National Observer Program
2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes
and Experiences Survey
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-186
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service
National Observer Program 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and
Experiences Survey
Yuntao Wang and Jane DiCosimo
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-186
MAY 2019
U.S. Department of Commerce
Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Neil A. Jacobs, Ph.D.
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction,
performing the nonexclusive duties and functions of Under Secretary and NOAA Administrator
National Marine Fisheries Service
Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
Recommended Citation:
Wang, Y. and DiCosimo, J. 2019. National Observer Program 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and
Experiences Survey. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-186, 50 p.
Copies of this report may be obtained from:
National Observer Program
Office of Science & Technology
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Or online at:
http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tech-memos
ii 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
Contents
Table of Figures iv
Acknowledgments v
Executive Summary 1
1. Introduction 3
2. Survey Methodology 4
3. Survey Responses and Discussion 7
3.1 Observer Demographics and Background 7
3.2 Job Satisfaction 9
3.2.1 Satisfaction with NOAA Fisheries Staff 10
3.2.2 Satisfaction with Provider Companies 10
3.2.3 Satisfaction with Captains and/or Crew 11
3.2.4 Satisfaction with Time Spent Deployed Per Month 12
3.3 Observing as a Career 13
3.4 Harassment and Incident Reporting 15
3.5 International Observing Experience 17
3.6 Regional Questions 18
3.6.1 Alaska Region 18
3.6.2 Greater Atlantic Region 20
3.6.3 West Coast Region 21
3.7 Usage of Electronic Technology 21
3.8 Follow-up Interviews and General Comments 22
4. Summary 23
5. Next Steps 23
6. Literature Cited 26
Appendix 1: Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey 27
Appendix 2: Aggregated Responses 35
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service iii
Table of Figures
Figure Title
1.1 The role of observers and fishermen in sustainable fisheries
1.2 Summary of key findings from survey and planned responses from NOAA Fisheries
1.3 U.S. fishery observer programs by region and fishery
2.1 Survey participants observing in each year
3.1.1 Survey respondent gender ratio
3.1.2 Survey respondent age at time of survey
3.1.3 Survey respondent gender ratio versus age groups
3.1.4 Educational level comparison at first deployment and most recent status
3.1.5 Average regional tenure and response distribution by region and program
3.2.1 Observer satisfaction with NMFS staff
3.2.2 Observer satisfaction with provider company
3.2.3 Observer satisfaction with captain/crew
3.2.4 Monthly sea days and expectations
3.3.1 Initial expectations for length of tenure as an observer
3.3.2 Motivations to work as an observer
3.3.3 Current job category
3.3.4 Importance of observer experience for career path
3.3.5 Perception of recognition of observer contributions by fishery community
3.4.1 Harassment incidents and reporting
3.4.2 Report handling and follow-up
3.4.3 Reasons for not reporting harassment
3.5.1 Respondent experiences in U.S. and foreign fisheries
3.5.2 Reasons for not participating in the international fishery
3.6.1 Satisfaction levels for different deployment types, Alaska Region
3.6.2 Certification type in North Pacific
3.6.3 Reasons leading to lack of LL2 certifications
3.6.4 Satisfaction levels for different deployment types, Greater Atlantic
3.6.5 Satisfaction levels for different deployment types, West Coast Region
3.7 Attitude toward using EM/ER
3.8 Word cloud based on general comments and interviews
3.9 Summary of key findings from survey and planned responses from NOAA Fisheries
iv 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service v
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the leadership of NOAA Fisheries and the Office of Science and Technology for their
substantial support throughout this entire project. We are grateful to have had the opportunity to conduct this survey with
current and former observers, and look forward to the consideration of our results in the future development of meaningful
plans to improve the work experience for current and future observers and to increase observer retention.
We also want to thank our colleagues at NOAA Fisheries headquarters. Lee Benaka, Liz Chilton, and Dennis Hansford from
National Observer Program offered great help in designing the project and survey and in completing the report, while
2018 Knauss Fellow Noelle Olsen’s insight and assistance in the development of the report and associated charts were
greatly appreciated. Sarah Brabson was tremendously helpful with Paperwork Reduction Act requirements. Rita Curtis,
Kristy Wallmo, Tom Sminkey, and Amy Bowman from the NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology offered great
survey design suggestions. We gratefully acknowledge support from our colleagues at NOAA Fisheries regional offices,
headquarters offices, science centers, and the National Observer Program Advisory Team, including Drew Kitts, Chris Rilling,
Gwynne Schnaittacher, Amy Martins, Jon McVeigh, Charles Villafana, John Kelly, Elizabeth Scott Denton, Carolyn Doherty,
Richard Kupfer, Alex Perry, Patricia Clay, John Henderschedt, Sally Bibb, Brian Mason, Ryan Shama, and Ben Riedesel.
We appreciate the generous help we received from observer provider companies in distributing this survey, which helped
ensure timely responses. We also look forward to their future help in improving the work experience of observers based on
survey results.
We appreciate the current and former observers who participated in a survey pretest and provided great input to make
the survey a success: Jason Gedamke, Brendan Newell, Alicia Miller, Stacey Miller, Stewart DesMeules, Courtney Smith,
Vanessa Fleming, Dennis Jaszka, Brad Laird, and Thomas Meninno. We thank Liz Mitchell, Association of Professional
Observers, for publicizing the survey. Lastly, we gratefully acknowledge the 553 current and past observers who responded
to the survey. The report would not be possible without their responses, and without the overall contributions of the talented
and hard-working observers who provide NOAA Fisheries with the data required to sustainably manage our nation’s
fisheries.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 1
Executive Summary
NOAA Fisheries contracts with or certies private
observer provider companies to recruit, hire, and
deploy professionally trained biological technicians
as observers in 14 regional observer programs that
cover up to 53 fisheries on all U.S. coasts.
1
As the
eyes and ears on the water, observers provide catch
and bycatch information that is used in stock
assessments and is essential for sustainable sheries
management. ey are the only independent
data collection source for some types of at-sea
information. Observers are essential to help test
innovation in shing gear, such as bycatch reduction
devices. In order to fulll their duties, observers
undergo medical screening prior to rigorous training
programs to be able to quickly identify species
and collect reliable scientic data. ey have been
an integral part of NOAA Fisheries science and
management for decades, and their work and the
data they collect are critical to the agency’s ability to
execute its mission. Because observers are employed
by the private sector, the agency will continue to work
with its observer provider partners to ensure safe and
suitable working conditions and to facilitate the collection
of high-quality data.
Maintaining a strong observer workforce now and in
the future is a priority for NOAA Fisheries. e agency
has been aware of anecdotal reports that factors such
as intense working conditions (such as severe weather),
concerns regarding data quality, training costs, shortage of
available observers, and safety and harassment may lead to
loss of highly qualied biologists from the profession.
Because the technical skills observers possess take time to
hone and are essential to good data collection, retaining
knowledgeable and hardworking observers is important to
NOAA Fisheries. It is widely recognized that an observer’s
job requires eld skills and scientic knowledge that may
require many deployments before gaining prociency.
In an eort to improve retention, a nationwide observer
survey on attitudes and experiences was conducted in
2016. NOAA Fisheries will use information from the
survey to improve the national and regional observer
programs to retain highly qualied, trained scientists
and to support observers in their career development, in
partnership with their employers.
Since the rst observers were placed on foreign
commercial vessels in 1971, NOAA Fisheries and observer
provider companies have trained and deployed as many as
ten thousand scientists in dozens of commercial sheries.
Lack of information on observer retention has limited the
ability of regional observer programs to eectively recruit
observers and evaluate observers’ behavioral responses
to changes in regulations, recruitment, and observing
conditions.
is report summarizes the results of 553 current and former
observers who responded to an anonymous online survey
conducted by NOAA Fisheries in 2016. e survey collected
information on the attitudes and experiences of shery
observers, and how those may impact their decision to stay
in or leave the profession. A link to the online survey was
distributed to former and current observers through a variety
of outreach eorts. Survey respondents were categorized
by region and shery type into one of 23 strata, which are
described in detail in the Survey Methodology section. e
survey collected the following types of data: demographics,
education and work history, pre-employment motivation,
observer experience, job satisfaction, job diculties, career
plans, safety (including harassment) incidents, experience in
international sheries, opinions about electronic monitoring,
and questions focused on regional issues.
e survey asked several questions of observers on
harassment and safety incidents, though the questions did
1
For a detailed description of observer programs, see the FY 2013 National Observer Program Annual Report, https://spo.nmfs.noaa.
gov/sites/default/les/TMSPO178web.pdf
Figure 1.1. The role of observers and fishermen in sustainable fisheries.
2 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
Observer Attitudes and Experiences:
2016 Survey Snapshot
Office of Science and Technology
National Observer Program
Why Survey Observers?
