployments found that ropeless technology has a retrieval success rate of 98.4 percent. As of 2019, eight underwater technology manufacturers have developed or are developing mature ropeless products, and five products are available for purchase. These products vary in their use of stowed ropes, spools, inflatable bags, and buoys. A cost analysis of four different ropeless systems found that the GTR systems have a lower upfront cost than the acoustic release systems but that the seasonal costs of both systems over 20 years are similar. Current retrieval practices carry many economic and societal burdens beyond endangering right whales, including gear loss, ghost fishing, marine debris cleanups, closures, and safety hazards.

Page 7

III. The Evolution of Lobster Fisheries The American lobster fishery has undergone significant changes in the last 180 years,

driven by innovations in science and technology, the most important of which was the combustion engine. The following is a review of the evolution of lobster fishing in the United States. The creation of the first lobster pound at Vinalhaven, Maine, in 1875, opened retail and wholesale opportunities both for fresh live lobster and for the canning industry, which was in full swing. Lobster fishing techniques themselves have changed over time from the use of simple nets and hand-catching onshore to the creel-style traps in the 1840s that used wooden buoys and hemp rope.

In 1880, Maine lobstermen worked an average of fewer than 60 traps (Figure 1); today, that number is well over 300, with 800 traps being the maximum number allowed by the Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) (Cobb, 1899; Judd, 1988; Romanowsky, 2000; Staff, 2016). The last sixty years of lobstering has seen steady innovation, from the adoption of improved electronics – Loran fish-finders, depth sounders, and transistor-based radar – to the implementation of very high frequency (VHF) radios (Figure 1). This era also saw the introduction of fiberglass boats that not only replaced traditional wooden boats used in the near-coastal fishery but also increased in size and capacity as they were developed for offshore activities (Figure 1).

By the 1980s, much of the fleet had adopted fiberglass boats, and after 140 years, had made the switch from wooden to wire traps, which required less annual maintenance. At this time, the industry shifted to using a rigid buoy known as Polyform, which was invented in 1955 (Figure 1). Lobster fisheries also switched from hemp rope to stronger polypropylene rope, a move designed to prevent the rope from breaking down over time.

In the pilothouse, the last 40 years have seen the invention and implementation of chartplotters, autopilots, global positioning satellites (GPS), automatic identification system (AIS), and vessel monitoring systems (VMS). Each generation brings new tools for better and safer navigation. Figure 1 lists these industry advances and major milestones in the Atlantic lobster fishery.

In addition to these developments, the U.S. lobster industry has an admirable track record of adopting practices to ensure sustainability for the lobster population (such as “V-notching"), as well as many practices to conserve right whales, including implementing gear marking requirements, closures, and other entanglement mitigation measures (Figure 2). It is also important to acknowledge that fishermen have borne many of the costs for these mitigation efforts.

Page 8

Figure 1. Timeline of major developments in the American lobster fishery 1840-2019 (Smolowitz, 1978c; Romanowsky, 2000; Oragano, 2012; Kimball, 2017)

*GPS (Global Position Satellites), AIS (Automatic Identification System), VMS (Vessel Monitoring Systems).

*

Page 9

Figure 2. Conservation measures adopted by the fishing industry (Hayes, 2018)

*SMAS (Seasonal Management Area Scheme), DMAS (Dynamic Management Area Scheme)

IV. The Need for Ropeless Fishing Gear Over the past several decades, the confluence of the increased breaking strength of the rope used for fishing, the displacement of lobsters further offshore due to warming waters, and the number of pots set in North Atlantic right whale migration areas have created a “perfect storm” for cetacean and human interaction. Additionally, stocks of lobster are described to be in record abundance in the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) 2015 Stock Assessment Report resulting in strong commercial engagement (ASMFC, 2015).

Today, entanglements in fishing gear are the leading cause of death for the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale (States, 1983; NOAA, 2016; Laist, 2017; Moore, 2019; Sharp et al., 2019). Moreover, entanglements are on the rise at a steady rate of 6.3 percent per year (Hayes et al., 2018).

Most recent estimates indicate there are over 622,000 active vertical fishing lines for pot/trap gear in U.S. waters, while Canada contributes nearly 400,000 additional vertical lines (in both lobster and crab fisheries) in areas that co-occur within every seasonal North Atlantic right whale habitat (Hayes et al., 2018). This represents approximately 62,000 miles of vertical line in the water column – more than ten trips across the Atlantic Ocean and back – dedicated to pot/trap fishing. Depending on how gear configurations are rigged, this poses a substantial number of obstacles for mariners and marine mammals along the North Atlantic coast (Smolowitz, 1978a; Johnson, 2000; Macfadyen et al., 2009; Hayes et al., 2018).

Page 10

A compilation provided by the Maine Lobstermen’s Association and a study by Maine DMR together shows where fishing activities are concentrated inside Maine waters. The information indicates that the concentration of fishing efforts is highest within 3 miles of shore, declines beyond 3 miles of shore, and further declines beyond 12 miles. However, there are still a substantial number of lines found in the areas beyond 12 miles of shore, where right whale observations are relatively frequent. Seasonal trap distribution is different in state and nearshore waters, with a peak in endlines during summer in state waters and a peak during fall for nearshore and offshore waters (Tetreault and McCarron, 2012; Baumgartner et al., 2015).

Ten years ago, recognizing the threat of current fishing gear to whales, testing ropeless gear in a closed area was agreed upon, but NOAA declined to move forward as they could not adequately monitor the testing. Despite understanding the significant threats that endlines and buoys present, virtually no progress toward eliminating this threat has been made since that consensus (Pace et al., 2014; Moore, 2019). Current approaches by regulators to decrease entanglements have been mostly limited to fishing area closures, use of weak links, weaker rope, and sinking line programs, which should be credited for the removal of 27,000 miles of floating line from the water column (MLA, 2018).

The most effective way to reduce or eliminate fisheries-related mortality and morbidity would be to implement a “reduction of effort” by reducing fishing in the same geographic area as marine animals. However, because such a reduction of effort is not a commercially viable option, innovative approaches, such as ropeless gear, have become a necessity. Adaptation of ropeless technology by the industry may have potential economic advantages, most notably that this gear may be accessed during fishing closures triggered by whale migration.

In 1998, NMFS contracted with Professor Joseph DeAlteris to “design, develop and evaluate, in consultation with the offshore lobster industry, a cost-effective, prototype acoustic release system for the buoy endline of offshore lobster trap gear” (DeAlteris, 1999). Professor DeAlteris’s final report to NMFS, in 1999, was a major development because it cleared the way for federally funded research into ropeless fishing, currently being used, developed, and tested worldwide in pot/trap fisheries (Lent, 2017; FAO, 2018; NOAA, 2018). This style of gear lends itself well to reducing the number of endlines that can pose a threat to marine mammals such as right whales and humpback whales (Johnson et al., 2005; Knowlton et al., 2012). Additionally, the removal of buoy lines and/or endlines from the water column reduces the chances of accumulation of marine debris, which causes a multitude of negative effects on the ecosystem and risks the safety of fishermen.

Despite many efforts over the years to reduce entanglements, they remain the principal cause of death for right whales. Tora Johnson, in her book, Entanglements: The Intertwined Fates of Whales and Fishermen, stated:

In spite of the efforts of literally hundreds of people, several lawsuits, and multiple incarnations of the Take Reduction Plan, the right whale is still inching closer to the brink of extinction (Johnson, 2005).

Past research has demonstrated an undeniable benefit from the use of innovative ropeless gear within pot/trap fisheries with the removal of endlines and buoy lines (Werner et al., 2015; Lent, 2017; Baumgartner et al., 2018a; FAO, 2018). It is now up to present-day fishermen, regulators, and scientists to make this a reality.

Despite years of efforts to reduce entanglements, the status of right whales has not improved.

Page 11

V. The Reality of Ropeless Fishing Gear In the previous section, the need for ropeless fishing gear to protect right whales from

harmful entanglements was established. This section traces the origins of ropeless fishing, demonstrates the availability of ropeless gear today, and describes available gear models.

Origins of Ropeless Fishing The feasibility of ropeless fishing gear was grounded in the idea that marine retrieval

technologies used to recover scientific devices could be modified for use in fisheries (Baumgartner et al., 2018a; Werner, 2015; Lent, 2017; Moore, 2018).

In the introduction to his report to NMFS in 1999, Professor DeAlteris noted,

Acoustic releases have been used for more than two decades in the moorings of oceanographic instruments in the deep ocean. Typically, the equipment includes an acoustically triggered subsea unit with a motor-actuated release jaw that opens and releases a buoyed instrument package from a bottom anchor and a vessel deck unit that is used to transmit coded acoustic signal to the subsea unit. These units are commercially available, off-the-shelf, from originally located manufacturers in both expensive deep- ocean models, and low-cost shallow water, continental shelf models (DeAlteris, 1999).

These acoustic technologies have been available for use since 1998 and boast decades of successful use in regular marine applications by commercial marine industries, and the military since the late 1970s. The technology has been deployed regularly and used successfully for research projects with sophisticated equipment and designs more complex than ropeless lobster or crab fishing (DeAlteris, 1999).

Other developments followed the DeAlteris report in 1999. In 2001, José Rivera, Ed Wyman, Shari Wyman, Andre Labonte, and Robin Labonte were awarded an honorable mention in the Eubalaena Award Competition at the annual meeting of the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium for their design of a line storage device to prevent whale entanglements. Between 2002 and 2005, NMFS spent $2 million on workshops and studies to investigate methods that could reduce the number of entanglements by modifying the gear and methods used to retrieve pots and traps (Laist, 2017). Since then, the development of ropeless technology has continued.

Figure 3 demonstrates the historical origins of acoustic release technology and important advancements and applications.

Page 12

Figure 3. Historical origins of acoustic release technology (Moore, WHOI, 2019)

Options for Ropeless Fishing Systems As of November 2019, there are eight leading ropeless retrieval systems, of which

five are available for purchase online. With decades of research and field-testing, ropeless fishing is a viable option that should be given serious consideration as a potential solution in the prevention of marine mammal entanglements, the most pressing being the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale

Six of the eight currently available devices require the use of a rope for retrieval that is contained and stored at depth by a rope management system. The two other devices do not use line, but instead, utilize the inflation of either a lift bag or inflatable buoy to pull a lead trap to the surface. The styles of line management vary with device design that includes square, rectangular, domed, circular, and conical cages, oyster mesh bags, canisters, and spools. These have been successfully used in trials and testing in a variety of active fishing operations in California, Massachusetts, Australia, Canada, and Scotland.

An overview of each product’s gear type, working method, and development status is presented in Table 1. The optimal system will differ according to individual fisherman’s preference, and different systems will work better in certain areas based on local conditions. Each system is

Ropeless fishing is a viable solution for the prevention of marine mammal entanglements, the most pressing of which is the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale.

Status quo for the entanglement risk of trap fishing. Proposed buoyless alternative. Trap is acoustically located, identified, and retrieved.

Page 13

described in detail in Figures 4-11. Other ropeless designs, such as the WHOI Spool, were not included in the data set for this research.

Manufacturer Gear type Status Field-tested Web site

Fiomarine Spool Design Mature design 20+ yr. product

Yes http://fiomarine.com

Desert Star Systems

Rope Release Bag

Mature design 20+ yr. product

Yes http://www.desertstar.com

EdgeTech Cage System Mature design

– 1965 Yes https://www.edgetech.com

Lobster Lift Inflatable

Buoy Solid Prototype No https://www.lobsterlift.com

Longsoaker Fishing

Systems Inc.

Net encased GTR system

In production Yes https://longsoaker.com

SMELTS Inflatable Lift

Bag Solid Prototype Yes https://www.smelts.org

Ashored Cage Design Solid Prototype Yes https://ashored.ca

Neptune Marine

Products GTR* only Mature design Yes

http://neptunemarineproducts.com

Table 1. Summary of current ropeless systems available

*Galvanic Timed Release (GTR) is an existing technology that is an alternative to acoustic release and used as part of a ropeless system. While it is less precise than acoustic for both location and release, it is less expensive and currently available for usage within the fishery.

For additional information, visit https://ropeless.org/.

Page 14

Spool Design (Fiobuoy®)

Manufacturer: Fiomarine Product Name: Fiobuoy Gear Type: Spool device Field Tested: Yes Available for Purchase: Yes Website: http://fiomarine.com Video Demonstration: Spool design

The Fiobuoy® is an integrated smart buoy system comprised of a spool of rope, acoustic modem, floatation, and release mechanism affixed to a subsea object (Figure 4). Each unit has a unique identification code to allow security to the fleet and provide an integrated system management capability for enhanced fisheries operations and oversight. The code management capability can be configured to allow only the buoy to operate in areas open for fishing. If there were an attempt to launch the system within a closed zone, the release jaws would not close on the surface. This system capability prevents the deployment of the system when configured for this functionality. The Fiobuoy mechanical release is activated upon receiving an acoustic command from the surface vessel, a master code for enforcement personnel is also designed into the system. There are also two failsafe release backups in the Fiobuoy; a time/date trigger and a low battery trigger. Once the mechanical jaws are released, the Fiobuoy floats to the surface as the line unspools. Recovery operations remain the same as traditionally marked surface float fixed gear traps. This configuration removes the surface float and the vertical line in the water column until a release is triggered.

Figure 4. Fiobuoy © 2019 Annika Toth

Page 15

Desert Star ARC-1 with Rope Release Bag

Manufacturer: Desert Star Systems Product Name: Desert Star ARC-1 Gear Type: Rope Release Bag Field Tested: Yes Available for Purchase: Yes Website: http://www.desertstar.com Video Demonstration: Release Bag

The Desert Star ARC-1 is a modular acoustic release system produced by Desert Star Systems that can be paired with any rope management systems (Figure 5). As seen in Figure 5, the buoys and rope are contained in a mesh bag with an acoustically triggered release mechanism attached to the side, which is placed with the rest of a fisherman’s regular gear. The release mechanism is a small magnesium wire that disintegrates when it receives an acoustic command. Once released, the buoys and line ascend out of the bag and are available for retrieval at the surface. The gear is then hauled as normal, and the line is repacked for another deployment. The rope storage method can and has been customized to fishermen’s needs according to their geographic regions. This release system has existed and been in use by fishermen in New South Wales (Australia) for many years and is available for purchase on Desert Star Systems’ website.