Observers are the only independent
data collection source for some types
of at-sea information. The information
they collect is essential for stock
assessments and sustainable fisheries
management, the ability of fleets to
operate, and testing innovation in fishing
gear, such as bycatch reduction devices.
Who Responded?
553 current or former observers*:
Female: 40%; Male: 60%
Age range at time of survey:
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60+
(41%)
(32%)
(17%)
(8%)
(2%)
Regional distribution**:
Alaska
Greater
Atlantic
Pacific
Islands
Southeast
West
Coast
(53%)
(26%)
(7%)
(7%)
(7%)
*Respondents included at-sea monitors, who collect
data to estimate discards for vessels in the Northeast
groundfish fishery.
**Response distribution was commensurate to regional
distribution among active observers in 2016.
What we heard ... How we’ll respond ...
Field work was the #1 motivation
Ensure recruitment and
for becoming an observer. 69%
training materials set appropriate
of respondents’ expectations for
expectations.
days spent at sea matched
their experiences.
75% thought being an observer
Continue to communicate career
was helpful in advancing their
path opportunities, and collaborate
careers. 45% said the experience
with observer employers in support of
increased their interest in
career transition.
working in marine science
careers.
69% of respondents supported
Effectively communicate intent of
electronic reporting. 40%
technologies and potential impacts
supported electronic monitoring.
on observer deployments.
About half of survey respondents (46%)
Support NOAA-wide efforts to
reported that they were harassed at
combat harassment, which includes
least once in their observer career,
educating the fishing community
and only one-third of those reported
about zero tolerance of observer
harassment every time it occurred.
harassment and resulting penalties.
Only 20% of respondents
Better educate the fleet, Councils,
felt valued by the
and other stakeholders about observer
fishing community.
contributions to sustainable
fisheries.
Respondents expressed low
Create opportunities for observers
satisfaction with opportunities to
to attend fisheries conferences, track
learn more about science and
regional management council actions,
management.
and engage with NOAA Fisheries
staff.
Figure 1.
2. Summary of key findings from survey and planned responses from NOAA Fisheries.
*“Harassment” was not defined in the survey and could have been anything between a hostile glare to physical assault.
This anonymous, voluntary, and informal online survey was intended to help NOAA Fisheries better
understand observer attitudes and experiences. Results reflect responses received between August and
December 2016. Inferences from the data collected are limited by several factors, including the self-selected
nature of the survey, the lack of national or regional databases with information to contact past observers, and
because outreach efforts for the survey were more likely to reach former observers who had stayed in marine-
related careers rather than those who had left the field. The report on this survey will be available at
https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tech-memos.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Liz Chilton
(301) 427-8201
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/fishery-observers
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service
not specify types of harassment. While the survey was not
designed to address harassment issues, it is important to
note that the ndings will help to inform broader eorts
by NOAA Fisheries to deter harassment, enhance observer
safety and security, and improve reporting when incidents
do occur. Overall, survey results provided needed clarity
on factors that contribute to observer retention (see Figure
1.2) and will ensure that NOAA Fisheries has the necessary
information it needs to support robust observer programs
and ensure observer safety and health.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 3
1. Introduction
e National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries)
contracts with third-party providers to deploy scientists
trained as observers to collect information on catch, bycatch,
shing eort, biological characteristics, interactions with
protected species, and socioeconomic information from U.S.
commercial shing and processing vessels. Observer data
supports NOAA Fisheries’ conservation and management
goals, strengthens and improves shery management
decision-making, and satises legal mandates.
2
Observers are oen the only independent data collection
source for NOAA Fisheries to collect at-sea data from
commercial shing vessels and processors, which are crucial
in shery management. Observer programs began to collect
data on a voluntary basis in 1971; the rst mandatory
program started in 1974 for U.S purse seiners. Observers
rst deployed on foreign shing vessels operating o the
northwest and Alaskan coasts of the U.S. under the North
Pacic Foreign Fishery observer Program in 1973. Observers
worked as direct federal employees until 1996.
Today, ve regional programs (Greater Atlantic, Southeast,
Alaska, West Coast, and Pacic Islands) (Figure 1.3)
comprise 14 specic observer programs that cover up to
53 sheries and contract with one or more of ten private
companies
3
certied to recruit and deploy observers. In
Alaska, only vessels and processors in the partial coverage
category obtain observers through third-party contractors,
under a unique fee collection program authorized by
Congress. Vessels and processors in the Alaska full coverage
category contract directly with third-party observer provider
companies to obtain observers. NOAA Fisheries pays
the infrastructure (onshore) costs of all Alaskan observer
programs, while the commercial shing eet pays either
none or all of the at-sea costs of individual shery observer
programs. See Brooke (2014) for more on the history of U.S.
observer programs.
Currently, though there are high turnover rates for observers
in most regions, regional observer program sta have
reported that current recruitment techniques generate an
adequate number of applicants for fullling current observer
needs. However, this situation could change in the future,
leading to a potential shortage of observers in certain
programs. Additionally, government contracts with third-
party observer providers include performance standards for
retaining experienced observers.
Unpublished results from survey data by the Northeast
Fisheries Science Center, presented at the 2007 International
Fisheries Observing and Monitoring Conference (IFOMC),
suggest that the performance of observers is impacted by
their experience. A positive correlation (Chelton and Davis,
1982) has also been found between data quality and observer
experience (number of days at sea). Improving the retention
of qualied and experienced observers may lead to a reduced
need for training and a correlated cost savings, along with
improved data quality (Williams et al. 2006). Experienced
observers also help to ease the transition for new observers,
beneting the observers along with the vessel captain and
crew.
To better understand the observer population and factors
inuencing their retention, the National Observer Program
(NOP) conducted an online survey of past and present
shery observers in 2016 to identify and respond to the
incentives and disincentives of observers to continue in
the eld and to identify their subsequent career choices.
Results are summarized in this report. e survey data will
be considered by NOAA Fisheries in eorts to improve
observer recruitment and retention by regional shery
observer programs through an accurate understanding of the
motivations of observers, and will aid in the evaluation of
current observer provider contract requirements.
e potential respondent universe consisted of all former
and current observers that have been an observer in U.S.
sheries. Current observers were dened as holding a
validated contract and serving as an observer on a U.S.
commercial shing vessel during 2016. Former observers
were dened as serving as an observer on a U.S. commercial
shing vessel but under a contract that ended before 2016.
For instance, there were 902 current observers with validated
contact information in 2016. An unknown number of former
observers without any validated contact information also
were potential respondents. The universe of former observers
may be as many as 8,000, but is ultimately unknown.
4
is report summarizes 553 responses to the NOAA Fishery
Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey (Appendix
1) received between August 2016 and December 2016;
aggregated responses are provided in Appendix 2. e report
identies factors that rst drew scientists to the observer
2
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environ-
mental Policy Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Executive Order 12866.
3
https://www.sheries.noaa.gov/national/sheries-observers/observer-employers
4
Observers are employed by private companies and their employee records are not shared with the U.S. government.
4 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
profession and factors that led them to leave it. National and
regional observer program managers, as well as national and
regional NOAA Fisheries leadership and its regional shery
management council partners, will consider the information
collected in the survey.
e observer attitudes and experiences survey is one of three
principal activities that constitute NOAA Fisheries’ Observer
Safety Program. e second initiative is working with
NOAA General Counsel to develop national regulations to
address specic observer insurance coverage needs while
deployed and working on land, following a workshop
conducted in 2016.
5
In May 2018, NOAA Fisheries released
the third component of the initiative, an independent review
of observer safety and health in each of its regional and
national programs. is comprehensive review by outside
auditors, which included ndings on insurance and on
attitudes and experiences inuencing observer retention
and attrition, is intended to ensure ongoing observer safety
and professional work environments. NOAA Fisheries is
working with the national and regional observer programs,
as well as observer provider companies, to implement
recommendations from that report, ensuring all observers
have the tools they need to stay safe and healthy on board.
2. Survey Methodology
ere were 974 observers in 2015 and 902 in 2016. e
response rate for current observers was projected to be
approximately 60%. Because of an unknown number of
former observers, the universe of possible participants was
not available, but an estimated 500 former observers may
have received the survey, with an expected response rate
of approximately 40%. Approximately 785 surveys were
expected to be returned; 553 were received by December 31,
2016.