Figure 5. ARC-1 with Rope Release Bag © 2019 Annika Toth

Page 16

Cage System (EdgeTech 5112)

Manufacturer: EdgeTech Product Name: EdgeTech 5112 Gear Type: Cage System Field Tested: Yes Available for Purchase: Yes Website: https://www.edgetech.com Video Demonstration: Cage System

The EdgeTech 5112 system is an acoustic command and control system developed by EdgeTech. The system consists of a modified lobster trap, which comes in a variety of sizes and rugged acoustic release (Figure 6). The release cage has two sections and a top cover with flotation. One section holds up to 650 feet of ⅜ line, and the other section contains the acoustic release. The top cover includes the floatation that detaches and floats to surface when the acoustic release is actuated. It is deployed like any other lobster trap but without the need for surface rope and buoy. The unit can be deployed in water depths down to 500 meters and handle a load of 500 pounds (release load 250 pounds) while enduring underwater for up to one year (two years on lithium batteries). The acoustic release is constructed of nickel aluminum bronze alloy that protects against corrosion. When communicating with one of the 5112 deck boxes, the system will provide shipboard operators information such as battery life status, tilt information, and release information and confirmation. This system was designed from the ground up with the input of lobster fishermen and is available for purchase on EdgeTech’s website.

Figure 6. EdgeTech 5112 © 2019 Annika Toth

Page 17

Lift Buoy (Lobster Lift)

Manufacturer: Lobster Lift Product Name: LobsterLift Gear Type: Inflatable Buoy Field Tested: Yes Available for Purchase: No – solid prototype Website: https://www.lobsterlift.com Video Demonstration: N/A

LobsterLift is a lineless, self-surfacing modular lobster trap retrieval system. Traps utilizing LobsterLift technology sit on the seafloor and are raised when needed, either through acoustic signal or through GTR (Figure 7). To retrieve a trawl, a fisherman sends an acoustic signal from the boat to a module attached to the trawl. Alternatively, the unit can be fitted with a GTR, which would allow the release of nitrogen from a tank to inflate an attached buoy. The buoy increases in size until it can float the trap to just below the surface (4-8 ft. below the waterline). The buoy is then hauled, the traps are retrieved, removed of their catch, and re-baited. This method uses no vertical endline but does use rope between traps and would require slight modification to work with GTR to protect catch, animals, and gear.

Figure 7. Lobster Lift © 2019 Annika Toth

Page 18

Net Encased GTR System (Longsoaker)

Manufacturer: Longsoaker Fishing Systems Inc. Product Name: Longsoaker Gear Type: Net encased GTR System Field Tested: Yes Available for Purchase: Yes Website: https://longsoaker.com Video Demonstration: Longsoaker

The Longsoaker gear consists of a GTR device, which, once dissolved, allows the release of a coiled line and buoy from the top of a standard pot or trap. A standard buoy is used and is submerged for most of the soak time (Figure 8). It is not visible on the surface until the selected galvanic release dissolves and releases the buoy and line. Retrieval time is the same as with regular gear, as long as the regular operational line was coiled and stored in a reasonably orderly manner. Line coilers with industry-standard hard-lay lines are recommended. Most fishermen will be able to use their existing buoy lines and deck gear. This gear can be easily modified to meet specific fishing requirements for different locations and regulations. When not in use, the retrofit is out of the way and does not require de-rigging, removal, or storage.

Figure 8. Longsoaker © 2019 Annika Toth

Page 19

Inflatable Lift Bag (Lobster Raft)

Manufacturer: SMELTS Product Name: Lobster Raft Gear Type: Inflatable Lift Bag Field Tested: Yes Available for Purchase: No – solid prototype Website: https://www.smelts.org Video Demonstration: Lobster Raft

The non-profit Sea Mammal Education Learning Technology Society (SMELTS), located in Washington State, has developed a lift bag retrieval system that is operated remotely using a WHOI acoustic modem. The SMELTS lift bag does not employ any vertical line; instead, an acoustic modem, release electronics, and a compressed air cylinder are contained within a standard lobster trap (Figure 9). When the release system receives an acoustic signal, the compressed air cylinder fills the lift bag on top of the trap with air to bring the trap and groundline (which attaches the lift trap to the rest of the trawl) to the surface. Depending on the depth fished and the volume of the air cylinder, SMELTS estimates that the system can deploy six to 50 times without replacing the air cylinder. The SMELTS lift bag system has gone through engineering trials in Cape Cod Bay and Stellwagen Bank and will be used in commercial fishing tests in Massachusetts and the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence during 2019 (Myers et al., 2019).

Figure 9. Lobster Raft © 2019 Annika Toth

Page 20

Cage Design (MOBI)

Manufacturer: Ashored Product Name: MOBI Gear Type: Cage Design Field Tested: Yes Available for Purchase: No – solid prototype Website: https://ashored.ca Video Demonstration: Cage Design MOBI

MOBI by Ashored is an electronically activated underwater release system that consists of a conical cage that stores line as well as a buoy, anchored on the seafloor until activation (Figure 10). The release mechanism consists of a t-bar connected to a drive shaft allowing for circular motion. This t-bar is coupled with a lid plate that has a specific slot to slip over the t-bar for arming. The t-bar then spins 90 degrees over the lid plate to complete arming and holds the lid in place until released. The release is initiated either by a remotely transmitted acoustic signal or from the internal time-clock backup. The t-bar spins another 90 degrees in the same direction and realigns with the slot in the lid plate, enabling separation/release of the instrument. Ashored’s MOBI could be relatively easily adapted to work with a GTR and used as a rope management system. The rope cages feature a stackable design to mitigate deck space consumption and arrives at the surface with the buoy for simultaneous respooling as the buoy line is hauled aboard.

Figure 10. MOBI devise © 2019 Annika Toth

Page 21

Galvanic Timed-Release Device

Manufacturer: Neptune Marine Products Product Name: Galvanic Timed Release (GTR) Models D-3 and D-4 Gear Type: GTR Field Tested: Yes Available for Purchase: Yes Website: http://neptunemarineproducts.com Video Demonstration: N/A

Galvanic Timed-Releases (GTR) are a low-cost option in widespread use in the marine industry and in the trap fisheries in New Zealand and Australia (Figure 11) (Salvador et al., 2006). They are not currently commonly used by commercial pot/trap fisheries on the East Coast or the Gulf of Maine. A GTR device uses two dissimilar metals that corrode at a predictable rate. The corrosion releases the link, which then allows a float and line to rise to the surface for recovery. GTR’s must be used in saltwater. Their corrosion rate depends on the water’s salinity and temperature at the depth being used.

GTR releases offer approximate release timing, which varies with water temperature, salinity, current speed, and fouling. Thus, GTR-equipped ropeless systems will still leave the rope in the water column some percentage of the time. Periods of rough weather when fishermen may not be able to service his trawls will likely mean lines will remain in the water column unattended for an undetermined period of time.

Note: Both manufacturer and reseller stated that the product pricing is inflated for this review (to accommodate for 20-year inflation by this researcher) and that the price for units would surely drop with large orders. This would greatly benefit large fisheries such as those in New England.

Figure 11. Galvanic Timed-Release models D-3

Page 22

VI. Testing of Ropeless Fishing Gear In 1998, the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a federally funded

contract to “design, develop, and evaluate…a cost-effective prototype acoustic release system for the buoy endline of offshore lobster trap gear.” Since this first initiative, a considerable amount of testing of ropeless retrieval systems has taken place. A comprehensive overview of all the research to date indicates a total of 32 ropeless technology projects. Overall, this testing has served to drive the evolution from a technical concept to a working prototype to an operational system and finally to an established product with commercial viability.

Testing of Ropeless Concepts Since 1998, at least 11 research projects that funded conceptualization of ropeless gear

were developed in the U.S. Six of these were based on acoustic release technology, the innovation at the heart of many ropeless retrieval systems. Table 2 outlines the full scope of conceptual research over the last twenty years in the U.S., which led to the creation of fully operational ropeless systems. The table describes the gear style, sample size (when available), location, funding source, and type of project. The types of projects are very diverse, including the creation of a ropeless prototype, lab testing of ropeless gear, demonstrations of gear, and using gear for fishing (Table 2).

Testing and Use of Ropeless Systems Results and ideas generated from the conceptual projects detailed above led to the

development of full-blown operational systems available for further testing and daily use. These tests have produced iterative improvements to gear and brought several systems to commercial viability (see Section V for more details). Equally important, testing has generated helpful data on how well ropeless systems work. Table 3 gives an overview of 21 testing projects (or demonstrated use) of ropeless retrieval systems, several in “at-sea” conditions. For these tests, testers deployed the gear, virtually marked its location, virtually relocated it, and then retrieved it. It describes gear style, sample size, type of testing, and location of testing for each project. Tests of ropeless gear have been conducted all around the world, including in Australia, Canada, New South Wales, Scotland, and Massachusetts.

In the past 20 years, more than 30 research projects have tested ropeless concepts and ropeless retrieval systems, with more planned and ongoing.

Page 23

Year Project

author and citation

Type of project

Location Sample size (n)

Gear style and name

Funding source

1999 (DeAlteris,

1999) Prototype and

Testing RI 10

Acoustic releases

(Benthos 875, EdgeTech AMD)

NOAA

1999 (Turner et al.,

1999)

Concept, Built, and Lab Tested

NH N/A Acoustic release

Buoyless Lobster Trap

NH Sea Grant

2013 (Partan and Ball, 2016)

Research and concept

MA N/A

ORE (EdgeTech) line canister, Desert Star, FioBuoy, WHOI concept

NOAA

2007 (Allen and DeAlteris,

2007)

Prototype and Test

RI 129 Acoustic NFWF

Before2010

NOTUS (ALWTRT,

2010) Built NJ NA

Notus Acoustic Release

NMFS

2012 (PFC, 2012) Test and used

for Fishing ME 386

GPS and Grapple (not

recommended) NMFS

2012 Gwinn

Grapple Test and used

for Fishing MD 30

GPS and Grapple (not

recommended) NMFS

2014 (Hopkins et al., 2014)

Concept, Built, and Lab Tested

NH UNK Acoustic release NH Sea Grant

2015 (Basque et al., 2015)

Concept, Built, and Lab Tested

NH N/A Acoustic release

buoyless trap NH Sea Grant

2018 (Biedron,

2018) Trial MA N/A Desert Star IFAW

2018 (Shester,

2018) Demonstration CA 8

FioBuoy, Desert Star

Oceana

Table 2. Research on ropeless concepts in the United States since 1998

Page 24

Year Project author and citation Type of testing

Location Sample size (n)

Gear style and name

1996-2019 FioBuoy, FioMarine (pers.

comm.) Internal Test AUS 206 FioBuoy

2000-2019 Multiple Customers (pers. comm. Ridd et al. multiple

dates & McCrindell) Active Use AUS N/A

FioBuoy Line spool, timer or

acoustic release

1999 (DeAlteris, 1999) Prototype

Test RI 50 Acoustic release

2005 (Hopkins and Hoggard,

2005) Prototype

Test MS N/A

Subsea Sonics AR 50

2007 (Allen and DeAlteris, 2007) Prototype

Test RI 129 Acoustic

2011 FRDC, (Liggins, 2012) Test used for fishing

NSW AUS

>100 Acoustic release line storage bag

2018 CWLA, (Terhune et al.,

2018) Used for fishing

CAN 94 Desert Star

ARC-1

2018 Acadian Crabbers Assn (DFO, 2018; Gies, 2018)

Used for fishing

CAN UNK Desert Star

ARC-1 2019 (CWLA, 2019) Tested CAN ongoing Ashored MOBI

2011 (Porter, 2018) for MLA Used for fishing

NSW active use

Desert Star

2018 SMELTS & NOAA

(Milliken, 2018; Riels, 2018) Test MA 50 SMELTS

2018 WHOI/NOAA(Milliken, 2018;

Ball, et al., 2018) Test MA 50 WHOI Spool

2019 Acadian Crabbers Assn

(DFO, 2018) Used for fishing

CAN ongoing Ashored MOBI Edgetech5112

SMELTS

2019 Lobster Lift (C. McCarthy

pers. comm.) Internal

Test MA >50

Lobster Lift Prototype

2019 EdgeTech/NOAA (E. Matzen pers. comm.)

Used for fishing

MA >12 EdgeTech 5112

2019 SMELTS/ NOAA (pers.

comm.) Used for fishing

MA >12 SMELTS

Lobster Raft

2016-2019 (Partan and Ball, 2016, 2018; Ball et al., 2018)

Test NE AL 42

proposed Line spool,

acoustic release

2017-2019 SMELTS (Riels, 2018) Internal Test PNW, NE

AL 608 SMELTS

2018-2019 Ashored (M. Poole, pers.

comm.0029 Internal Test CAN >100 Ashored MOBI

2018-2019 EdgeTech (R. Morris, pers.

comm.) Internal Test MA >100 EdgeTech 5112

2019-2020 (Sawicki, results not yet

published) Test, Used for fishing

Scotland, UK

>100 Desert Star

ARC-1 Fiobuoy

Table 3. Testing of ropeless gear systems from 1996 – January 2020

Page 25

Qualitative Data from Recent Testing of Ropeless Systems Recent tests also captured qualitative data from individuals who had hands-on experience

with deploying, using, and testing ropeless gear. The following statements are offered as a sample of the feedback received. Overall, the qualitative data affirmed technical success and identified ongoing challenges:

● “I was really impressed…A few wee tweaks, I think it would be ready to go really. There’s all these little subtleties, but once you get the hang of it, there’s not much to it (Sawicki, 2020).

● “We’ve seen six bits of gear, mostly buoys, on the shore right here; I’d argue if it was ropeless, there wouldn’t be any” (Sawicki, 2020).

● “The obvious advantage is removing the whole entanglement issue, but also for us, we lose quite a lot of gear here, to either other fishermen or boats, and we get our gear dragged about quite a bit by the weather, so if the buoys are deep enough, those things aren’t issues at all. Sometimes, with big swell, the buoys will pick up the last creel, and it walks up the fleet and picks up the next creel, so you end up with this ball of creels, picking up the next as they go. If you had ropeless gear, that wouldn’t be an issue” (Sawicki, 2020).

● “Even the thought of no buoys on the surface takes time to get used to. In the beginning, it took time to get used to the system. All three captains said that they thought that they could make it work. There is a lot of improvement to be done on the rope bag to improve success to 100 percent and find a way to make buoys stay on the surface longer” (Harris, 2019).

● “Ropeless gear takes more time to pull because of interrogation, looking for buoys, and packing rope bags. Other aspects are easier, like no lines floating on the water when pulling your trawl. It’s all in the bag on the other end. When you’re done pulling your trawl, your bag comes in and is ready to go. No pulling in buoy lines or maneuvering around them. You would also assume that it is there because nobody should have tampered with it; surface buoys commonly go missing from gear entanglement and boat snags, etc.” (Harris, 2019).

● “The Australian Hydrographic Service has been using Fiobuoys since 2000. We have found them to be an extremely reliable and valuable product and for retrieving our underwater equipment and have been very happy with their performance” (McCrindell, 2019).

● “The field trials demonstrated that acoustic releases show promise for future implementation in the fishery but highlighted current weaknesses in design types such as release failures and time-consuming trap resetting procedures. The Working Group plans to continue their field testing in 2019” (Lebon and Kelly, 2019).

● “There was general agreement that there are promise and value in further exploring ropeless fishing gear in the West Coast Dungeness crab fishery, as part of a broader strategy to reduce whale entanglements” (Shester, 2018).

● “This buoyless lobster gear test was an early stage of an integrative, incremental approach to adoption of buoyless lobster gear as a solution to North Atlantic right whale entanglement in vertical lobster lines in the water column. By the end of the week, Dave stated that he was confident that the buoyless gear would work and that the malfunctions of the release system could be overcome, especially once used during commercial fishing for several weeks” (Biedron, 2018).

Page 26

● “Scott and his crew were very skilled at fishing the system, particularly in matching each pot to the computer so that it was properly recorded and could be relocated, and the setting of the burn wire in the acoustic release system” (Porter, 2018).

● “Desert Star and EdgeTech ropeless fishing gear are being tested in the Gulf of St. Lawrence by the Acadian Crabbers Association, said the group’s director-general, Robert Haché. Ropeless technology ‘is not pie in the sky. It’s ready and easily adaptable to our fishery,’ he said. Whether it’s affordable is another question” (Gies, 2018).

● “I am pleased to report that our ten Fiobuoys have been completely reliable and cost-effective instruments for removing the need for a surface buoy. We have been very happy with their performance” (Ridd, 2014).

● “The two commercial fishermen who were involved in these experiments…were so impressed with the performance of the acoustic system and its potential advantages for their businesses that they have made substantial investments in the technology. Both have since successfully used the system for commercial fishing in its "portable" configuration” (Liggins, 2012).

Current and Future Testing of Ropeless Systems Numerous unanswered questions from management and industry partners remain about

functionality, implementation, and cost (NOAA, 2018). Valid concerns expressed by experienced fishermen have not been resolved due to limited testing, funding, and reporting. It is imperative that tests and demonstrations of these systems are completed in a supported, immersive, and timely fashion.

In addition, priority needs to be given to designing more thoughtful experimental trials that allow the technology and functionality (and not perceptions of cost) to be reviewed. This perception of cost seems to have led to a significantly negative bias on surveys and study results, as well as on the effort of individuals during field trials (How et al., 2015; Higgins, 2018; Pappalardo, 2018; Shester, 2018; Waterman, 2018; Donahue, 2019; McCarron, 2019).

With much effort from the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT), a matrix of ropeless technology updates was published in 2018 to determine where future research efforts would be best focused (NOAA, 2018). These findings originated in 2015 from NMFS’s request to the ALWTRT to “identify and prioritize research needs related to reducing risks associated with vertical lines and groundlines” (NMFS, 2015).

Similarly, NOAA/NMFS’s Summary of Gear Modifications and Recommendations for Research Aimed at Reducing Risks Associated with Vertical Lines and Groundlines, published in 2015, supported the continued development of acoustic on-demand ropeless systems. This report rated ropeless technology as having the least possible risk of entanglement on a scale of 1-10, with four ropeless technologies receiving high research interest at that time (NMFS, 2015; GARFO, 2018; NOAA, 2018).

The charge to continue testing has also been echoed by the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC). In a 2017 letter, Dr. Rebecca Lent, (then Executive Director of the MMC), stated to Samuel Rauch III, (then Acting Assistant Administrator of Fisheries of NMFS),

“The Commission recommends that NMFS (1) identify and evaluate deep-sea fisheries and fishing areas where techniques to eliminate the need for buoy lines could be used or further developed, including… deploying on-call buoy systems, (2) collect data on costs and earnings in these fisheries in order to better assess the

Page 27

economic viability of ropeless fishing techniques, and 3) based on the results of those efforts, develop regulations to phase-in the use of such techniques or systems in fisheries and fishing areas where it is deemed practical” (Lent, 2017).

As ropeless technology is refined, expanded testing and demonstrations are necessary. Gear demonstrations, while not statistically significant, allow the public and stakeholders to have first-hand experience with gear, which can foster continued collaboration among fishermen, researchers, and gear manufacturers. Looking forward, here is a table of the current and future important ropeless testing planned around the world (Table 4).

Location Project leader Number of

manufacturers Field tests

Massachusetts NOAA Northeast Gear Testing Group 4 Ongoing

New England WHOI through Bycatch Reduction

Engineering Program (BREP) grant 1 Ongoing

Canada

Acadian Crabbers Association, Cold Water Lobstermen’s Association, and

Grand Manan Fishermen’s Association

3 Ongoing

UK and EU Marine Mammal Entanglement

Consortiums 4 Ongoing

Georgia Phillips Seafood 5 Ongoing

California Dungeness Crab Fishing Gear

Testing Group 4

Future – planned for fall 2020

New England SMELTS though BREP grant 1 Summer 2020

Table 4. Current and future testing of ropeless gear

Page 28

VII. Ropeless Fishing Gear: A Snapshot of Success A review of more than 1,000 individual gear deployments indicates that ropeless retrieval systems are extremely reliable and successful.

In 2018, eight underwater technology manufacturers listed in Table 1 began an informal collaboration and agreed to share system performance data on a protected basis with the author. Due to the sensitive and proprietary nature of

deployment data and device design, non-disclosure agreements are in place between these gear developers and the author. The author recognizes that this data has not been peer-reviewed but it has been approved to be shared in a scrubbed format directly from the manufacturers. This group will consider any requests for the data and analysis.

As a result of this collaboration, in July 2019, data from more than 1,079 quantifiable individual active gear deployments were combined into a single data set and analyzed using a standardized data form (See Appendix 1). A power analysis using GPower 3.1 (effect size .24) was completed by the author to calculate a sample size (n) greater than 44 (n>44) to achieve statistically significant results (Faul et al., 2007). Results for short demonstrations and small trials were not included in this data set for that reason (Faul et al., 2007). All the data requested by the author to conduct this analysis was provided by the manufacturers and includes data on deployments with military partners and in-house testing.

Results of actively deployed and operational commercial gear, as well as in-house gear development and testing, showed a 98.4 percent success rate for ropeless technology overall. To be considered a successful deployment, the gear had to be deployed in the ocean, virtually marked, virtually relocated, and completely retrieved.

This analysis included errors/failures from owner-operators in order to simulate the activity of a seasoned fisherman fishing ropeless gear after a full season of use (Smolowitz, 1978a; Baumgartner et al., 2018b; Goodman, 2018; Riels, 2018 and extensive communications between six of the ropeless gear manufacturers). It did not include errors/failures from students, demonstration participants, fishermen who were arming the gear by themselves without supervision for the first time, or groups who elected to “design” their own rope storage devices.

VIII. Cost Analysis of Ropeless Fishing Gear Any serious discussion of a fishing industry transition to ropeless must include the

projected costs and the perception of those costs, which are widely believed to be prohibitive. The goal of this section is to provide a draft framework for how to realistically estimate the cost for an individual lobster fisherman to transition completely to ropeless gear and to demonstrate the actual estimated costs over time.

The author has developed an analytical tool to allow comparisons of the projected costs of acquiring and operating over time two ropeless gear styles: a GTR rope management system (Table 5), and an acoustic rope management system (Table 6). This tool could be used by stakeholders to evaluate the economic feasibility of (and multiple scenarios for) an industry transition to ropeless fishing. It should be noted that some of these costs are incurred every season, while others are on a much longer cycle. This framework uses Maine’s well-documented lobster fishery as an example in building a profile of a representative lobster fisherman, which includes the following assumptions (PFC, 2012; Tetreault and McCarron, 2012; Tetreault and McClellan, 2014; Summers et al., 2018):

Results show a 98.4 percent success rate for ropeless technology overall.

Page 29

❏ Maximum trap allowance per license holder: 800 ❏ Traps per trawl: 15 ❏ Number of trawls: 54 (800 divided by 15), with two endlines per trawl ❏ Number of endlines: 108 (54 x 2) ❏ Fishing season: 150 days “on” ❏ Soak time: 4 days ❏ Services per season: 38 (150 days divided by 4 soak days) ❏ Deployments per season: 4,104 (108 endlines serviced 38 times per season) for a

fisherman’s entire gear-set. ❏ A “service” entails replacing the release device, reloading the spool, repacking the cage,

or refilling the bottle, and deflating the buoy or bag.

The following model assumes that fishermen are putting a rope release mechanism on both ends of each trawl. Four different ropeless systems are used in the following calculations and tables, as referenced. They are identified generically (System A, B, C, D) to avoid identifying the manufacturer of each system. The projected cost for each of them was calculated for both the galvanic time release (GTR) model (Table 5) and the acoustic release device (Table 6). The systems from Tables 5 and 6 are the same but adjusted to either GTR or acoustic release.

This model considers that an average lobsterman has 15 trap-trawls in use for 150 days per calendar year, with 4-day soak times, in operational currents of less than 1.3 knots for GTR and no more than five knots for acoustic. The following tables calculate the total projected cost for a lobster fisherman to switch their 108 endlines to ropeless. The GTR rope management system and the acoustic rope management system both include the cost of tracking software. Only systems A and B are currently available on the market. The upfront cost is the total cost of the rope management system plus the cost of GTRs per season and the cost of any additional items, such as the cost of bag assembly.

While some systems detailed below bear significant upfront financial costs to the user, others, such as Systems B and D, carry more moderate costs that over 20 years will likely be commensurate with existing gear and seasonal maintenance expenditures. The GTR systems have a clear lower upfront cost than the acoustic systems, but the majority of the seasonal costs over 20 years for both systems are similar (Table 5 and Table 6). These values will likely decrease over time as market demand increases.

As evident in Tables 5 and 6, each system has its own benefits and variabilities. In addition to upfront costs, parts of the gear need to be replaced with time, specifically the ropes, batteries, and rope storage devices. This additional cost over time is higher for the GTR systems since fewer parts of the acoustic systems need to be replaced over time. Also, in comparing the two systems, acoustic systems have a higher resistance to strong currents and allow lobstermen to have a real-time location of their gear, which often moves around due to strong waves or currents. The overall benefits of acoustic systems – that it is on call and on demand – make it more applicable to unpredictable weather and ocean conditions that might inhibit gear hauling. Tables 5 and 6 offer summaries of the original cost analysis conducted by the author and do not include all calculations. Full cost analysis tables are available upon request.

While GTR systems have a lower upfront cost than acoustic systems, the seasonal costs over 20 years of both systems are similar. All costs will likely decrease over time as market demand increases.

Page 30

Table 6. Seasonal and twenty-year cost for ropeless systems using acoustic rope management system

*Total Costs include cost of acoustic release system, acoustic module, and replacement of rope management system.

Table 5 and 6 are summaries of original cost analysis. The original cost analysis tables are available upon request.

GTR rope management

system

Cost of GTRs* per

season

Bag assembly

cost ($20/hr)

Cost rope management

incl labor

Total upfront cost

year one

Number of replacement in 10 years

Total cost**

over 10 years

Number of replacement in

20 years

Total cost** over 20 years

Seasonal cost over

20 years***

Max current speed (knots)

System A $8,400 N/A $129,600 $138,000 0 $213,600 0 $297,600 $14,880 1-1.3

System B $8,400 $1,080 $9,936 $18,336 3 $113,808 6 $217,248 $10,862 1-1.3

System C $8,400 N/A $26,460 $34,860 3 $110,460 3 $326,760 $16,338 1-1.3

System D $8,400 N/A $40,824 $49,224 1 $124,824 0 $249,648 $12,482 1-1.3

Acoustic rope

management system

Bag assembly

cost ($20/hr)

Cost of the

acoustic module

Cost rope management

Total upfront cost

year one

Number of replacement in 10 years

Total cost* over 10 years

Number of replacement in 20 years

Total cost* over 20 years

Seasonal cost over 20 years

Max current speed (knots)

System A N/A $607,716 $129,600 $737,316 0 $737,316 0 $737,316 $36,866 5

System B $1,080 $81,000 $9,936 $90,936 3 $110,808 6 bags and 1

modem $221,616 $11,081 3

System C N/A $27,540 $26,460 $54,000 3 $162,000 6 $324,000 $16,200 Unknown

System D N/A $108,000 $40,824 $148,824 0 $148,824 1 $297,648 $14,882 Unknown

Table 5. Seasonal and twenty-year cost for ropeless systems using GTR system

*GTR cost per unit: $2.00 with shipping and handling (Ed Wyman, pers. comm. April 4, 2019). Note: both manufacturer and reseller stated that the product pricing is inflated for this review (to accommodate for 20-year inflation by this researcher) and that the price for units would drop with large orders.

**Total Costs include cost of GTR for 20 years, replacement of rope management system, and labor.

***Seasonal Cost over 20 years represents the total cost of each ropeless system for 20 years divided by 20 to provide an average seasonal/annual value.

Page 29

Page 31

IX. Current Retrieval Practices: The True Cost of Inaction It is easy to see that an industry-wide transition to ropeless technologies and practices

would involve substantial direct costs, which are detailed in the previous section of this report. What is less understood, but equally important, is the fact that current fishing methods also involve high costs and risks.