Data were collected via a voluntary, online survey
administered through SurveyMonkey, with data transferred
automatically into a database for analysis. e online survey
allowed respondents to skip questions that did not apply
to them, so the total number of responses to each question
varied. e survey was pretested by ten former observers
who had since become members of the NOAA Fisheries
sta. e feedback obtained from pretesting was not
included in the database for analysis. e survey also oered
an opportunity for observers to indicate their willingness to
be contacted for follow-up phone interviews. e interview
U.S. Observer Programs
Alaska
Alaska Marine Mammal • Juneau, AK
(operates in years of funding)
North Pacific • Seattle, WA
West Coast Northwest
West Coast Groundfish • Seattle, WA
At-Sea Hake • Seattle, WA
West Coast Southwest
est Coast Regional • Long Beach, CAW
Pacific Islands
Pacific Islands Fisheries • Honolulu, HI
American Samoa
Southeast
Southeast Shrimp Trawl • Galveston, TX
Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish • Galveston, TX
Southeast Coastal Gillnet • Panama City, FL
Shark Bottom Longline • Panama City, FL
Atlantic Pelagic Longline • Miami, FL
National Observer Program
• Silver Spring, MD
Greater Atlantic
Northeast Fisheries • Woods Hole, MA
At-Sea Monitoring • Woods Hole, MA
Industry Funded Scallop • Woods Hole, MA
Figure 1.3. U.S. fishery observer programs by region and fishery.
5
https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/sites/default/les/TMSPO176nal.pdf
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 5
would allow observers to expand on their opinions and
comments and provide examples of issues of concern.
e survey period allowed a one-time data collection to
develop a comprehensive understanding of observers’
attitudes toward their observer program(s). Numerous
eorts were made to contact observers to increase the
responses, in order to make meaningful and statistically
sound inferences about the population. Studies have
shown that implementing multiple modes of contact could
improve response rate and reduce non-response errors
in mail surveys (Dillman et al. 1974, 2008; Heberlin and
Baumgartner, 1978). Because no single list of observers
exists, NOAA Fisheries made every eort to distribute the
survey link as widely as possible. e survey was released
online on August 20, 2016 via an e-mail message to all
NOAA Fisheries sta. Observer provider company contacts
also were requested to distribute the survey link to their
past and present observers. A link to the survey also was
posted on social media. Presentations to interested regional
shery management councils and their stas also included a
request to publicize the survey link through their newsletters
to observers active in their sheries. Two presentations and
a poster during the 8th International Fisheries Observer
and Monitoring Conference (IFOMC) described the
survey and provided the link. Other eorts were made via
observer professional associations, social networks, direct
communication among observers, and word-of-mouth.
e survey consisted of six sections. e rst section
(questions 1-4), “Facts about observer,” collected data to
identify demographic information, including the gender,
age group, and education level of the respondent. is
information was important to classify perceptions of
observers with gender, age, and education subcategories.
e comparison between initial education and most recent
educational degree was intended to identify observers who
pursued a higher degree, and whether the experience as an
observer was helpful for their subsequent career.
Section two (questions 5 -12), “Background of observing
experience,” collected data to identify the start/end time
of the observing period, sea days, region and program
type, motivation, and initial time span intended to work
as observer. All observers were grouped into one of ve
regional categories: (1) Greater Atlantic, (2) Southeast, (3)
West Coast, (4) Pacic Islands, and (5) Alaska. Regional
shery types also were identied. Because of the large
variation of sheries in each region, no general subcategory
was used here. For the Greater Atlantic, observers were
divided into observers in the Northeast Fisheries Observer
Program (NEFOP), industry funded scallop observers,
and at-sea monitors. For Alaska, observers were divided
into groundsh and halibut full coverage and partial
coverage. For the West Coast, there were four subcategories:
groundsh non catch-share, groundsh catch-share,
California gillnet sheries, and California longline shery.
For the Pacic Islands, observers were divided into Hawaii
pelagic longline and Samoa longline sheries, but because
the respondents who had experience in the Samoa longline
sheries had all worked for a longer period in the Hawaii
pelagic longline sheries, the responses were all counted
toward the Hawaii shery. For the Southeast, there were ve
types: pelagic longline, shark bottom longline, gillnets, reef
sh, and shrimp trawl.
Because former observers were also included in the survey
and some programs changed or were eliminated over
time, the subcategory “Not listed above” was identied for
each region. is method of stratication resulted in 23
strata including total populations for current observer and
unknown populations for former observers. Answers to
these questions described fundamental information about
the working history of observers by regional observer
program.
Section three (questions 13-26), “Working condition and
satisfaction level,” identied basic working conditions,
the level of satisfaction by observers in certain aspects of
the observer experience, and their experience regarding
harassment during deployment. ese aspects, based on
complaints that had been reported anecdotally over the
history of the observer program, were further divided into
three subcategories: observer program, provider company,
and captain/crew. Answers to these questions were intended
to aid the observer programs and companies in addressing
observer dissatisfaction.
Section four (questions 27-32), “Recognition as an observer
and attitude for future,” investigated the observer’s current
job, motivations for remaining or leaving their observer
positions, the role of observer experience in their career
paths, and their attitudes toward using electronic monitoring
(EM) and electronic reporting (ER) systems as tools for
observing.
Section ve (questions 33-49), “International and regional
questions,” investigated observer experiences in international
sheries and observer programs in three regional sheries
that requested inclusion of survey questions that addressed
regional topics. For international sheries, questions
were designed to gauge how many observers have
experience working on foreign sheries and through which
international organization the observer was deployed.
Questions also gauged their preferences between foreign and
U.S. sheries for certain aspects.
Additional questions were contributed by three regional
programs. For Alaska observers, questions gauged the
satisfaction for longline lead level 2 (LL2) versus non-
6 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
LL2 observers due to the lack of recruitment to the LL2
certication level, which is mandatory in some groundsh
sheries. For Greater Atlantic observers, questions addressed
dierences between “observers,” who collect data and
biological samples on commercial shing trips, and “at-sea
monitors,” who collect data to estimate total discards from
groundsh vessels in the Greater Atlantic. For West Coast
observers, satisfaction of observers between catch-share
sheries and non-catch-share sheries were surveyed.
Section six (questions 50-52), “Comments and follow-
up interview,” collected contact information of observers
who expressed an interest in sharing details about their
experience or giving additional comments. A separate link
was provided so that their information could not be linked
to their survey responses. A self-selected sample of 145
respondents was contacted by NOP to share additional
comments and detail.
e on-line survey of past and present observers was
approved by the U.S. Oce of Management and Budget on
August 8, 2016. As of December 31, 2016, NOAA Fisheries
received 553 survey responses, which were used to generate
this report. “Spikes” in daily responses correlate to specic
outreach eorts facilitated by the NOP. For example, there
were 38 responses received around August 28 during the
8th IFOMC. Fiy-ve observers responded on September
7, following an e-mail message from Eileen Sobeck, then-
Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries. Sixty-nine
responses were received during the week of October 23 to
29, 2016, following a meeting of the NOP Advisory Team
(NOPAT).
e survey was designed exclusively for U.S. shery
observers. Eighteen responses from foreign observers were
excluded. e NOP estimates that the total number of
current and former U.S. observers is approximately 8,000,
so it is important to evaluate how representative the survey
was relative to the entire observer community. ere was a
clear pattern (Figure 2.1) showing that more respondents
are current observers (due to the diculty in contacting past
observers), such that survey results may be more accurate
for recent observers. Of observers working in 2016, 228
responded to the survey, representing about 25% of current
observers.
Survey participants observing in each year
Before 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Time (year)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Working observers
Total number of survey participatants working in each year
Figure 2.1. Survey participants observing in each year.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 7
3. Survey Responses and Discussion
3.1 Observer Demographics and Background
e Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the
United Nations
6,7
has classied the shing industry as a
male-dominated eld, with males comprising more than
80% of total employment. While a similar representation
may be expected for shery observers, the ratio of survey
respondents showed greater representation of females
employed in the observer eld (60% male v. 40% female)
(Figure 3.1.1). Regional observer program managers
conrmed that this result was consistent with their current
records.
Figure 3.1.2 shows the age of respondents when they
responded to the survey. Age was a factor inuencing the
retention of observers. e most common age range for
survey respondents at the time they took the survey was
between 20 and 29 years old (40%), followed by those aged
30 to 39 (32%), 40 to 49 (17%), 50 to 59 (8%), and older than
60 (2%).
Survey responses indicated that fewer people work as
observers with increasing age, with fewer observers
represented in older age groups for current observers when
compared to all respondents. Additionally, the ratio of male
respondents to female respondents increased as age did
(Figure 3.1.3), which could imply a higher retention rate for
male observers or point to fewer older females entering the
profession. e tendency of a higher retention rate for male
respondents was signicant at a 95% condence level using a
linear regression.
Observer skills and knowledge vary slightly by the type of
deployment (e.g., by region, vessel type, shing gear used),
but include:
• Species identication.
• Biological specimen data collection.
• Proper protected species handling.
• Ability to tread water and/or swim in an immersion suit
and to right and board a life ra.
• Ability to manage motion- and sea-sickness.