This section describes the many ways that the use of vertical line and current retrieval practices impose costs. These include costs related to gear loss, “ghost” fishing, marine debris clean up, fishing area closures, navigation, and safety hazards. Taken together, these costs run to hundreds of millions of dollars; they are shared by fishermen, industry, state governments, and every taxpayer. These issues and cost estimates are offered here to describe the true costs of inaction and to better inform future choices about fisheries practices.

Furthermore, there are significant government expenditures directed toward right whales. In 2006, the MMC published a report indicating total spending of $45.6 million by all U.S. agencies and groups involved in implementing the right whale recovery program during three fiscal years, 2003-2006. Of that amount, 95.5 percent came from federal agencies, primarily NMFS, who was the most significant single source of funding ($35.3 million) (Reeves

et al., 2007). Nevertheless, these tens of millions of dollars spent have not correlated to an increase in the North Atlantic right whale population; in fact, the right whale population has declined significantly in this same time period.

Abandoned, Lost, or Discarded Fishing Gear Abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) is gear that enters the marine

environment intentionally or unintentionally, which has both direct and indirect negative impacts. Additionally, ALDFG threatens marine animals through catching of target and non-target species (ghost fishing and marine animal entanglements), alteration and damage to the benthic environment, creation of worldwide navigational hazards, and introduction of plastics into the marine habitat and food web.

Of the many causes of ALDFG, those that can affect pot/trap fisheries include adverse weather, gear conflicts, illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, vandalism, theft, and unintentional vessel interactions (propellers that damage or severe buoyed endlines). It is extremely difficult to quantify the costs of ALDFG, primarily because it is not well documented. However, pressure from groups struggling to fight marine debris at large has led to promising work that will serve to inform this area in the future (Macfadyen et al., 2009).

These direct and indirect costs of lost gear are evident in the North Atlantic pot/trap fishery and are shown in Figure 12.

True societal costs of inaction amount to hundreds of millions of dollars through gear loss, ghost fishing, marine debris clean ups, closures, and safety hazards.

Page 32

Figure 12. The marine costs of trap fishing with buoys and endlines. © 2019 Annika Toth

Gear Loss and Initial Lost Catch Pot and trap gear is lost every year because vertical lines are susceptible to interactions

with vessels, tide, damage from storms, inattention, theft, vandalism, poaching, and regular wear and tear (Smolowitz, 1978a; Breen, 1989; FAO, 2012; Richardson et al., 2019).

Surveys and anecdotal reports found that lobster pot loss rates in Maine could vary from five to 25 percent. Studies found that for both inshore and offshore operations the pot loss rate could range between 10-25 percent annually (Smolowitz, 1978a; Kruse et al., 1993; Pelletier et al., 2008; Pelletier and Ellis, 2009; Ludwig et al., 2012a; Goodman, 2018). Along the Maine coast, a 1992 study reported an annual pot loss rate of 5-10 percent (ICES, 2000). Another estimate from 2011 indicated an annual trap loss in Maine of 5.95 percent (Bever, 2019; Staff, 2019a) The most recent and all-inclusive review of literature on the subject has concluded that the annual trap loss percentage in Maine is 19 percent (Richardson et al., 2019).

As of 2018, there were 2,939,885 total trap tags purchased in Maine by individual permit holders. However, anecdotal reports from fishermen indicate that fishermen often “hold” some of their tags, and only fish a portion of their allotment. For the following calculations, the highest estimate is utilized (2,939,885 trap tags) since it is impossible to quantify the actual number of traps being used in Maine’s waters. For this calculation, the average estimate of 12.28 percent

Page 33

was used (Table 7), arguably more conservative than the NOAA-cited and accepted gear loss numbers of 20-30 percent, the number of lobster traps lost annually is potentially 361,017 (Smolowitz, 1978a; NOAA, 2015). Using an average cost estimate of $105 to replace each trap means a direct annual loss to fishermen of nearly $38 million (Overton, 2018). This equation is simplified here as:

Current DMR estimates show an annual catch in 2018 of 119,640,379 pounds of lobster purchased at dock for $4.05 per pound, or a total of $484,543,535 annually (DMR, 2018). A yearly loss of just under $38 million would represent over eight percent of the lobster market’s total economic value. Moreover, this replacement cost of $105 accounts only for the value of the traps and is not inclusive of the cost of new buoys, line, trap tag fees, bricks, bait, consumables, travel, or time-related to replacement efforts that also account for a significant expense to fishers.

As shown above, the availability and quality of information for estimating annual trap loss varies considerably. Nevertheless, it is possible to posit a credible scenario based on these existing studies and surveys. Table 7 shows the results from seven studies that analyzed gear loss in Maine. From the loss percentages gathered by these studies, the author calculated the financial cost each of these percentage losses would represent to the lobster Maine industry. These calculations consider not only the value of the traps lost but also the replacement cost of each trap tag and the potential revenue of the catches that each lost traps would have provided the lobster fishermen (Table 7). A detailed version of this table is available upon request.

2,939,885 traps x 12.28% loss = 361,017 lost traps x $105/trap = $37,906,785 loss/year

In Maine, potentially 360,000 traps are lost every year, resulting in a direct annual loss to fishermen of nearly $38 million.

Page 34

Referenced Source

% of traps lost

Potential # of lost

traps

Cost of lost traps

Cost of trap tag

lost

Cost of one season of lost initial and

ghost catch

Total annual cost

Notes

Total number of active tags: 2,939,885 (DMR Maine, 2018) Cost of one trap: 105 $/trap (Overton, 2018)

Cost of one trap tap: 0.5 $/trap (DMR Maine, 2019) Cost of lobster per pound: 4.05 $/lb. (DMR Maine, 2018)

Estimated pounds of lobster per lost trap per season: 17.729 lb. (Mercer, 2002) Data represents commercial license holders only (LC1, LC2, LC3, LCO, LC2O, LC3O, LCU)

(Ludwig et al., 2012a)

1.44% 42,334 $4,445,106 $21,167 $3,041,388 $7,507,661

(MA DMF, 2012) 3.15% 92,606 $9,723,670 $46,303 $6,653,115 $16,423,088 GOMLA quote*

(Bever, 2019; Staff, 2019a)

5.95% 175,000 $18,374,998 $87,500 $12,572,366 $31,034,863 Carl Wilson

quote*

(Trotter, 2009; Smith et al.,

2011) 10.00% 293,989 $30,868,793 $146,994 $21,120,751 $52,136,538

(Richardson, et al., 2019)

19.00% 558,578 $58,650,706 $279,289 $40,129,427 $99,059,422

(Poon, 2005) 21.40% 629,135 $66,059,216 $314,568 $45,198,407 $111,572,191

(Smolowitz, 1978a)

25.00% 734,971 $77,171,981 $367,486 $52,801,878 $130,341,345

Average % of lost traps

12.28%

Ghost Fishing Abandoned, lost, or discarded lobster traps continue to catch lobster, even when they

cannot be retrieved. This phenomenon is known as “ghost” or “derelict” fishing and can even affect harvest over time (Table 8 and Appendix 2).

Sheldon and Dow first demonstrated “derelict fishing” in the American lobster industry in 1975. Derelict fishing impacts can persist for long periods due to a process known as ‘self-baiting’: species entrapped within the gear die and form new bait, which then attracts scavengers, who become entrapped and die themselves (Sheldon and Dow, 1975; FAO, 2012; NOAA, 2015; Goodman, 2018; Richardson et al., 2019).

Much work has been done by economists and marine scientists to model economic losses related to derelict fishing gear, such as the “Lobsters to Dollars Initiative” (Natural Resources Consultants, 2007; Jeffrey et al., 2016; Donihue, 2017). Estimates vary, but using results from recent studies, the author calculated annual loss of ghost fishing to the American lobster industry (Table 8) and concluded that ghost fishing costs the Maine lobster industry and state economy an average of $26 million every year (Table 8). This number demonstrates why ghost fishing should have a central place in the discussion of the true impact and cost of current fishing practices. A detailed version of Table 8 is available upon request.

Ghost fishing is estimated to cost the Maine lobster industry and state economy an average of $26 million each year.

Table 7. Calculated cost of lost traps to the lobster industry each year

Page 35

Instead, the millions of dollars spent annually in the U.S. on replacing, mitigating, removing, and recycling derelict gear could be reoriented towards preventing gear loss through the funding of innovative gear, including ropeless, that can be located and retrieved before it can impact fishery’s landings.

Referenced Source

% active gear loss

$ per pound

1

Pounds lost per

ghost trap (Est)

Average # traps lost per fisher per year

Initial catch and ghost

fishing loss per fisher

# of lost traps (est)

Annual loss of initial catch and ghost

fishing to American lobster fishery

(Ludwig et al., 2012a)

1.44% $ 4.05 17.739 9 $ 630 42,334 $3,041,424

(MA DMF, 2012)

3.15% $ 4.05 17.739 19 $ 1,377 92,606 $6,653,115

(Bever, 2019; Staff, 2019a)

5.95% $ 4.05 17.739 36 $ 2,603 175,000 $12,572,515

(Trotter, 2009; Smith et al.,

2011) 10.00% $ 4.05 17.739 61 $ 4,373 293,989 $21,121,001

(Richardson, et al., 2019)

19.00% $ 4.05 17.739 116 $ 8,309 558,578 $40,129,902

(Poon, 2005) 21.40% $ 4.05 17.739 130 $ 9,358 629,135 $45,198,942

(Smolowitz, 1978a)

25.00% $ 4.05 17.739 152 $ 10,932 734,971 $52,802,503

Average Gear loss rate:

12.28% $ 4.05 17.739 74.7 $ 5,369 360,945 $25,931,343

Habitat Damage and Marine Debris Cleanup Abandoned, Lost, or Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG), particularly from pot and trap

fisheries, can negatively affect benthic habitats and entire ecosystems. When a lost trap or trawl, and associated endline, are left at depth they can negatively alter microhabitats by entrapping fine sediment, which smothers those living organisms by creating an anoxic environment that robs the area of vital oxygen as well as capturing toxins within the community, causing significant mortality and morbidity (Macfadyen et al., 2009). These habitats can be especially important to crustaceans such as lobster and crab, particularly when the lost gear is moved by currents, storms, retrieved, or dredged up accidentally. This damage to critical habitat can have a significant, although unseen, effect financially within many communities and must be considered when thinking about the benefits of ropeless fishing (Natural Resources Consultants, 2007; Macfadyen et al., 2009; Jeffrey et al., 2016).

Because lost gear damages habitat and marine life, it also contributes to the need for marine debris clean-up programs. Marine debris cleanup programs have been in place in the U.S. for over a decade. It can be inferred, based on a brief review of data, that the removal of lost pot gear costs tens of millions of dollars per year (Breen, 1989, 2012a, 2012b, 2015, 2017; NOAA, 2015; Wallace, 2017; Goodman, 2018; Bever, 2019b).

Table 8. Cost of ghost fishing to the lobster industry every year

Page 36

Lost gear is expensive to retrieve, and the effort does not return salvageable traps. For example, in 2009, the Gulf of Maine Lobstermen's Federation (GOMLF) received funding for marine debris cleanup in Maine through a DMR grant. The proposal requested $2.3 million to retrieve 80,000 traps. During the first year of cleanup, the project retrieved 1130 intact lobster traps, and about half were returned to their owners. About half of them did not have any tags at all (Smith et al., 2011). Subsequent years of gear removal efforts resulted in far less than the estimated numbers of traps removed, and the group has since changed its approach (Pelletier, pers. comms.). Efforts in other New England states, as well as those in the Mid-Atlantic region, have reported similarly low rates of success in removing large numbers of intact gear.

Fishing Area Closures As long as vertical lines are a threat to

endangered marine mammals such as the North Atlantic right whale, the closure of fishing areas will be an option to conserve the species. The Take Reduction Team plan stipulates that fisheries closures are one of the alternatives available to reduce risks to North Atlantic right whales (NOAA, 2019c).

As a result, there are currently two areas in Massachusetts waters that are closed to pot/trap fishing for at least three months every year to protect right whales migrating along the East Coast: the Great South Channel Restricted Area and the Cape Cod Bay Restricted Areas. These seasonal closures create 6,300 square miles of water that are not accessible to lobster fishermen (Coogan, 2019). These measures may protect against right whale entanglement but are considered to be of great inconvenience to fishermen (Farmer et al., 2016). Closures are experienced as an enormous and disruptive burden on individuals, as well as communities in the United States and Canada.

The cost of closures on any particular fishery is impossible to quantify precisely, but it can be estimated. During one closure, it was reported that up to 25 percent of the fisheries’ income could be lost (Doucette, 2018). Additional areas for research should include economic impacts of closures to the Atlantic lobster fishery, behavioral changes of fishermen in relation to time-area closures, and “fine-scale interactions between fishing activities and protected resources” (Holland et al., 2012; Farmer et al., 2016; Mercer, 2018; DFO, 2019). Even in the absence of such research, it is possible to conclude that the financial impact, including lost income and reoriented operations from successive years of closures, is perceived as a significant burden by pot/trap fishermen.

Closures will continue to be a conservation option for the future and may even be expanded by regulators or in federal courts. Ropeless technology could alleviate the burden of closures, by removing the vertical fishing lines in the water, benefitting both the whales and the lobster fishermen.

Navigational Hazards The presence of vertical lines and active fishing gear at the sea surface interferes with

navigation safety on a daily basis everywhere around the world. Mariners must be constantly on guard against not only gear they can see, but also gear they cannot, such as buoy lines slightly, or completely submerged due to tidal variance and waves. When these buoys, or lines, are swept

Closures remain a conservation option that could be expanded by regulators or in federal courts – posing a significant burden to fishermen’s livelihoods.

Page 37

up into a vessel’s propeller, the results can vary from a minor inconvenience to the loss of vessel and life (Hall, 2008; Johnson, 2000; USCG, 2008; Macfadyen et al., 2009; Kimball, 2017; Carlton, 2019; Fiotakis, 2020).

Propeller entanglement can cause a multitude of problems for mariners with inboard engines such as torsional damage to the outdrive in the form of a bent prop, twisted or bent prop shaft and/or vertical shaft, broken or stripped gears, broken U-joints, spun propeller hub or engine coupler, or stripped splines on the engine coupler or drive yoke shaft. In a vessel with twin inboards, a fouled endline that is wrapped around both props or shafts can quickly foul both shafts and potentially draw them both amidships. This situation will, at best, bend the shafts and possibly damage the struts, and at worst, can be catastrophic, tearing open a portion of the hull, causing an older or less sea-worthy vessel to sink in a matter of minutes (Takehama, 1989; Hall, 2000; Kimball, 2017; Alcus, 2019; Carlton, 2019).

The loss of propulsion after a propeller is entangled equals loss of power, which leads to a loss of ability to avoid other hazards, such as rocks, other vessels, and waves. This has fatal results that are difficult to quantify. Additionally, traps and trawls could act as anchors, especially if the skipper tried to back down immediately upon seeing the endline. Reversing on an endline can have catastrophic results for a vessel of any size. In smaller vessels with lower freeboard, being anchored by the stern can lead to capsizing. Depending on sea conditions and location, this has been fatal (Takehama, 1989; Hall, 2000; Kimball, 2017; Alcus, 2019; Carlton, 2019).

Many times, and particularly on commercial vessels that are offshore, the crew will have to enter the water to clear these fouled props and can encounter many potential dangers, including injury from the operation itself, entanglement trauma from striking the underside of the hull, and drowning. The United States Coast Guard’s review of maritime deaths aboard commercial fishing vessels from 1992-2007, noted specifically that four fishermen lost their lives in separate incidents when they drowned, trying to clear an entangled propeller (USCG, 2008). One of the most catastrophic documented losses of life was caused by a 10mm line (similar to those used in the lobster fishery). The line entangled both propeller shafts and the right propeller of the ferry M/V SeaHae, in the Republic of Korea, which caused the vessel to suddenly turn, capsize, and sink, killing 292 people (Cho, 2005).

Finally, there is the cost of search and rescue operations that are needed on a daily basis to rescue or assist vessels with entangled propellers. In cases where towing services are not available or the risk to life is too great, air and sea support may be required, consuming additional fuel and manpower (Macfadyen et al., 2009). The fishing communities on the island of Shetland, U.K. have documented upwards of 200 lifeboat responses in a single year due to fouled or entangled propellers (Hall, 2008).

Loss to Ecosystem: The Value of Whales as Climate Engineers Current fishing practices pose a risk to the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale,

and to the larger ecosystem. Lines in the water can entangle these whales and, at worst, lead to their deaths. These deaths bear significant social and environmental costs. Whales play a unique role as ocean ecosystem engineers by facilitating nutrient transfer to enhance phytoplankton productivity as well as aiding in carbon sequestration into the deep ocean (Roman et al., 2014). With regards to carbon capture, whales around

The current stock of whales worldwide are worth more than $1 trillion based on their value to the environment, carbon capture, and potential ecotourism revenue.

Page 38

the world capture carbon from the atmosphere and store it in their bodies and bones over their entire lifetimes, similarly to the role trees play on land (IMF, 2019). Biologists have calculated that one whale can remove on average 33 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere during its lifetime, as compared with one tree, which absorbs only 48 pounds of CO2 annually (IMF, 2019).

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated the value of an average whale, based on its carbon capture capacity, fishery enhancement, and ecotourism revenue, to be at least $2 million, and the current stock of whales across the world to be more than $1 trillion (IMF, 2019). The environmental and social costs of current fishing practices that harm the North Atlantic right whale exceed millions of dollars each year with each preventable whale death.

X. Addressing Ropeless Fishing Gear Concerns Despite the advantages of ropeless technologies, there are still several barriers to their

acceptance and widespread use. Further discussions and joint efforts among stakeholders are required to clear these hurdles and realize the benefits of this technology, including greater environmental stewardship and protection of the North Atlantic right whale population.

Scientific Barriers to Ropeless Gear Development Like any new technology, ropeless technology faces a number of scientific barriers that

are slowing its development and incorporation in the fishing industry. These include negative bias from testing participants due to the cost of gear, lack of standardized methodology in testing approaches, and the necessity for adapting gear to different water climates.

To ensure the continued success of a co-management approach to fisheries practices, priority needs to be given to designing more thoughtful experimental trials that allow the technology alone to be reviewed. Currently, gear testing and demonstrations have not been standardized, making it difficult to review data and reach scientific consensus. It is essential to create a standard and comprehensive methodology considering the equipment, preparation, deployment, and retrieval of the gear, which can only be accomplished through collaboration between researchers, gear developers, and fishermen.

The cost of ropeless retrieval technology has widely been discussed in most of the trials to date that fishermen have participated in. In fact, many of the comments from surveys, reports, and articles surrounding gear testing pertain to cost, which indicates that fishermen already knew that the technology being trialed represented an additional cost. While transparency is vital to maintaining trusting relationships between researchers and fishermen, this repetitive mention of cost could, and likely has, led to negative bias on survey and study results. In fact, fishermen have, in the past, made remarks about being afraid to participate in surveys or testing so as not to unintentionally bring new regulations to their fishery that would force the cost onto them.

Due to differences between each fishery and natural competition in the marketplace, there will likely not exist one ropeless technology that will address all the individual needs of all fisheries. While many gear technologies can be modified for use in new conditions and fisheries, this often requires some amount of tweaking, testing, and time. Because these technologies were often developed regionally, with local fishing styles and conditions in mind, local manufacturers can easily modify and test equipment for a novel adaption, however, may incur additional costs to do so.

Page 39

As with any proposed change to fishing technique or technology, there has historically been a period of resistance, research, and adjustment. This period has been unusually long for ropeless gear. Despite the evidence in favor of ropeless, there is a palpable objection from some regional fisheries that see issues such as cost and workability as significant barriers. In order to realize its widespread use, ropeless technology must build consensus between the fishing industry, scientists, and regulators.

Building partnerships among science, policy, and industry is not easy, but it is essential. As an example, due to past management actions, unproductive regulation, and litigation, fishermen have been hesitant to report entanglements and sightings events for fear of negative press, social media backlash, closures, and “evidence” that their fishery is killing whales (MacLennan, 2018). In addition, fishery partners who were once willing to engage in a variety of mitigation efforts now lack the willingness to comply with these changes because of heightened tension between fishermen, scientists, and government (Pelletier et al., 2008; Ludwig et al., 2012b, 2012a; Doucette, 2018). Commercial fishermen have said they do not feel that their voices are heard or matter and that their years of on-water expertise are not considered during policy decisions that affect their livelihoods.

Reactions to Ropeless Fishing from Industry Leaders Over the years, many comments have been reported from industry leaders highlighting

their concerns about ropeless fishing. These comments and concerns may explain fishermen’s reluctance to consider ropeless fishing as an option. The main concerns expressed are economic, operational, gear conflict, competition, the need for training, and the perceived notion that whales are absent during fishing operations. Further concerns are described in Table 9.

It is important to acknowledge these concerns in order to come to a collaborative solution that protects both right whales and the livelihoods of lobstermen. In fact, many are legitimate concerns that will require the ingenuity of all involved – including those in industry – to solve. As seen in other cycles of innovation, concerns are often engineered through stakeholder input on the design process. In addition, other concerns about ropeless fishing can be alleviated through more gear testing that seeks to improve design flaws and gear marking as well as lower costs.

Dr. Moira Brown, scientist emeritus with the Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life at the New England Aquarium, has been studying right whales alongside fishermen since 1985. She states:

We’ve spent years working together. My goal is to make sure those relationships are not lost. It’s only through working together that we’ve started to figure out viable options – the fishing industry really needs to be involved in more testing of gear modifications to make sure they are safe for fishermen, safe for whales, and economically viable (Mercer, 2018).

Supplemental responses from manufacturers to fishermen’s concerns on deployment and acoustic technology are available by request.

Page 40

Concerns expressed by industry leaders

Representative comments

Economic High upfront costs (Donahue, 2019) and potentially fewer

traps per person (Higgins, 2018)

Operational No way of seeing gear location, no way to avoid setting gear on top of each other, lack of confidence in retrieval, difficult

transition to new gear (Pappalardo, 2018)

Gear Conflict Between fishermen and among fisheries

Competition Broadcasting the “hard-won” location of traps, loss of identity of trap ownership, loss of control, and inability to self-police

(Pappalardo, 2018)

Need for Training Re-training could take “10 years” (Terhune et al., 2018)

Perceived Notions Whales are minimally present during fishing operations in

Maine (Right Whales and Maine Lobster, 2019)

Table 9. Concerns and comments from industry leaders

Page 41

XI. Advancing Ropeless: Next Steps & Solutions This report has outlined the available ropeless technology and justifications for immediate

implementation. However, any industry innovation requires a transition period before widespread adoption is possible. Below are solutions and considerations for government, industry, and fishermen as they move toward promoting and adopting ropeless technology.

Cost Subsidies and Lower Cost Transitions Options As with the costly and required line replacement programs in New England, it becomes a

necessity for technologies such as ropeless, and the software and hardware that support them, to be subsidized by state or federal government programs. Cost subsidies can ease the financial burden on fishermen and begin a transition to fishing without endlines and buoys. As of today, there few funding sources for fishermen from government programs. In FY20, Congress appropriated $3 million for right whale conservation, with $1 million of that directed toward a pilot program to develop and test fishing gear that is designed to reduce right whale entanglements (Division, 2020). In addition, at the time of publication, NOAA announced that $1.6 million will be available in new federal subsidies through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to help fishermen transition to new right whale regulations (NOAA, 2019d). Funding can also come through private sources. For example, Sea World has recently funded a $900,000 project to test alternative fishing technologies and evaluate the cost and impact of ropeless gear to fishermen and whales (WHOI, 2020). All of these efforts will help get more ropeless gear in the water as quickly as possible while easing the burden on fishermen.

Another way to alleviate the financial burden on fishermen is through lower-cost transitions. One option would be to initiate a rollout program with GTRs and other programmable timed-release devices. It would have a lower upfront cost but utilize the same basic rope management systems allowing fishermen to become comfortable handling the new devices. Once this becomes easier for them, the transition to acoustic releases can be done with trade-in programs, during which the devices would be serviced onsite or shipped in one at a time for the releases to be swapped from GTR or timer to acoustic.

Another option, if fishermen would prefer to use GTRs in specific areas and acoustic in others, similar to the “split configuration” used in New South Wales or suggested by Robert Haché, they could simply order acoustic releases and rope management systems when ready. Lastly, locally housed and maintained equipment caches could serve as a method whereby an association or cooperative could “lease” equipment from manufacturers and then out to fishermen and share equipment with other regions when not fishing with traps due to season (Porter, 2018; Ibrahim, 2019).

Incentives for use by Fishermen Providing incentives to fishermen for using ropeless fishing technology that lowers the risk

of entanglement to marine mammals and propellers could be done very simply by opening up fishing areas that are closed to those not using ropeless technology. This would also be beneficial for pot fisheries in the South Atlantic that are now required to make long offshore winter journeys as to not endanger North Atlantic right whales. Fishing closer to shore in the winter without “tendering” requirements has several advantages in that it uses less fuel and time, and is generally safer for fishermen (Farmer et al., 2016).

Page 42

This type of incentive is currently utilized in a settlement agreement to be instituted in the Dungeness crab fishery in California. Additionally, it could allow longer and unattended soak times in areas with extreme regulation on vertical lines. One example would be the black sea bass (BSB) pot fishery in southeastern states, which is required throughout the year to return all BSB pots to the dock at the end of each trip so that no pots are left unattended (NMFS Service, 2015; Farmer et al., 2016). The need to return for the gear is rarely economical or convenient for most of these fishermen; it limits the amount of time and other catch they can fish for during one trip. Ropeless gear would eliminate this need, allowing pots to be left unattended for longer periods.

Education and Training One of the great misconceptions heard in meeting after meeting with fishermen is that

because they do not see right whales, they must not be present. It is true that many fishermen have not encountered a right whale, but that is likely attributed to the very small North Atlantic right whale population size and vastness of the ocean. Information should be shared with fishermen and consumers, educating them on the presence and migration paths of right whales, whether they are easily visible or not (Cantwell, 2008; Trotter, 2011; Kraus et al., 2019; Hayes et al, 2018).

Another consideration is raising awareness of the sheer number of vertical lines and buoys present in the water: there are more than one million vertical lines off the North American Atlantic coast alone (Hayes et al., 2018). Education surrounding the costs and risks associated with current fishing practices, as detailed in this report, should be presented and discussed in detail as a precursor to ropeless implementation. In addition, thoughtful dialogue is needed about how ropeless can benefit not only fishermen but also the industry as a whole. This could be tasked, with appropriate funding, to coastal Sea Grant programs, instead of fishing associations and cooperatives.

Training for ropeless systems should be designed after other successful tiered learning programs (sometimes referred to as “train-the-trainer” programs) and could be administered by the agency of choice in all regions, with appropriate funding (CDC, n.d.; Cassidy, 2004; Wyatt, 2011; Phillips et al., 2017; Darling-Hammond et al., 2019; Owusu-Agyeman, 2019). This would be the most time- and cost-effective mode of training and entails teaching a small group of fishermen how to perform the necessary functions of their systems of choice, such as respooling line, making release bags, using and deploying rope management systems, using virtual gear marking, and fishing with the ropeless devices. Each member of this small group would then share these practices and teach other groups of fishermen, meaning that ten fishermen learning a ropeless method can quickly become 100 or even 1,000 fishermen over time.

A train-the-trainer model is further supported by a January 2020 survey conducted in Scotland during ropeless fishing trials. In this survey, fishermen were asked about their confidence level in their ability to train other fishermen on ropeless fishing. Fifty-six percent of respondents reported they could teach other fishermen to use ropeless fishing within 1-2 days, and more than three-fourths reported they could do it in seven days or less (Figure 13, Sawicki,

A recent survey in Scotland demonstrates fishermen’s confidence in their ability to train others on ropeless fishing.

Providing incentives to fishermen to use ropeless technology could be done by opening up fishing areas that are currently closed.

Page 43

2020). The survey demonstrates fishermen’s confidence in their abilities to train other fishers on ropeless fishing methods in a timely manner.