• Ability to work long and irregular hours.
• Aptitude for maintaining diplomacy, professionalism, and
interpersonal relations in a challenging environment.
To ensure that observers have the necessary skills for quality
scientic data collection, NOAA Fisheries has instituted
educational requirements for observers in most regional
observer programs. Requirements for observer candidates
include: a bachelor’s degree in one of the natural sciences
(including the equivalent of at least 30 semester hours in
biological sciences) and at least one undergraduate course in
math or statistics.
Certain regional programs have less restrictive requirements
than those for at-sea observers. For instance, requirements to
qualify as an at-sea monitor in the Greater Atlantic include
a high school diploma, at least one class in math or statistics,
and experience with computers. West Coast shoreside catch
monitors must have a high school diploma and either 1)
at least two years of study from an accredited college with
a major study in natural resource management, natural
sciences, earth sciences, natural resource anthropology,
Overall ratio of genders
Female
40%
Male
60%
Figure 3.1.1. Survey respondent gender ratio.
Overall ratio of age groups
20-29
41%
30-39
32%
40-49
17%
50-59
8%
60 or
older
2%
Figure 3.1.2. Survey respondent age at time of survey.
6
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6623e.pdf
7
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labor10a-eng.htm
8 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
law enforcement/police science, criminal justice, public
administration, behavioral sciences, environmental
sociology, or other closely related subjects pertinent to
the management and protection of natural resources; or
2) one year of specialized experience performing duties
which involved communicating eectively and obtaining
cooperation, identifying and reporting problems or apparent
violations of regulations concerning the use of protected or
public land areas, and carrying out policies and procedures
within a recreational area or
natural resource site.
In 2001, Alu Like, Inc., a
Hawaii-based, non-prot,
charitable organization
that specializes in
providing employment,
training, and workforce
development programs
to Native Hawaiians,
was approved to recruit
and train U
.S. and U.S.-
aliated Pacic Islanders
and Native Hawaiians
to work as observers in
the Pacic Islands. is
program provides training
to Native Hawaiians and
Pacic Islanders so that
they can be certied as
trained observers and
hired by observer contract
providers. Candidates must
rst successfully complete a
10-day Marine Options Program which is oered thorough
the University of Hawaii, and then must complete the NMFS
three-week observer training course. Upon successful
completion, the candidate is certied by NOAA Fisheries as
a longline and bottomsh observer and is eligible to apply
for an observer position with the observer contract provider.
e Alaska observer program is considering a similar
program for interested Alaska Natives.
Figure 3.1.3. Survey respondent gender ratio versus age groups.
20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 or more
Age Group
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Number of individuals
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Ratio of male to total
Age and Gender Ratio for all responses
Male
Female
Ratio
Figure 3.1.4. Educational level comparison at first deployment and most recent status.
Educational level at first deployment
2%
< 1%
87%
10%
< 1%
Current educational level
< 1%
< 1%
71%
24%
3%
High school
Associate
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Doctorate
Education at first deployment
Most recent educational status
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 9
Most respondents started observing with a bachelor’s
degree (87%) or graduate degree (10%) (Figure 3.1.4).
Approximately 16% of respondents with a bachelor’s degree
had since obtained a graduate degree by the time of the
survey. is trend was evident for both females and males.
Overall, regional representation in the survey was
commensurate with their distribution among the number
of active observers in 2016. For instance, more than half of
the respondents reported working in the Alaska Observer
Program (Figure 3.1.5), while 469 of 902 observers (or
52%) in 2016 were from the Alaska region. Observers
in the Greater Atlantic Region, with the second highest
number of observers (22%) in 2016, provided 26% of survey
responses. e other three regions each provided about 7%
of responses. e remaining observers who selected “other”
were deployed on international vessels prior to 1990.
Figure 3.1.5 also includes the ratio of respondents by
individual program within each region. Because the ratio
of respondents from each program was relatively consistent
with the ratio of observers in each program, the individual
programs were also well represented in the survey. Because
all respondents in the Pacic Islands Region had experience
in the Hawaii pelagic longline shery, the other regional
program (Samoa longline shery) was not considered
separately. Finally, gure 3.1.5 identies the average length
of observer tenure in individual observer programs in each
region. ere was large variance among the average number
of years that observers worked in dierent regions. e region
with longest average observer tenure was the West Coast
region with 5.5 years; the shortest was the Greater Atlantic
Region with an average observer tenure of three years.
3.2 Job Satisfaction
e survey measured the job satisfaction level of respondents.
It identied four categories that could impact observer
satisfaction: NOAA Fisheries sta, provider company,
captain/crew, and monthly deployment. Questions in each
category were asked to gauge the satisfaction levels of
respondents. e responses “Very dissatised,” “Dissatised,”
“Neutral,” “Satised” and “Very satised” were quantied as 1
to 5. Higher scores represent greater satisfaction.
Pacific Islands
4.51 years
average tenure
7%
of survey respondents
(Note: Responses from the Samoa longline
fishery were not considered separately, as all
respondents had more extensive experience
in the Hawaii pelagic longline fishery
.)
American Samoa
Average Regional Tenure and Response
Distribution by Region and Program
Alaska
4.8 years
average tenure
53% of survey respondents
Greater Atlantic
3.05 years
average tenure
26% of survey respondents
West Coast
5.51 years average tenure
7% of survey respondents
Southeast
4.32 years
average tenure
7% of survey respondents
Remaining survey participants were deployed on international vessels prior to 1990.
Northeast Fisheries
Observer Program
At-Sea Monitoring
Industry-Funded
Scallop
Other
Groundfish/Halibut
(Full Coverage)
Groundfish/Halibut
(Partial Coverage)
Other
Gillnet
Non-Catch Share
Catch Share
Other
Pelagic Longline
Shark
Shrimp Trawl
Reef Fish
Gillnet
Figure 3.1.5. Average regional tenure and response distribution by region and program.
10 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
3.2.1 Satisfaction with NOAA Fisheries Staff
Five questions gauged respondent satisfaction levels toward
NOAA Fisheries sta.
8
e distribution of responses (Figure
3.2.1) showed respondents were mostly satised with
“Working with NMFS Observer Program” with an average
score of 3.92. Respondents also were satised with “Tools
and technical support” and “Debrieng experience” with
scores of 3.83 and 3.7, respectively. “Resolving observer-
reported incidents” was scored at 3.39. e lowest score was
2.79 for “Outreach and conference availability.”
Some respondents commented they thought they would
have more opportunities to learn about how observer data
was used, but such outreach eorts and interaction with
scientists and managers generally were not provided by
NOAA Fisheries, nor did the agency provide opportunities
for observers to attend shery management conferences.
A few respondents replied that they felt they had no voice,
and others commented that they felt that they may lose
their contracts and potentially their observer career if they
voiced their complaints. Several commenters reported that
some debriefers were less respectful of observers’ hard work
or not willing to help observers learn how to improve their
data quality. Some respondents, who reported asking specic
questions on how to improve their data quality, were told to
“refer to your manual.” Some respondents reported to their
debriefers that the gear and tools they had been provided
were not accurate or were less than eective for the tough
eld environment in which they worked.
3.2.2 Satisfaction with Provider Companies
Ten categories gauged respondent satisfaction toward
their provider company employers (Figure 3.2.2). Highest
satisfaction was given for “Emergency response,” with
an average score of 3.72. “General support” and “Technical
support” averaged a score of more than 3.6. “Types of
contracts available,” “Advance notice of upcoming trip,”
“Resolving observer-reported incidents,” “Advance notice
8
is was intended to be interpreted as NOAA Fisheries sta in the respondents’ regional observer program.
Satisfaction with NMFS Observer Program
Percent
Overall Score
Working with NMFS Observer Program staff
Resolving obse
rver−reported incidents (e.g., harassment, safety, etc.)
Outreach and conferences availiability
Debriefing experience
Tools and technical support
50 0 50
3.92
3.39
2.79
3.7
3.83
Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied
Figure 3.2.1. Respondent satisfaction with NOAA Fisheries staff.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 11
of trip cancellation” and “Wage” scored between 3.29 and
3.44. Some respondents commented that many of their trips
had been delayed; at-sea monitors reported cancellation
rates exceeding 50%. “Ease of switching employer/provider
company” scored 3.1, which was slightly more than the
satisfaction threshold of 3 or greater. e lowest satisfaction
of the four categories surveyed was with provider companies;
comments indicated that respondents felt their eorts were
not adequately recognized by their employers.
“Health insurance” received an average score of 2.8, which
was slightly less than the satisfaction threshold. A signicant
percentage of respondents reported that they were “Very
dissatised” with health insurance. Comments reected that
co-pays were high for health insurance and that dental and
vision insurance were not always oered.