Figure 13. Survey responses from Scottish fishermen on teaching ropeless fishing (Sawicki, 2020)

Community-based groups that have spent decades working on marine debris cleanup (such as GOMFL) with local fishermen and communities could implement tiered learning programs, using the same funding from marine debris clean-up programs they have worked with, in the past.

Interoperability of all Systems for Virtual Marking The “backend” of any live database system is an important consideration, if not the most

important factor of implementing a ropeless fishing system and should be one of the top priorities when earmarking funds for research and development. The determination of who should “own, audit, and house” the data is one that needs to occur at the state, federal, and regional levels to comply with all current regulations. Database management is a costly enterprise and should not be underestimated. Additionally, funding and support should be provided to the informal working group of manufacturers to engage in cooperative activities to further the interoperability of their systems as well as integration with currently used vessel technologies.

Policy and Regulations Policy and regulatory changes will be required to allow for fishing with pot/trap gear

that is not marked at the surface with some form of buoy identification system. A federal

Page 44

amendment in the Marine Mammal Protection act would be necessary to ensure fishing without vertical buoy lines is allowable, and similar changes will be required in state regulations that govern fishing in state waters. These changes will require incorporating the past advisement of enforcement personnel to ensure that the new regulations are reasonable and achievable with current staffing and gear of said officials (Alexander et al., 2019).

Enforcement officials should be trained, as well as fishermen, to work with all ropeless gear systems fished in their respective monitoring areas. In addition, the required technology used to scan for underwater pot/trap gear location, as well as the necessary on-call acoustic retrieval devices should be provided to all agencies through state and federal fisheries funding. California is currently in the process of amending its surface gear marking regulations, which would provide an adequate baseline and precedent for how these regulatory changes could function regionally, federally, and outside of the U.S.

There are other policy efforts underway to reduce marine mammal entanglements. However, the implemented strategies so far have produced no substantial change in the conservation status of the North Atlantic right whale by reducing entanglement mortality of endlines (Pace et al., 2014; Werner, 2015; Baumgartner et al., 2018a; FAO, 2018; Moore, 2018; Ball et al, 2018).

Within the past year, NOAA has started to undertake some at-sea ropeless testing trials on working lobster boats with actively deployed gear with one normal endline and a ropeless system at the other end of the trawl (Matzen, pers. comm.). While this is a positive first step towards fostering the necessary innovative feedback process with ropeless gear manufacturers, industry, and regulators, a much larger and more rigorous testing regime is required. Fortunately, the U.S. Congress re-introduced legislation in 2019 to establish a new competitive grant program that will promote innovative research and collaboration between states, nongovernmental organizations, and the fishing and shipping industries to reduce harmful impacts on the North Atlantic right whale and promote the recovery of the population. This bill called the Scientific Assistance for Very Endangered (SAVE) Right Whales Act would authorize $5 million annually over the next ten years (Congress, 2020).

XII. Conclusion: The Promise of Ropeless Fishing Gear Ropeless fishing gear is an innovative technology that reduces entanglements from

vertical fishing lines, while also promoting pot/trap fisheries in the U.S. and Canada. Ropeless fishing gear is a real alternative technology to current fishing practices that, as shown in the report, pose many costs to both the North Atlantic right whale and to society. Data shows that ropeless technology has a retrieval success rate of 98.4 percent, proving that ropeless technology is viable and merits inclusion in right whale conservation plans. It is also a universal model for protecting marine mammals from entanglements in ecosystems all around the world.

The question is not if ropeless fishing is attainable, but rather, if fishermen, industry, scientists, manufacturers, governments, and other key stakeholders are prepared to work as a team to make it a reality. Ropeless technology can already safely store and retrieve lobster fishing gear and catch from the seafloor. What is needed going forward is a collaborative process to design a specific, measurable, and actionable plan that resolves remaining concerns and achieves interoperability of different ropeless systems to ensure all fishers have a choice of technology that fits with their fishing style.

There are many ways the acceptance and widespread use of ropeless technology could be promoted and accelerated. By pursuing programs and funding to help fishermen with upfront

Page 45

costs that ropeless systems require, fishermen might be more inclined to test it. In addition, by creating a system that would reward fishermen that use ropeless technology – such as being allowed to fish in closed areas or creating market-based incentives – fishermen may be more likely to transition to new gear.

This technology does represent a significant change to fishing methods, not just within the fixed gear sector, but also within mobile gear sectors. However, history has shown that fishermen are adaptable and clever innovators in protecting their harvest and represent a valuable social and economic resource to all communities. There is no reason to believe the fishing industry cannot continue to innovate to face the challenges of today, using ropeless gear to protect right whales and other marine mammals while at the same time protecting their communities that rely on the pot/trap fishery.

With the support of ropeless manufacturers, scientists, fishing community members, and government, ropeless fishing can finally emerge from twenty years of successful niche operations to daily use in our pot/trap fisheries. Achieving this reality will require collaboration from all sectors, working together to get this viable technology in the water without delay.

Page 46

Appendix 1 – Example Data Form for Success Rate of Ropeless Gear Deployments

Total # of deployments

to date (in-house and public testing)

Number of acoustic

successes

Number of rope

storage/bag successes

Number of complete

successes

Percent (%) successes

Number of deployments assigned to a

skilled operator*

Table 10. Success rate of ropeless gear deployments data form

*Skilled operator would include the gear being RIGGED for deployment by a developer, designer, or manufacturer, and not a fisher or researcher unless the fisher or researcher was determined by the company as being fully skilled and experienced with the gear and would be trusted to use the system completely on their own. Trials immediately after experimental gear configuration changes should not be included in these figures until manufacturers have deemed them to be working successfully. For example, if a design works consistently with a particular type of acoustic release, rope/bag/spool, and then the configuration is changed, those results should not be reported here until they are confirmed as being adjusted to working as efficiently as prior to the gear change. This will ensure that no animals are put at risk from untested gear configurations.

To quantify the success of ropeless technology it is essential that deployments be done in a standardized manner with consistent data collection procedures.

Page 47

Appendix 2 – Estimated Impact of Derelict Gear on Harvests

In Jeffrey et al., 2016, the framework for modeling economic losses related to derelict gear fishing is listed as follows.

To evaluate economic losses arising from harvest reductions, commercial and/or recreational harvests should be modeled. A common specification for harvest is:

1. 𝐻 = 𝑞𝐸𝑋

In equation (1), harvests (H) are specified as a function of effort (E), the stock of fish (X), and a scale factor known as a catchability coefficient (q). Derelict gear may affect both the stock of fish (stock reduction) as well as catchability (efficiency reduction).

The total difference in harvest attributable to derelict gear can be specified as:

2. ∆𝐻 = 𝐻 − 𝐻 = 𝑞𝐸𝑋 − 𝑞𝐸𝑋

Where 𝐻, 𝑞, and 𝑋 are harvest, catchability, and fish stock, respectively, in the absence of derelict gear. Equation (2) is thus the difference between harvests with and without derelict gear. If derelict gear significantly reduces stock or gear efficiency, (2) would yield a negative value indicating harvests would be higher if the derelict gear were not present.

The data needed to evaluate (2) will depend on which mechanism of harvest loss is being modeled. In all cases, data on harvests, effort, and stock is required. First, for harvest losses arising from stock reductions, it is necessary to estimate 𝑋. This can be done using population models that explicitly incorporate the effects of derelict gear (e.g., as an additional source of mortality). Data on derelict gear mortality rates and other factors entering a model of stock dynamics (e.g., growth and maturity rates) would, therefore, be necessary for estimating 𝑋. Second, for losses due to decreased gear efficiency, it is necessary to estimate 𝑞. An estimate of 𝑞 can be derived through comparison of harvests across areas and/or times when the derelict gear is and is not present, or is present to varying degrees, controlling for the effects of differences in effort and stock. Finally, data on the amounts and location of derelict gear (or removals) and harvest is required to estimate 𝑞 (Jeffrey et al., 2016).

Page 48

References Alcus, R. 2019. What To Do If Your Vessel Strikes A Submerged Object.

https://www.boatus.com/magazine/2017/october/what-to-do-if-your-vessel-strikes-a-submerged-object.asp (Accessed 10 March 2020).

Alexander, T. Blachman, S. Borden, D. Brodeur, P., Carver, D. Mcclintock, J.D., Didomenico, G. et al., 2019. Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team Meeting – November 26, 2018 Key Outcomes Memorandum: 1-21. https://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/13_FINAL-October-2018-KOM-Dec_Dec21.pdf.

Allen and DeAlteris. 2007. Use of pop-up buoys in fixed gear commercial fisheries: a demonstration. https://www.nfwf.org/whatwedo/grants/search/pages/grant-profile.aspx?EGID=6744 (Accessed 11 October 2019).

ALWTRT. 2010. NMFS Concept Paper on ALWTRT “Proposal to Open a Management Area Presently Closed to Trap/Pot Fisheries to Stimulate Development of Ropeless [Buoy Lineless] Fishing.” https://www.bycatch.org/sites/default/files/Partan%26Ball_2016.pdf (Accessed 5 May 2020).

ASMFC. 2015. American Lobster Benchmark Stock Assessment and Peer Review Report Accepted. http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/55d61d73AmLobsterStockAssmt_PeerReviewReport_Aug2015_red2.pdf

Ball, K., Partan, J., Baumgartner, M. 2018. On‐Call Buoy Bottom‐Stowed Line Spool. Ropeless Consortium Workshop Report. https://ropeless.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/112/2018/11/20181106_BALL_On_Call_Buoy-1.pdf (Accessed 11 September 2019).

Baumgartner, M. F., Hammar, T., and Robbins, J. 2015. Development and assessment of a new dermal attachment for short-term tagging studies of baleen whales. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 6. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/2041-210X.12325 (Accessed 11 September 2019).

Baumgartner, M., Moore, M., Knowlton, A., Werner, T., and Kraus, S. 2018a. Development plan for rope-less fishing. https://ropeless.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/112/2018/02/12.-Baumgartner_Ropeless-_Development.pdf (Accessed 13 September 2019).

Baumgartner, M., Moore, M., Knowlton, A., Werner, T., and Kraus, S. 2018b. Overcoming Development, Regulatory and Funding Challenges for Rope-less Fishing in the U.S. and Canada. https://ropeless.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/112/2018/02/1.-Baumgartner_Welcome.pdf (Accessed 13 September 2019).

Bever, F. 2009. $2.3M eyed to retrieve lost lobster traps. Bangor Daily News: 4–9. https://bangordailynews.com/2009/04/14/politics/23m-eyed-to-retrieve-lost-lobster-traps/.(Accessed 3 September 2019).

Bever, F. 2019. Divers haul up giant ball of ‘ghost gear’ littering the seafloor off Maine’s coast. https://bangordailynews.com/2019/06/09/news/portland/divers-haul-up-giant-ball-of-ghost-gear-littering-the-seafloor-off-maines-coast/ (Accessed 23 August 2019).

Biedron, I. 2018. Report: Buoyless Lobster Gear Testing Collaboration, Sandwich Harbor, Cape Cod, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association, and Desert Star: July 15 - 25, 2018. 1–14 pp. (Internal document, request from IFAW).

Breen, P. A. 1989. A Review of Ghost Fishing by Traps and Gillnets. 2–7 pp.

Page 49

https://swfsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/swfsc/noaa-tm-nmfs-swfsc-154_p571.pdf (Accessed 23 August 2019).

Cantwell, M. 2008. Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States Senate One Hundred Tenth Congress, Second Session, February 19, 2008: Impacts of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan on Maine's Lobster Fishery. Brewer, Maine. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=xgFJAQAAMAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA25 (Accessed 10 March 2020).

Carlton, J. 2019. Marine Propellers and Propulsion - John Carlton - Google Books. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. 609 pp. https://books.google.ie/books?id=2drWDgAAQBAJ&dq=marine+propellers+and+propulsion&source=gbs_navlinks_s (Accessed 10 March 2020).

Cassidy, S. 2004, August. Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0144341042000228834 (Accessed 11 September 2019).

CDC. (n.d.). Train Direct Lead Listen Observe Support Understanding the Training of Trainers Model The Training of Trainers (ToT) Model Eligibility for Participation in a ToT. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/trainingtools.htm (Accessed 10 March 2020).

Cho, D. O. 2005. Challenges to marine debris management in Korea. Coastal Management, 33: 389–409. Taylor & Francis Group.

Cobb, J. N. 1899. The Lobster Fishery Of Maine. Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission, 19: 241–265. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17475/17475-h/17475-h.htm#11 (Accessed 11 October 2019).

Coogan, C. 2019. Where does Ropeless Fit into Upcoming Right Whale Management? Presentation to Ropeless Consortium, 11/2019. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/webdam/download/94543059 (Accessed 23 January 2020).

Congress. 2020. All Information (Except Text) for H.R. 1385 – SAVE Act. Congress Gov. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1385/all-info (Accessed 23 January 2020)

CWLA. 2019. Sea Trial Report Ashored with CWLA. Cold Water Lobster Association. (Request from author per NDA).

Daoust PY, Couture EL, Wimmer T, Bourque L (2017) Incident Report: North Atlantic right whale mortality event in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 2017. Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative, Marine Animal Response Society, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/40648539.pdf (Accessed 11 September 2019).

Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., and Osher, D. 2019. Implications for Educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science: 1–44. Routledge. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791 (Accessed 10 March 2020).

DeAlteris, J. 1999. Design, testing, and evaluation of an acoustic release system for offshore lobster buoy lines. Final Report to NMFS Fisheries Engineering Group, Kingston, RI Project No. 40EANF800065 1-17. https://sustainableseasdotblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/dealteris_1999.pdf

Page 50

DFO. 2018. Protecting the North Atlantic Right Whale in Canadian Waters. https://sustainableseasdotblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/protecting_the_north_atlantic_right_whale_in_canadian_waters.pdf

DFO. 2019. North Atlantic Right Whale Update On Discussions Concerning the Management Measures to Minimize the Risks of Interaction. Permanent comity on fishing vessels safety from Québec. http://www.epaq.qc.ca/images/epaq/scfvs/meetings/2019/whales.pdf (Accessed 10 March 2020).

Division. 2020. Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020. https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191216/BILLS-116HR1158SA-JES-DIVISION-B.pdf.

DMR. 2018. MaineDMR Landings - Lobster Landings Viewer. https://maine.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/aad15e3248d44555a11d01ba4bbc51f8 (Accessed 12 October 2019).

DMR. 2019. MaineDMR Trap Tag Order Form. https://www.maine.gov/dmr/commercial-fishing/licenses/documents/TRAP%20TAG%20ORDER%20FORM-Lobster.pdf (Accessed 12 October 2019).

Donahue, M. 2019. This Lobster Trap Aims to Protect Endangered Whales — and Fishers’ Livelihoods. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/lobster-trap-aims-protect-endangered-whalesand-fishers-livelihoods-180971208/ (Accessed 10 March 2020).

Donihue, M. 2017. Lobsters to Dollars: the Economic Impact of the Lobster Distribution Supply Chain in Maine: 17. http://www.colby.edu/economics/lobsters/Lobsters2DollarsFinalReport.pdf.

Doucette, K. 2018. Lobster fishermen frustrated over right whale closures: union | Globalnews.ca. https://globalnews.ca/news/4266341/lobster-fishery-closure-protect-right-whales/ (Accessed 11 October 2019).

FAO. 2012. Review of existing measures to reduce ALDFG. http://www.fao.org/3/i0620e/i0620e05.pdf (Accessed 22 August 2019).

FAO. 2018. Report of the Expert Workshop on Means And Methods For Reducing Marine Mammal Mortality In Fishing And Aquaculture Operations. 124 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/I9993EN/i9993en.pdf (Accessed 18 September 2018).

Farmer, N. A., Gowan, T. A., Powell, J. R., and Zoodsma, B. J. 2016. Evaluation of Alternatives to Winter Closure of Black Sea Bass Pot Gear: Projected Impacts on Catch and Risk of Entanglement with North Atlantic Right Whales Eubalaena glacialis. Marine and Coastal Fisheries, 8: 202–221. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1080/19425120.2016.1146181 (Accessed 13 September 2018).

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., and Buchner, A. 2007. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39: 175–191. Springer-Verlag. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2FBF03193146 (Accessed 11 September 2019).

Fiotakis, J. 2020. The fishing incident that started it all. http://fiomarine.com/started/ (Accessed 10 March 2020).

GARFO. 2018. Ropeless Subgroup Feasibility Matrix. https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/garfo/protected/whaletrp/trt/meetings/March 2018 Ropeless subgroup/master_matrix.pdf (Accessed 25 December 2019).

Page 51

Gies, E. 2018. Natural Capital, Sharing the seas: 6–11. https://www.corporateknights.com/channels/natural-capital/sharing-the-seas-15421900/.

Goodman, A. J. 2018. A Ghostly Issue: Managing abandoned, lost, and discarded lobster fishing gear in the Bay of Fundy in Eastern Canada. Dalhousie University. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569119303795. (Accessed 25 December 2019).

Hall, K. 2008. Impacts of Marine Debris and Oil. http://www.kimointernational.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/KIMO_Impacts-of-Marine-Debris-and-Oil_Karen_Hall_2000.pdf (Accessed 11 September 2019).

Harris, R. 2019. A CWLA Fisher’s Take on the ARC-1XD; At-Sea Trials. 1–2 pp. http://www.desertstar.com/arc-testimonials. (Accessed 11 September 2019).

Hayes, S. A., Gardner, S., Garrison, L., Henry, A., and Leandro, L. 2018. North Atlantic Right Whales- Evaluating Their Recovery Challenges in 2018 North Atlantic Right Whales - Evaluating Their Recovery Challenges in 2018 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/19086/noaa_19086_DS1.pdf (Accessed 13 September 2019).

Higgins, E. 2018, February 21. Researchers Call For New , Ropeless Lobster Traps To Help Save Right Whales. Maine Public Radio. https://www.mainepublic.org/post/researchers-call-new-ropeless-lobster-traps-help-save-right-whales. (Accessed 23 September 2019).

Holland, D. S., Sanchirico, J., Johnston, R., and Jogleka, D. 2012. Economic analysis for ecosystem-based management : applications to marine and coastal environments. RFF Press. 226 pp. https://books.google.ie/books?id=-TO8lxq4CqIC&dq=economic+impact+closure+fisheries+north+atlantic+right+whale&source=gbs_navlinks_s (Accessed 10 March 2020).

Hopkins, K., Regan, B., Davies, J., and Baldwin, K. 2014. Submerged Acoustic Retrieval Tech 797 Final Report. https://sustainableseasdotblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/hopkins-et-al.-unknown-submerged-acoustic-retrieval-tech-797-final-report2.pdf (Accessed 26 July 2019).

Hopkins, N., and Hoggard, W. 2005. A Pilot Study to Investigate Possible Alternatives to Reducing Vertical Line Entanglements by Marine Mammals. G., J. Kenney, and J. Higgins (eds), Large Whale Gear Research Summary, NOAA/Fisheries: 7–13. https://sustainableseasdotblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/hoggard.pdf

How, J., Mcmath, J., Hebiton, B., Denham, A., Coughran, D., Smith, J., and Double, M. 2015. Effectiveness of mitigation measures to reduce interactions between commercial fishing gear and whales FRDC Project No 2013 / 037. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. https://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/research_reports/frr267.pdf.

Ibrahim, H. 2019. Ropeless traps not easy for crabbers testing them in whale-protection effort | CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/ropless-trap-north-atlantic-right-whale-1.5260328 (Accessed 10 March 2020).

ICES. 2000. Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behavior. https://studylib.net/doc/11856920/working-group-on-fishing-technology-and-fish-behaviour-ic. (Accessed 23 August 2019).

IMF. 2019. Nature’s Solution to Climate Change. A strategy to protect whales can limit greenhouse gases and global warming. International Monetary Fund. Finance & Development 56, 4. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2019/12/natures-solution-to-

Page 52

climate-change-chami.htm

Jeffrey, C., Havens, K. J., Slacum, Jr., H. W., Bilkovic, Donna Marie , Zaveta, D., Scheld, A. M., Willard, S., and Evans, J. D. 2016. Assessing Ecological and Economic Effects of Derelict Fishing Gear: a Guiding Framework. NOAA Marine Debris Program, Office of Response and Restoration, Revision 1. https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/publications-files/Assessing_DFG_Effects_Guiding_Framework_2016_508.pdf (Accessed 4 October 2019).

Johnson, A., Salvador, G., Kenney, J., Robbins, J., Kraus, S., Landry, S., and Clapham, P. 2005. FISHING GEAR INVOLVED IN ENTANGLEMENTS OF RIGHT AND HUMPBACK WHALES. Marine Mammal Science, 21: 635–645. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2005.tb01256.x (Accessed 11 September 2018).

Johnson, L. 2000. Navigational Hazards and Related Public Safety Concerns Associated with Derelict Fishing Gear and Marine Debris. In HAWAI ‘I CONVENTION CENTER HONOLULU, HAWAI ‘I Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MARINE DEBRIS CONFERENCE Hawai‘i Convention Center. https://sustainableseasdotblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/proceedings.pdf (Accessed 13 September 2018).

Johnson, T. 2005. Entanglements : the intertwined fates of whales and fishermen. University Press of Florida. 289 pp.

Judd, R. W. 1988. Saving the Fisherman as Well as the Fish: Conservation and Commercial Rivalry in Maine’s Lobster Industry, 1872-1933. Business Review-Journal, 62: 596–625. https://www.amazon.com/Lobster-Fishery-Maine-Bulletin-Commission/dp/B003YL37FW. (Accessed 13 September 2018).

Kimball, S. I. 2017. BOAT CREW HANDBOOK-Boat Operations. https://www.uscgauxgigharbor.org/wp-content/uploads/BoatCrewBCH16114.1.pdf (Accessed 13 September 2018).

Knowlton, A., Hamilton, P., Marx, M., Pettis, H., and Kraus, S. 2012. Monitoring North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis entanglement rates: a 30-yr. retrospective. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 466: 293–302. http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v466/p293-302/ (Accessed 13 September 2018).

Kraus, S. D., Baumgartner, M. F., and Knowlton, A. R. 2019. September 17th, 2019 Letter to Senator Collins. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/media-uploads/scientist_letter_on_right_whales_and_lobster_gear_risk_in_maine.pdf.( Accessed 5 May, 2020).

Kruse, G. H., Kirnker, A., and Kimker, A. 1993. Degradable Escape Mechanisms for Pot Gear: A Summary Report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries. https://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/RIR/77522413.pdf (Accessed 23 August 2019).

Laist, D. W. 2017. North Atlantic right whales: From hunted leviathan to conservation icon. 1–432 pp. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85035357666&partnerID=40&md5=99e345a735871318cd213f11b409ce9a.

Lebon, K. M., and Kelly, R. P. 2019. Evaluating alternatives to reduce whale entanglements in commercial Dungeness Crab fishing gear. Global Ecology and Conservation, 18: e00608. The Authors. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00608. (Accessed 28 December 2019).

Lent, R. J. 2017. Letter to Samuel D. Rauch- Marine Mammal Commission. https://www.mmc.gov/wp-content/uploads/17-06-19-Rauch-III-Final-NARW-

Page 53

Recommendation-Letter.pdf (Accessed 18 September 2018).

Liggins, G. 2012. Tactical Research Fund: industry-extension of acoustic release technology for at-call access to submerged headgear in the NSW rock lobster fishery. https://www.frdc.com.au/project/2012-504 (Accessed 5 October 2019).

Ludwig, L., McCarron, P., Press, K. M., McKenna, H., and Allen, R. 2012a. Bycatch Consortium-Final Report # NA10NMF4520343 29 Project 2 Final Report Review of Sinking Groundline Performance in the Maine Lobster Fishery, with Recommendations for Improving its Fishability. http://bycatch.org/sites/default/files/3r-2592-Project%202A-finalsubmission.pdf. (Accessed 23 August 2019).

Ludwig, L., Pelletier, E., Ellis, S. L., White, P., and Liaison, F. 2012b. The Bottom-Line Project Background and Purpose of Project. http://www.gomlf.org/ (Accessed 23 August 2019).

Macfadyen, G. (Graeme), Huntington, T., Cappell, R., Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations., and United Nations Environment Programme. 2009. Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. United Nations Environment Programme. 115 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/i0620e/i0620e00.htm (Accessed 4 October 2019).

MacLennan, E. 2018. Disentangling a Whale of a Problem. Winston Churchill Memorial Trust. https://www.wcmt.org.uk/sites/default/files/report-documents/MacLennan%20E%20Report%202017%20Final.pdf (Accessed 4 October 2018).

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF). 2012. Marine Debris Program 2009 – Submit Final Programmatic Report (Activities and Outcomes). National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. https://www.nfwf.org/sites/default/files/finalreports1/18690_forweb.pdf. (Accessed 4 May, 2020).

McCarron, P. 2019. Maine lobster fishery agrees to deep cuts to protect whales | Island Institute. http://www.islandinstitute.org/working-waterfront/maine-lobster-fishery-agrees-deep-cuts-protect-whales (Accessed 13 October 2019).

McCrindell, A. 2019. Testimonial. http://fiomarine.com/testimonials/. (Accessed 4 May, 2020).

Mercer, L.P. 2002. Department of Marine Resources Bureau of Resource Management Annual Report. In: Maine Department of Marine Resources Bureau of Resource Management.

Mercer, G. 2018, July 6. Frustration as single right whale prompts fishing ban at Canadian island. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/06/canada-grand-manan-ban-fishing-endangered-whale (Accessed 6 July 2018).

Milliken, H. 2018. Buoyless Gear Testing. ALWTRT. https://ropeless.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/112/2018/11/13.-Buoyless-Gear-Presentation-NEFSC_Milliken.pdf. (Accessed 4 May, 2020).

MLA. 2018. Maine Lobster Industry’s Efforts to Protect Right Whales. https://mainelobstermen.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Maines-efforts-to-Protect-right-whales_FINAL.pdf. (Accessed 4 May, 2020).

Moore, M. 2018. Ropeless Fishing in Practice Today. https://ropeless.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/112/2018/02/4.-Moore_Current_Ropless.pdf (Accessed 13 September 2018).

Moore, M. J. 2019. How we can all stop killing whales: a proposal to avoid whale entanglement in fishing gear. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 76: 781–786. https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article-abstract/76/4/781/5288134.

Page 54

Myers, Hannah J., Moore, Michael J., "Reducing effort in the U.S. American lobster (Homarus americanus) fishery to prevent North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) entanglements may support higher profits and long-term sustainability", 2019-11, https://hdl.handle.net/1912/24899 (Accessed 4 May, 2020).

Myers, H. J., Moore, M. J., Baumgartner, M. F., Brillant, S. W., Katona, S. K., Knowlton, A. R., Morissette, L., et al. 2019. Ropeless fishing to prevent large whale entanglements: Ropeless Consortium report. Marine Policy, 107. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/19086/noaa_19086_DS1.pdf. (Accessed 4 May, 2020).

Natural Resources Consultants. 2007. A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Derelict Fishing Gear Removal In Puget Sound, Washington. https://nwstraitsfoundation.org/download/a-cost-benefit-analysis-of-derelict-fishing-gear-removal-in-puget-sound-washington/. (Accessed 23 September 2018).

NMFS. 2015. Gear Research Needs and the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Summary of Gear Modifications and Recommendations for Research Aimed at Reducing Risks Associated with Vertical Lines and Groundlines. https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/whaletrp/docs/Research/gear_research_matrix_2015.pdf (Accessed 17 September 2018).

NOAA. 2015. Impact of Ghost Fishing via Derelict Fishing Gear 2015. NOAA Marine Debris Program Report. https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/publications-files/Ghostfishing_DFG.pdf (Accessed 18 July 2019).

NOAA. 2016. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments 2015. In. Ed. by P. Waring GT, Josephson E, Maze-Foley K, Rosel. https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm238/ (Accessed 14 September 2019).

NOAA. 2018a. ALWTRT Ropeless Feasibility Subgroup Teleconference, Attachments. https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/whaletrp/trt/meetings/February 2018/attachments_2_26_18_alwtrt_ropeless_feasibility_subgroup_teleconference.pdf (Accessed 17 September 2018).