Wage was the most commented-on observer satisfaction
issue. Typical comments included: while the rate was
reasonable, they were paid the lowest wages on the vessel;
the wage did not adequately compensate them for the
dicult and hazardous work conditions; the hourly rate
was less desirable compared with the daily rate; issues with
delayed and incorrect payments; and uncertainty whether
their contracts would be renewed (both short- and long-
term). Additionally, some respondents stated the pay rate
did not account for experience and/or length of
deployment. In regions where differential pay rates were
tied to observer experience, some respondents reported
that provider companies assigned more sea-days to newer
observers to reduce costs, leaving more experienced survey
respondents with fewer deployments.
3.2.3 Satisfaction with Captains and/or Crew
Six topics gauged observer satisfaction level toward captains
and/or crew (Figure 3.2.3). e scores ranged from 3.44 to
3.84. Highest satisfaction was reported for “Cooperation
with data collection activities,” following by “Physical
interactions,” “Safety,” “Verbal interaction,” “Setting up
deployment details,” and “Condition of accommodations.”
e overall respondent satisfaction level was highest toward
captains and/or crew, compared with NOAA Fisheries sta
and provider companies.
Satisfaction with Provider Company
Percent
Overall Score
Resolving obse
rver−reported incidents (e.g., harassment, safety, etc.)
Ease of switching employer/provider company
General support
Technical support
Emergency response
Types of contracts available
Advance notice of trip cancellation
Advance notice of upcoming trip
Health Insurance
Wage
50 0 50
3.35
3.1
3.68
3.61
3.72
3.44
3.31
3.39
2.8
3.29
Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied
Figure 3.2.2. Respondent satisfaction with provider companies.
12 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
Comments noted a large dierence among vessels and
regions; some respondents were highly satised while others
were very dissatised. Generally, positive comments were
associated with their interactions with captain/crew. e
attitude of observers may strongly relate to the attitude of
captain/crew directed toward the observers.
Many comments addressed vessel safety, e.g., ventilation
systems and vessel maintenance. Some respondents
reported a lack of bunk space for the observer on some
vessels. One respondent reported a need to prove observer
professionalism to the captain/crew each time a deployment
occurred on a new vessel. Another respondent suggested
allowing observers to choose the vessel upon which
observers would be deployed in order to favor or avoid
certain vessels or captain/crews; however, this is not allowed
so as to avoid bias. Bed bugs (and cockroaches) were
reported as a frequent concern, while cabin temperature
and language barriers were a concern reported by one
respondent. Another respondent complained about the use
of drugs or alcohol at sea by crew.
3.2.4 Observer Tenure, Days Spent Deployed, and Satisfaction
with Time Spent Deployed Per Month
e length of respondent observer tenure varied from less
than one year (perhaps only a single deployment) to more
than 15 years; most respondents had worked between 270
and 900 sea days. e majority of respondents worked
between one and eight years. Previous studies have posited
that more experienced observers collect higher quality
data. Oen, experienced observers learn not only how to
improve data collection, but also become informed about
the management regimes in place for the sheries in which
they observe, giving them the opportunity to foster better
communication with captains and crew. For observers,
knowledge learned as an observer could be applicable or
informative in their subsequent career when switching to
another eld.
An examination of monthly deployments show that 29% of
observers work more than 25 days per month, 18% work
between 21 and 25 days, 14% work between 15 and 20 days,
28% work between 11 and 15 days, 8% work between 6 and
Satisfaction with Captain and Crew
Percent
Overall Score
Condition of accommodations (
e.g., sleeping area, bathroom)
Safety
Physical interactions
Verbal interactions
Cooperation with data collection activities
Setting up deployment details (phone call, text, email, etc.)
20 0 20 40 60 80
3.44
3.77
3.8
3.76
3.84
3.67
Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied
Figure 3.2.3. Respondent satisfaction with captains and/or crew.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 13
10 days and 3% work fewer than 5 days. While 69% were
satised with their deployments, 19% found their sea days
to be too few or less than expected and 12% found them too
many or more than expected (Figure 3.2.4).
Deployments vary seasonally with sheries openings, so
some observers may feel they have too many deployments
in summer, and not enough deployments in winter. Being
continuously deployed for a long period was less desirable
for most respondents. Also, dierent programs have other
deployment opportunities available. Some providers also
deployed employees as protected species observers
9
to
monitor dredge transportation and disposal onboard
tugs, towing scows, and hopper dredges when sheries
deployments were scarce. Some respondents noted lengthy
wait times for debrieng and deployment. More respondents
commented that they would like to have more deployments
than those who wanted fewer deployments. is was
especially true for at-sea monitors and observers in regions
where many trips were cancelled due to weather. Some
respondents commented that they might be getting too few
deployments because of an over-supply of observers.
3.3 Observing as a Career
Observers face numerous challenges, such as distance from
home, lack of social communication, dangerous working
environment, and an unstable work schedule, to name a
few. e turnover rate of observers is high and very few
respondents reported working more than eight years
(see Section 3.2.4). Many observers entered the eld as
temporary employment and did not expect to work as an
observer for more than ve years (Figure 3.3.1). However,
comparison between observer tenure and initial expectation
showed a substantial number of respondents who worked
longer than they had expected, with about 36% working
longer than expected, 20% working less than expected, and
the remainder meeting their tenure expectation.
Figure 3.2.4. Monthly sea days and how those compared to expectations.
Percentage of responses
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of Monthly Seadays
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
25+
Percentage of responses
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Expectations
Less than
expected
About
right
More than
expected
Too
few
Too
many
Figure 3.3.1. Initial expectations for length of tenure as an observer.
A few months
8%
1 year
18%
2 years
12%
2-5 years
20%
More than 5 years
3%
Not decided
at the time
38%
9
For more information on protected species observers, also known as endangered species observers or marine mammal observers, see:
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/15851.
14 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
Observers had dierent reasons to join a program and
nine survey options were provided to gauge their initial
motivations (Figure 3.3.2). Obtaining field work experience
was chosen by most observers with a response rate of 17%.
“Contact with ocean” and “Adventure” had a response
rate of about 14%. Following that, about 12% chose
“Advancement in my eld,” “Travel opportunity,” and
“Good pay.” Motivation for 8% of observers was to protect
the environment. About 6% of observers were motivated
by the “Seasonal work schedule” and “Fill an educational/
employment gap,” respectively.
Many observers commented that employment opportunities
were limited for students or graduates with marine biology
or similar majors. Being an observer was one of the few
available jobs in the eld that paid well and provided
eld experience to further their career goals in sheries
management. Some observers said they just wanted to
have a paid trip to Alaska. ere is a prevailing view of
sheries observing as a transient profession. One study
(MRAG Americas, 2000) investigated the high turnover
rate of observers at the North Pacic Groundsh Observer
Program. ey found observers are paid full wages only if
they are deployed, partially paid during training, brieng
and debrieng, and not paid for vacations nor oered
incentives to return to the profession following an absence.
Observers consider the job as transient because of the hectic
pace for working.
Although many respondents work as observers for a few
years or less, their experiences were expected to be an asset
for their subsequent careers. Except for those who were
current observers, the highest number of respondents were
working as NMFS sta or contractors (Figure 3.3.3). Others
were working at observer provider companies or at state
agencies. Note that the survey was more likely to reach
those in state or federal employment than those who le
the eld of sheries management entirely. Almost half of
respondents indicated that they were more interested in a
marine-related field after working as observers and almost
three quarters found their experience working as observers
was helpful for advancing their subsequent career (Figure
3.3.4). Most respondents valued their experience as eld
biologists and commented that few employers appreciated
Fill education/
employment gap
Seasonal work schedule
Protect environment
Good pay
Travel opportunity
Advancement
in my field
Adventure
Contact with ocean
Fieldwork
0
100 200
300
Number of Responses
Motivation
Figure 3.3.2. Motivations to work as an observer.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 15
the diculties associated with observing. Some noted that
career advancement was highly limited because many job
postings usually require higher level of educational level or
management/analytical experience.
Despite outreach eorts by NOAA Fisheries administrators,
managers, and scientists, respondents perceived that their
contributions were typically underestimated and less
recognized by the shery community (Figure 3.3.5).
3.4 Harassment and Incident Reporting
e observer survey asked several questions of observers
about harassment and safety incidents. In response, 46% of
respondents indicated that they experienced harassment at
least once during their entire tenure as observers. Of those,
33% said they reported harassment every time it occurred,
40% said they sometimes reported harassment, and the
remaining 27% never reported it (Figure 3.4.1). Respondents
likely had dierent denitions of and tolerances for
harassment, which were not captured in the survey. This
survey also did not specify what type of harassment observers
may have experienced or reported during their careers.
Incidents reported in this survey could include anything
from a glare, to interfering with a workstation, to physical or
sexual assault.
Follow-up questions were asked about the respondent’
s
reporting experience and the handling of incidents. Most
respondents reported that they would report the harassment
to the observer program or their employer (Figure 3.4.2).
However, most respondents reported dissatisfaction or were
neutral regarding the handling of their report(s), and 58% of
respondents reported that they had not been informed of the
resolution of their report(s). Many respondents commented
that they expected some incidents as a normal aspect of
observing and did not expect thorough follow-up.
For those respondents who chose not to report, a follow-
up question was posed. For 37% of those respondents, the
DOI/DOE/USGS/BOEM
NGOs
Other NOAA office
International agency
Other U.S. Government
Fishing industry
University/College
NMFS (other than
observer program)
Observer provider company
State agency
NMFS Observer Program
Observer
0 50 100
Number of Responses
Job category
Figure 3.3.3. Current job category. DOI/DOE/USGS/BOEM = Department of Interior/Department of Energy/U.S. Geological Survey/Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
NGOs = non-governmental organization.
16 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
situation was resolved at sea (Figure 3.4.3). For 18% of
respondents, they did not think that the observer program
or their employer would take action. Another 18% treated
the incidents as experiences they would prefer to leave in
the past, while 15% responded that the incident seemed not
as negative aer the deployment ended. e remaining 12%
worried about their work reputation and decided not to
report.
Some respondents mentioned that most of time they
handled situations on their own, since they felt that some
observer program sta would not take their reports
seriously. ey reported that if the incident was serious and
correctly handled, it could result in ring a captain or crew,
or payment of a ne; but repercussions against the observer
could occur, whether the observer was assigned future trips
on the same vessel, or if the observer found it dicult to
obtain future deployments in general. Respondents reported
fewer deployment opportunities if vessels were prevented
from shing because of a reported incident. ese situations
can pose a dilemma for observers in whether they should
report incidents. Some respondents commented that they
Percentage of responses
10 20 30 40 50
Impact on interest in working in sheries
Less
interest
Percentage of responses
Helpfulness in advancing marine careers
Unhelpful
Neutral
Very
helpful
Very
unhelpful
Helpful
Same
interest
More
interest
Unsure
10 20 30 40 50
Percentage of responses
10 20 30 40 50
Impact on interest in working in sheries
Less
interest
Percentage of responses
Helpfulness in advancing marine careers
Unhelpful
Neutral
Very
helpful
Very
unhelpful
Helpful
Same
interest
More
interest
Unsure
10 20 30 40 50
Figure 3.3.4. Importance of observer experience for career path.
Fishery community evaluate the contribution
Strongly unvalued
18%
Unvalued
32%
Neutral
30%
Valued
18%
Strongly valued
2%
Figure 3.3.5. Respondent perception of recognition of observer contributions by
fishery community.
Experiencing harassments
Yes
46%
No
54%
Reporting harassments
Never
27%
Sometimes
40%
Every
Time
33%
Figure 3.4.1. Prevalence of harassment incidents and reporting.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 17
only informally mentioned incidents to their supervisors, if
the vessel was not putting observers in danger. On the other
hand, respondents reported they were satised without ling
a report in situations where the captain respected observers
and quickly resolved the issue.
3.5 International Observing Experience
e survey also gauged observer experience in international
sheries. Only 6% of respondents (25 total) reported
observing in an international shery, with six working in the
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), two in
the International Pacic Halibut Commission (IPHC), three
in the North Pacic Fisheries Commission (NPFC), one
in the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission
(WCPFC), and the remainder responding “other.” Eighteen
respondents had worked on commercial vessels, ve had
experience on transshipment vessels, and four responded
“o t h er.”
Figure 3.4.2. Where incidents were reported, whether an outcome was communicated to the observer, and satisfaction level with reporting process.
Employer
NMFS Observer Program
NMFS OLE
Coast Guard
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Informed of the result of incident
Yes
42%
No
58%
Very dissatisfied
15%
Dissatisfied
17%
Neutral
41%
Satisfied
21%
Very satisfied
6%
Employer
NMFS Observer Program
NMFS OLE
Coast Guard
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Informed of the result of incident
Yes
42%
No
58%
Very dissatisfied
15%
Dissatisfied
17%
Neutral
41%
Satisfied
21%
Very satisfied
6%
Employer
NMFS Observer Program
NMFS OLE
Coast Guard
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Informed of the result of incident
Yes
42%
No
58%
Very dissatisfied
15%
Dissatisfied
17%
Neutral
41%
Satisfied
21%
Very satisfied
6%
Worry about retaliation or losing reputation
Resolved situation at sea myself
Put the experience behind me and not relive it
Didn't think NMFS would do anything about it
Upon return, the situation seems better
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Figure 3.4.3. Reasons for not reporting harassment.
18 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
Respondents with experience in foreign sheries were asked
whether they preferred working in U.S. or foreign sheries
in terms of nine factors (Figure 3.5.1). Foreign sheries
were selected as better experience for “Working conditions,”
“Interaction with captain/crew,” “Travel to deployment,”
“Length of trip,” “Health concerns,” “Pay,” and “Availability of
deployment.” “Safety” and “Communication” were the only
categories for which respondents preferred U.S. sheries.
10
Respondents who did not work in foreign sheries were
asked their reason(s) for not working in those sheries
(Figure 3.5.2). Most responded that the deployment
opportunity was not available. e second and third reasons
were “Safety concerns” and “Far away from home.” Following
those, “Worries about communication,” “Length of trip,” and
“Low pay” were also selected. Some said they didn’t need to
consider or had never considered observing internationally.
3.6 Regional Questions
During the preparation of the survey, some regional observer
program managers requested inclusion of specic issues
important to their program. ree sections follow that were
designed for the Alaska, Greater Atlantic, and West Coast
regional observer programs.
3.6.1 Alaska Region
e satisfaction levels for six categories of gear types and a
variety of deployments were asked in the survey (Figure 3.6.1).
Highest satisfaction was reported for “General catcher vessel
(CV),” “Trawl Catch-Processor (CP),” and “Longline CV,” with
average score exceeding 3.9. e other gear types of “Fixed
gear CP,” “Pot vessel,” and “Longline CP” had lower scores,
but still exceeded a score of 3.4. Respondents also expressed
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Interaction with Captain/Crew
Safety (emergency response, vessel equipment etc.)
Communication
Length of trip
Working conditions
Pay
Travel to deployment
Availability of deployment
Health concerns (bedbug, accommodation etc.)
Proportion
Fishery
Foreign fishery
No preference
U.S. fishery
Comparison between US and Foreign fishery
Figure 3.5.1. Respondent preferences between U.S. and foreign fisheries.
10
e Observer Safety Program Report [https://www.sheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/observer-safety-program-review-report]
provides more details on observer safety issues.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 19
satisfaction with the variety of deployments with a score of
3.52. e comments received and corresponding reports of
satisfaction varied according to the shery in which they
observed. Some respondents preferred long contracts for
more stable jobs, while others preferred short contracts to
have more exibility.
e Alaska Observer Program
has dierent certication levels
of observers; however, not
enough observers have been
certied as xed gear lead
level 2 (LL2) observer to meet
demand. From the survey,
43% of respondents have xed
gear LL2 certication (Figure
3.6.2). Follow-up questions
gauged the interest of non-LL2
respondents in pursuing LL2
certication and the satisfaction
of respondents who already had
LL2 certication. e results
show most non-LL2 respondents
were not interested in pursuing
LL2 certication (average score
was 2.1), while LL2 respondents
were usually satised with their
certication (average score was
3.2).
A set of questions was asked of individuals, both with or
without LL2 certication, to determine the reasons for
a lack of LL2 observers (Figure 3.6.3). “Low salary” was
chosen by most respondents without LL2 certications;
others responded “I am unsure” and “Too much work.”
Figure 3.5.2. Reasons for not participating in the international fishery.
Others
Low pay
Length of trip
Worries about language
and communication
Far away from home
Safety
Deployment unavailable
0 50 100 150
Number of Responses
Reason
Figure 3.6.1. Satisfaction levels for different deployment types, Alaska Region.
Satisfaction for Alaska Region Deployment Types
Percent
Overall Score
Variety of deployments
Longline CV
Longline CP
Pot Vessel
General catcher vessel (CV)
Trawl CP
General fixed gear Catch−Processor (CP)
40 20 0 20 40 60 80
3.52
3.91
3.42
3.58
3.94
3.93
3.68
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
Very satisfied
20 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
Some had exited the eld of observing. Many commented
about sea sickness. “Deployments are not exible,” “Too
much responsibility,” and “Hard to fulll the xed gear
requirement” were also chosen by more than ten observers.