NOAA. 2018b. Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team Ropeless Fishing Feasibility Subgroup Feb 2018 Teleconference Key Outcomes. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/webdam/download/89891614 (Accessed 4 May, 2020).

NOAA. 2019a. Immediate Action Needed to Save North Atlantic Right Whales. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/leadership-message/immediate-action-needed-save-north-atlantic-right-whales (Accessed 20 February 2020)

NOAA. 2019b. 2019Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program Awards. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/2019-bycatch-reduction-engineering-program-awards (Accessed 20 February 2020).

NOAA. 2019c. Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-mammal-protection/atlantic-large-whale-take-reduction-plan#the-plan (Accessed 23 January 2020).

NOAA. 2019d. $1.6 Million Available to Support Recovery Actions for North Atlantic Right Whales. U.S. Department of Commerce. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/news/16-million-available-support-recovery-actions-north-atlantic-right-whales?utm_medium=email&utm_ source=govdelivery (Accessed 15 January 2020).

NOAA. 2020. 2017-2020 North Atlantic Right Whale Unusual Mortality Event. U.S. Department

Page 55

of Commerce. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2020-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event (Accessed 15 January 2020)

Oragano, C. L. 2012. How to catch a lobster in Down East Maine. Arcadia Publishing. 159 pp.

Overton, P. 2018. Caught up in tariff: Lobster trap prices. https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/dHZi8b (Accessed 26 December 2019).

Owusu-Agyeman, Y. 2019. An analysis of theoretical perspectives that define adult learners for effective and inclusive adult education policies. International Review of Education, 65: 929–953. Springer.

Pace, R., Cole, T., and Henry, A. 2014. Incremental fishing gear modifications fail to significantly reduce large whale serious injury rates. Endangered Species Research, 26: 115–126. http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/esr/v26/n2/p115-126/ (Accessed 13 September 2018).

Pappalardo, J. 2018. Doing what it takes to avoid extinction. https://www.capecodfishermen.org/item/overthebar-0531?category_id=9. (Accessed 4 May, 2020).

Partan, J., and Ball, K. 2016. Rope-less Fishing Technology Development. The Consortium for Wildlife Bycatch Reduction. https://www.bycatch.org/sites/default/files/Partan%26Ball_2016.pdf. (Accessed 4 May, 2020).

Partan, J., Ball, K., and Werner, T. 2018. Bottom-Stowed Line Spool for On-Call Fishing Gear. https://ropeless.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/112/2018/02/5.-PartanBallWerner_Bottom-stowed_Rope.pdf (Accessed 13 September 2018).

Pelletier, E., Ludwig, L., and Ellis, S. L. 2008. The Bottom-Line Project Protected Species Bycatch Reduction Maine Groundline Exchange Program Background of Project. www.gomlf.org (Accessed 23 August 2019).

Pelletier, E., and Ellis, S. L. 2009. Maine Fishing Gear Exchange Program the Bottom-Line Project Final Report to Maine Department of Marine Resources by GOMLF, sub-recipient under NOAA Award NA09NMF4520418 Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation Background and Purpose of Program. www.gomlf.org (Accessed 23 August 2019).

Pettis, H., Pace, R., and Hamilton, P. 2020. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2019 annual report card. Report to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium. https://www.narwc.org/uploads/1/1/6/6/116623219/2017_report_cardamended.pdf. (Accessed 4 May, 2020).

PFC. 2012. Evaluation of Fixed Gear Fishing with No Vertical Lines. https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/garfo/protected/grantsresearchprojects/fgp/reports/pemcograpfinalreport_july_.pdf. (Accessed 4 May, 2020).

Phillips, L. A., Baltzer, C., Filoon, L., and Whitley, C. 2017. Adult student preferences: Instructor characteristics conducive to successful teaching. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 23: 49–60. SAGE Publications Inc. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1477971416683488 (Accessed 10 March 2020).

Porter, K. 2018. Observations and insight on ropeless fishing in eastern Australia lobster fishery.https://sustainableseasdotblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/kristan_porter_observations_of_ropless_fishing.pdf (Accessed 4 May, 2020).

Prescott, J. H., and Best, P. 1986. Right Whales: Past and Present Status. In Reports - International Whaling Commission, Special Issue, pp. 79–82. Ed. by R. L. Brownell.

Page 56

International Whaling Commission, Cambridge. https://archive.iwc.int/pages/download.php?ref=470&size=&ext=pdf&k=&alternative=-1&usage=-1&usagecomment=(Accessed 4 May, 2020).

Reeves, R. R., Read, A. J., Lowry, L., Katona, S. K., and Boness, D. J. 2007. Report of the North Atlantic Right Whale Program Review Program. https://www.mmc.gov/wp-content/uploads/rightwhalereport.pdf (Accessed 4 May, 2020).

Richardson, K., Wilcox, C., and Hardesty, B. D. 2019. Estimates of fishing gear loss rates at a global scale: A literature review and meta‐analysis. Fish and Fisheries, 20: 1218-1231. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12407 (Accessed 4 May, 2020).

Ridd, P. 2014. No Title. http://fiomarine.com/testimonials/. (Accessed 4 May, 2020).

Riels, R. 2018. SMELTS Testing report for Ropeless Consortium Meeting 2018. https://ropeless.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/112/2018/02/7.-Reils_Trap_Lift_Bag.pdf (Accessed 13 September 2018).

Right Whales and Maine Lobster. Maine Lobstermen Working to Protect Right Whales. https://rightwhalesandmainelobster.com/ (Accessed 23 August 2019).

Roman, J., Estes J., Morissette, L., Smith, C., Costa, C., McCarthy, J., Nation, J. B., Nicol, S., Pershing, A. and Smetacek, V. 2014. Whales as Marine Ecosystem Engineers. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12, 7: 377–85. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b01d/012770325bb5cc3c9b8d60d586adae7ba98f.pdf (Accessed 4 May 2020).

Romanowsky, K. 2000. The American Lobster. The River John Community Access Program. http://www.parl.ns.ca/lobster/about.htm (Accessed 10 March 2020).

Salvador, G., Kenney, J., and Higgins, J. 2006. 2006 Supplement to the Large Whale Gear Research Summary. https://sustainableseasdotblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/2006-large-whale-gear-research-supplement.pdf. (Accessed 4 May 2020).

Sawicki, K. 2020. Scottish Creel Fishers Respond: Key Takeaway Points from a Ropeless Fishing Survey. Sustainable Seas. https://sustainableseas.blog/2020/01/23/scottish-creel-fishers-respond-key-takeaway-points-from-a-ropeless-fishing-survey/ (Accessed 4 May 2020).

Sharp, S. M., McLellan, W. A., Rotstein, D. S., Costidis, A. M., Barco, S. G., Durham, K., Pitchford, T. D., et al. 2019. North Atlantic Right Whale Deaths 2003-2018. https://www.int-res.com/articles/feature/d135p001.pdf (Accessed 23 August 2019).

Sheldon, W. W., and Dow, R. L. 1975. Trap Contributions to Losses in the American Lobster Fishery. Fishery Bulletin, 73: 449–451. https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/spo/FishBull/73-2/sheldon.pdf (Accessed 4 May 2020).

Shester, G. 2018. Initial Trials Exploring Ropeless Fishing Technologies for the California Dungeness Crab Fishery. http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/_media_library/2018/08/ropeless-trials-update7-30-18.pdf. (Accessed 4 May 2020).

Smith, M. D., Ludwig, L., and Wilson, C. 2011. Investigating the “ghost-fishing” capacity of derelict lobster traps. In Technical Proceedings of the Fifth International Marine Debris Conference, pp. 331–333. Ed. by and S. M. Ben Carswell, Kris McElwee. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Honolulu. https://5imdc.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/5imdc-proceedings-final1.pdf. (Accessed 5 May

Page 57

2020).

Smolowitz, R. J. 1978a. Trap Design and Ghost Fishing A. Northeast Fisheries Center, NMFS. https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/mfr405-6/mfr405-61.pdf (Accessed 21 July 2019).

Smolowitz, R. J. 1978b. Trap Design and Ghost Fishing: An overview. Northeast Fisheries Center, NMFS, C. https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/pdf-content/MFR/mfr405-6/mfr405-65.pdf (Accessed 21 July 2019).

Smolowitz, R. J. 1978c. Annotated Bibliography on Lobster Trapping and Related Subjects C. https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/pdf-content/MFR/mfr405-6/mfr405-66.pdf (Accessed 23 August 2019).

Staff. 2012a. Fishing for Energy Fund 2011 Final Programmatic Report (Activities) Grantee Organization: Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation Project Title: Maine Derelict Trap Prevention and At-Sea Recovery. https://www.nfwf.org/finalreports1/26978_forweb.pdf (Accessed 23 August 2019).

Staff. 2012b. Marine Debris Program 2009 Final Programmatic Report (Activities and Outcomes) Submit Final Programmatic Report (Activities and Outcomes). Grantee Organization: Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Project Title: Impacts of Ghost Fishing to the American Lobster Fishery. https://www.nfwf.org/finalreports1/18690_forweb.pdf (Accessed 23 August 2019).

Staff. 2015. Fishing for Energy Fund 2015-Submit Final Programmatic Report (New Metrics) Grantee Organization: Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Project Title: Reducing Derelict Gear through Educational Tools for Recreational Pot Fishermen (MA). https://www.youtube.com/user/massmarinefisheries (Accessed 23 August 2019).

Staff. 2016. Fisheries Then : Lobster Stories from the Trail The History of Maine Lobster Industry. http://www.downeastfisheriestrail.org/fisheries-then/lobster/. (Accessed 5 May 2020).

Staff. 2015. Fishing for Energy Fund 2015-Submit Final Programmatic Report (New Metrics) Grantee Organization: Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Project Title: Reducing Derelict Gear through Educational Tools for Recreational Pot Fishermen (MA). https://www.youtube.com/user/massmarinefisheries (Accessed 23 August 2019).

Staff. 2019a. About Gear Grab. www.gomlf.org/gear-grab/.(Accessed 5 May 2020).

Staff. 2019b. Maine fishermen give feedback on regulations to protect right whales | WGME. https://wgme.com/news/local/maine-fishermen-give-feedback-on-regulations-to-protect-right-whales (Accessed 10 March 2020).

States, U. 1983. The Endangered Species Act as amended by Public Law 97-304 (the Endangered Species Act amendments of 1982). Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 1983. https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999606103702121. (Accessed 5 May 2020).

Summers, E., Cleaver, C., Bell, F., and Willse, N. 2018. An Assessment of Vertical Line Use in the Gulf of Maine Region Fixed Gear Fisheries. Maine DMR. https://sustainableseasdotblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/assessment_of_vertical_line_use__in_ne_trap_pot_fisheries___summer_et_al.pdf. (Accessed 2 May 2020).

Takehama, S. 1989. Estimation Of Damages To Fishing Wessels Caused By Marine Debris, Based On Insurance Statistics. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April, 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii, pp. 792–809. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=pl5H8jtl7P0C&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA792

Page 58

Terhune, J., Road, T. P., John, S., and El, C. 2018. An evaluation of at-sea field trials of a ropeless lobster fishing method in LFA 34. https://www.coldwaterlobster.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/An-Evaluation-of-At-Sea-Field-Trials-for-Ropeless-Fishing-Gear.pdf (Accessed 2 May 2020).

Tetreault, H., and McCarron, P. 2012. Lobster Pot Gear Configurations in the Gulf of Maine. http://www.bycatch.org/sites/default/files/Lobster_Gear_Report_0.pdf (Accessed 23 August 2019).

Tetreault, H., and McClellan, K. 2014. Perspective of Gulf of Maine Lobster Fishermen on Reducing Large Whale Entanglements. https://www.bycatch.org/sites/default/files/5r-2592-Project 3 finalsubmission.pdf. (Accessed 3 May 2020).

Trotter, B. 2009. $2.3M eyed to retrieve lost lobster traps. Bangor Daily News: 4–9. https://bangordailynews.com/2009/04/14/politics/23m-eyed-to-retrieve-lost-lobster-traps/.(Accessed May 2020).

Trotter, B. 2011. A whale of a task: Restoring the right whale population. https://bangordailynews.com/2011/08/08/environment/a-whale-of-a-task-restoring-the-right-whale-population/ (Accessed 10 March 2020).

Turner, H., DeCew, J., Goldsmith, D., and Brimlow, S. 1999. Acoustically Triggered Buoyless Lobster Trap Recovery System. 1–85 pp. https://www.bycatch.org/articles/acoustically-triggered-buoyless-lobster-trap-recovery-system. (Accessed 4 May 2020).

USCG. 2008. Analysis of Fishing Vessel Casualties, A Review of Lost Fishing Vessels and Crew Fatalities, 1992 - 2007. 1–51 pp. https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO Documents/5p/CG-5PC/CG-CVC/CVC3/reports/2008_Casualty_Analysis.pdf (Accessed 12 October 2019).

Wallace, N. 2017. Marine debris can, for the most part, be prevented. https://www.thecordovatimes.com/2017/07/28/wallace-marine-debris-can-part-prevented/ (Accessed 23 August 2019).

Waterman, M. 2018. Coastal Outlook: For Whom The Wind Blows. www.mlcalliance.org. (Accessed 5 May 2020).

Werner, T. B. 2015. A Review of Gear Measures to Reduce Entanglements of NARWs (Eubalaena glacialis). https://ropeless.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/112/2018/02/3.-Werner_Gear_Modifications.pdf (Accessed 13 September 2018).

Werner, T. B., Northridge, S., Press, K. M., and Young, N. 2015. Mitigating bycatch and depredation of marine mammals in longline fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72: 1576–1586. Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/72/5/1576/781679 (Accessed 13 September 2018).

WHOI. 2020. SeaWorld & Busch Gardens conservation fund commits $900,000 to protect critically endangered North Atlantic right whales. Ropeless Consortium. https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-release/seaworld-busch-gardens-conservation-fund-commits-900000-to-protect-critically-endangered-north-atlantic-right-whales/ (Accessed 15 January 2020).

Wyatt, L. G. 2011. Nontraditional student engagement: Increasing adult student success and retention. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59: 10–20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233285109_Nontraditional_Student_Engagement_Increasing_Adult_Student_Success_and_Retention. (Accessed 5 May 2020).