A few respondents mentioned that the duty
requirements for LL2 observers were much more
demanding than those for non-LL2 observers,
with insucient compensation for the extra
work.
ose already certied as LL2 observers reported
a dierent perspective; “Too much work” and
“Hard to fulll xed gear requirement” were their
top answers, and “Hard to fulll performance
requirement” was selected as one of the top
six answers. Few LL2 respondents reported
“Deployments are not exible” as a major issue
aer acquiring the certication. Many comments
indicated that the work required of LL2 observers
is very intense. ey also indicated that even
if they did not seek out LL2 assignments, they
continued to be assigned to the longline shery
because of the lack of LL2 observers, and they
could not easily refuse the deployments because
they would be placed at the bottom of the list for
future deployments.
3.6.2 Greater Atlantic Region
e satisfaction level of respondents in the
Greater Atlantic Region was asked for each of three types
of observers (Figure 3.6.4). e industry-funded scallop
program had the fewest respondents, but had the highest
overall satisfaction level, with a score of 4.12. None reported
Figure 3.6.2. Respondent certification type in North Pacific (top), interest in LL2 certification (lower
left), and satisfaction among current LL2-certified observers (lower right).
Only 3-week
Trawl Lead Level 2
Fixed gear Lead Level 2
Trawl and fixed gear Lead Level 2
0
20
40
60
80
Certification in Alaska
Very
uninterested
39%
Uninterested
28%
Neutral
22%
Interested
8%
Very interested
3%
Very dissatisfied
5%
Dissatisfied
18%
Neutral
33%
Satisfied
36%
Very satisfied
8%
Only 3-week
Trawl Lead Level 2
Fixed gear Lead Level 2
Trawl and fixed gear Lead Level 2
0
20
40
60
80
Certification in Alaska
Very
uninterested
39%
Uninterested
28%
Neutral
22%
Interested
8%
Very interested
3%
Very dissatisfied
5%
Dissatisfied
18%
Neutral
33%
Satisfied
36%
Very satisfied
8%
Only 3-week
Trawl Lead Level 2
Fixed gear Lead Level 2
Trawl and fixed gear Lead Level 2
0
20
40
60
80
Certification in Alaska
Very
uninterested
39%
Uninterested
28%
Neutral
22%
Interested
8%
Very interested
3%
Very dissatisfied
5%
Dissatisfied
18%
Neutral
33%
Satisfied
36%
Very satisfied
8%
Figure 3.6.3. Reasons leading to a lack of LL2-certified observers, from respondents with and respondents without the certification.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Reason prevent obtaining LL2 certification
Non-LL2 observer
LL2 not prestigious
Too much responsibility
Hard to fulfill performance requirement
Deployments are not flexible
Too much work
Hard to fullfil fixed gear requirement
Safety
Low salary
I am unsure
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Current LL2 observer
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 21
that they were “Very dissatised.” e number of Northeast
Fishery Observer Program respondents was the largest and
had the next-highest reported satisfaction level, at 3.61. e
lowest satisfaction was identied by at-sea monitors, with an
average score of 3.01, which indicated a neutral attitude. At-
sea monitors also reported the highest levels of “dissatised”
or “very dissatised.”
3.6.3 West Coast Region
Satisfaction levels were asked for each
of two observer programs in the West
Coast Region (Figure 3.6.5). ere
were more survey respondents
working in the non
-catch share
program, with an average satisfaction
score of 4. No respondents selected
either “Dissatisfied” or “Very
dissatisfied.” The satisfaction level was
lower for the catch-share program,
with an average score of 3.36; 10%
responded “Very dissatisfied.”
3.7 Usage of Electronic Technology
The usage of electronic reporting
(ER) systems has been incorporated
into observer data collections in most
regions. Respondents strongly
supported using ER (Figure 3.7).
While many respondents stated their
programs, either currently or in the
past, were not using ER, most of
those who had experience using ER
commented that tablets, scales and
other electronics have had a positive
impact in improving data accuracy and
reporting capabilities. For instance,
the built-in Bluetooth technology for
transferring data from scale to tablet
signicantly reduced data processing
time and increased accuracy. Some
respondents recommended a non-
electronic backup system to reduce the
threat of losing data when electronics
fail, while others stated that producing
both paper and electronic data was
redundant. Some respondents pointed
to some disadvantages of using ER,
including, for example, the diculty in
calibrating equipment, water damage
to electronics, applications that were
not always user-friendly, and electronic
scales that were oen too big and/or
heavy to carry onto small boats.
NOAA Fisheries has implemented ve electronic monitoring
(EM) systems over the past decade; four programs were
implemented in Alaska groundsh sheries and one in the
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species bluen tuna shery for
bycatch monitoring. An EM program will be deployed in
the partial coverage category of the North Pacic Observer
Program in 2018, in the West Coast whiting mid-water trawl
and xed gear sheries in 2018, and in the non-whiting mid-
water trawl and bottom trawl sheries in 2019. Additional
Satisfaction for Greater Atlantic Region Deployment Types
Percent
Overall Score
Industry−Funded Scallop Program
At−Sea Monitoring Program
Northeast Fisheries Observer Program
50 0 50
4.12
3.01
3.61
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Figure 3.6.4. Satisfaction levels for different deployment types, Greater Atlantic Region.
Satisfaction for West Coast Region Deployment Types
Percent
Overall Score
Non−Catch
share program
Catch share program
40 20 0 20 40 60 80
4
3.36
Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied
Figure 3.6.5. Satisfaction levels for different deployment types, West Coast Region.
22 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
EM programs are under development in the Northeast,
Southwest, and Pacic Islands.
Respondents reported a positive attitude toward EM,
although less so than reported for ER. Respondents generally
agreed that EM could improve coverage, especially for
boats too small to accommodate an observer safely. ey
expressed concerns that EM may replace observers in some
sheries, and argued that EM cannot make judgments nor
apply solutions to evolving problems in a timely manner, and
cannot collect biological samples.
3.8 Follow-up Interviews and
General Comments
Contact information was provided
by 145 respondents for follow-
up interviews. Each of them was
contacted through e-mail, if provided,
to ask for their comments or thoughts
regarding the observer program(s)
in which they observed. eir
comments have been merged with
the general comment section in the
survey. Most of them stated they were
satised with their observer jobs and
provided positive feedback to the
program. Figure 3.8 shows the key
words from their comments.
Most comments provided addressed
pay, especially for those who had
been observing during the transition
for most programs from sea-day rate
to hourly rate. Some respondents
reported that their monthly
paychecks were signicantly reduced as a result of the
change.
e second most common comment addressed the usage
of observer data. Some respondents do not know how
observer data is used. ey expect their contributions would
be used to improve sheries management and protect the
environment, but they lack an understanding of how or if
this has occurred.
ird, some commenters felt that debriengs and
Attitudes toward Electronic Reporting and Monitoring
Percent
Electronic monitoring
Electronic reporting
50 0 50
Very unsupportive
Unsupportive
Neutral
Supportive
Very supportive
Figure 3.7. Attitude toward ER and EM technologies.
1/10/2017 Word Cloud
1/1
Figure 3.8. Word cloud based on words mentioned at least 30 times in general comments and interviews.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 23
interactions with debriefers were not encouraging, and
were even uncomfortable. Debriefers were looking for
high-quality data, but respondents felt it could sometimes
be challenging to record observer data to the satisfaction of
the debriefer(s) because of the tough working environment
onboard commercial shing vessels.
4. Summary
e survey is an important eort to understand why shery
observers choose the profession, and factors that could
inuence their decisions to either remain in or eventually
leave the profession. e 553 respondents to the survey
included current observers (at the time of the survey) and
former observers who were oen still involved in sheries
science and management. erefore, the experiences of
those who had le the observer profession and those that
le the marine science eld entirely were less likely to be
captured. In addition, since it was an opt-in survey and not
a random sample survey, the results—while informative—
cannot be statistically applied to all observers.
Respondents identied a number of professional reasons
for becoming an observer, including obtaining eld
work experience, career development or advancement,
and protecting the environment. Some reasons could be
perceived as personal, including “contact with ocean,”
“adventure,” and travel opportunities. Still others cited the
pay, seasonal work schedule, and ability to ll educational
or employment gaps as the key reason(s) for becoming an
observer.
Observers need a variety of scientic and technical skills to
be successful, although specic educational requirements
vary among regional observer programs. Eighty-seven
percent of respondents had a bachelor’s degree when rst
starting as an observer, along with another 10% who had
already obtained a master’s degree. Of those respondents
who began with a bachelor’s degree, 16% subsequently
earned a master’s degree. Nearly 75% of respondents noted
that their experiences as an observer had been or would be
helpful in advancing their subsequent career.
Respondents reported an average tenure ranging from
just over three years in the Greater Atlantic to 5.5 years
in the West Coast region. e survey also indicated that
observers tend to start their career at a younger age, with
many leaving the profession as they grow older. e largest
share of respondents (40%) were between 20 and 29 years
old, followed by those aged 30 to 39 (33%), with continuing
declines for older observers. e survey also found a
statistically signicant higher proportion of male observers
as respondents aged.
In measuring observer satisfaction, the survey asked
respondents about their interactions with NOAA Fisheries
sta, provider companies, and captains/crew, along with
their satisfaction regarding time spent deployed. Overall,
satisfaction for these overarching categories tended to fall
between neutral to satised. Key areas of dissatisfaction
included the lack of outreach and professional conference
attendance opportunity provided by NOAA Fisheries,
inadequacy of health insurance oered by provider
companies, and the conditions of accommodation on
the vessels. Respondents generally were satised with the
number of days spent deployed during a month, with 69%
responding that their sea days were what they had expected,
but another 19% responded that the deployments were less
than expected or too few, while 12% reported more than
expected or too many deployments.
Several anecdotal factors could contribute to high turnover
within the profession, including the unpredictable
work schedule, potential distance from and lack of
communication with home, and a demanding work
environment. Almost all respondents indicated that they
expected to spend ve years or less as an observer, although
a majority reported that their tenure had either matched or
exceeded their initial expectation.
Respondents also addressed harassment and safety incidents
and their experiences in reporting such incidents. Nearly
half (46%) of respondents reported experiencing harassment
during a deployment, with 33% reporting an incident every
time they experienced harassment, 40% reporting some
of the harassment incidents they experienced, and 27%
never reporting when they experienced an incident. e
varying denitions of and tolerances for harassment among
respondents were not examined in the survey.
e survey also explored reasons for becoming an observer
in international sheries, which applied to only 6% of
respondents. It also posed regionally specic questions
regarding satisfaction among individual programs and
shery certications (such as an ongoing need for observers
with xed gear lead level 2 certication in the Alaska
observer program). Finally, the survey provided a eld for
respondents to provide additional comments, which most
oen addressed pay, particularly the negative eect that
a recent transition from a sea day rate to hourly rates had
upon overall income levels.
5. Next Steps
Ensuring the safety and health of observers and at-sea
monitors is a top concern for NOAA Fisheries. e observer
attitudes and experiences survey has provided valuable
insight at the national and regional levels into observer
24 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
demographics, attitudes, and perspectives on a range of topics
related to their profession.
In the future, the results from this observer attitudes and
experiences survey, along with other regional surveys will
serve as key data sources for the national and regional
observer programs. The improved understanding of the
motivations and perceptions of current and former observers
enables a more complete evaluation of responses to changes
in regulations, recruitment, and observing conditions, along
with adjustments that could decrease turnover. In turn, an
improved rate of observer retention may lead to a decrease in
training costs and continued high quality of the data collected
by observer programs.
In response to some of the issues raised by the survey
responses, the NOP will work with regional programs to
continue eorts to bolster timely, accurate communications to
observers and stakeholders, including sharing best outreach
practices across regions. For stakeholders, this will include
eorts to better educate the eet, Councils, and others on the
contribution that observers make to sheries management, in
response to the nding that only 20% of respondents thought
their contributions to sheries were “valued” or “strongly
valued” by the larger shing community.
In communicating with observers, this includes making
sure recruitment and training materials set appropriate
expectations for observers on anticipated sea days, living and
working conditions at sea, and career opportunities available
aer working as an observer. Additionally, in response to
dissatisfaction with opportunities to learn more about how
observer data is used in science and management, NOAA
Fisheries will explore options to more eectively engage with
and educate observers, including conference attendance
opportunities and expansion of training curriculum.
Looking at ER and EM specically and the absence of a full
embrace of electronic technologies, the NOP will also work
to better communicate the intents and realistic impacts of
projects—namely, that ER is intended to make reporting
more timely and efficient, and EM is unable to replace
observer coverage in all circumstances.
As part of an agency-wide commitment to addressing
the harassment reported by respondents in this survey,
the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement is conducting an
anonymous North Pacific Observer Safety and Security
Survey in 2018. This regional survey will help determine the
kinds of issues observers in the Alaska fisheries faced
during 2016 and 2017, and how those issues may have
affected them and their work environment, as well as what
might have prevented observers from coming forward to
disclose what they experienced. Harassment of observers is
illegal and offenses are prosecuted by NOAA. The results
from the North Pacific survey may be used to create similar
surveys for other regional programs in the future to learn
how the agency can enhance observer safety and security
and improve reporting when incidents do occur.
At an agency level, NOAA conrmed its commitment to
providing a workplace free from sexual assault and sexual
harassment by publishing NOAA Administrative Order
202-1106 in February 2018.
11
This Administrative Order
provided guidance to managers, supervisors, employees,
contractor employees, and aliates on sexual assault and
sexual harassment. It established processes to encourage
employees
12
to come forward when such incidents occur,
defined the resources available to those involved, and
instituted a sexual assault and sexual harassment prevention
program within NOAA. The NOP will work to ensure that
NOAA’s policy is fully implemented in observer programs.
e observer attitudes and experiences survey also identied
respondents’ concerns regarding insurance coverage (see
section 3.2.2, “Satisfaction with provider companies”).
Adequately insuring observers for injury claims during
deployment both on land and at sea, and addressing
associated lost wages, has been a concern of NOAA
Fisheries since the inception of observer programs in the
1970s. In 2016 the NOP held a public workshop to review
federal regulations that specify observer provider insurance
requirements and receive comments on whether they are
appropriate (Patterson et al. 2017). e workshop also
identied gaps in observer provider insurance requirements
to ensure that U.S. shery observers are adequately covered
for compensation due to injury and/or illness while
performing all aspects of their jobs, whether on land or at
sea. e NOP and NOAA General Counsel are developing
national regulations to address specic observer insurance
coverage needs while deployed and working on land.
Finally, as part of NOAA’s ongoing eort to assess and
evaluate our health and safety procedures, NOAA Fisheries
contracted a thorough review of current observer policies
and procedures in 2016. e review was specically
precipitated by the 2015 and 2016 losses of two NOAA
Fisheries-trained observers (one in a domestic fishery and
one in an international fishery), and a foreign observer on a
U.S.-flagged fishing vessel in the Western Pacific.
13
Two of
these incidents were health-related, while the cause of
11
http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/ames/administrative_orders/chapter_202/202-1106_SASH.pdf
12
For the purpose of this order, observers will be considered “contractor employees.”
13
ese losses are considered to be highly unusual; despite the hazardous nature of commercial sheries, there had been only six work-
related fatalities of U.S. citizen observers in more than 40 years of deployments prior to these incidents.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 25
Observer Attitudes and Experiences:
2016 Survey Snapshot
Office of Science and Technology
National Observer Program
Why Survey Observers?
Observers are the only independent
data collection source for some types
of at-sea information. The information
they collect is essential for stock
assessments and sustainable fisheries
management, the ability of fleets to
operate, and testing innovation in fishing
gear, such as bycatch reduction devices.
Who Responded?
553 current or former observers*:
Female: 40%; Male: 60%
Age range at time of survey:
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60+
(41%)
(32%)
(17%)
(8%)
(2%)
Regional distribution**:
Alaska
Greater
Atlantic
Pacific
Islands
Southeast
West
Coast
(53%)
(26%)
(7%)
(7%)
(7%)
*Respondents included at-sea monitors, who collect
data to estimate discards for vessels in the Northeast
groundfish fishery.
**Response distribution was commensurate to regional
distribution among active observers in 2016.
What we heard ... How we’ll respond ...
Field work was the #1 motivation
Ensure recruitment and
for becoming an observer. 69%
training materials set appropriate
of respondents’ expectations for
expectations.
days spent at sea matched
their experiences.
75% thought being an observer
Continue to communicate career
was helpful in advancing their
path opportunities, and collaborate
careers. 45% said the experience
with observer employers in support of
increased their interest in
career transition.
working in marine science
careers.
69% of respondents supported
Effectively communicate intent of
electronic reporting. 40%
technologies and potential impacts
supported electronic monitoring.
on observer deployments.
About half of survey respondents (46%)
Support NOAA-wide efforts to
reported that they were harassed at
combat harassment, which includes
least once in their observer career,
educating the fishing community
and only one-third of those reported
about zero tolerance of observer
harassment every time it occurred.
harassment and resulting penalties.
Only 20% of respondents
Better educate the fleet, Councils,
felt valued by the
and other stakeholders about observer
fishing community.
contributions to sustainable
fisheries.
Respondents expressed low
Create opportunities for observers
satisfaction with opportunities to
to attend fisheries conferences, track
learn more about science and
regional mana
gement council actions,
management.
and engage with NOAA Fisheries
staff.
Figure 3.9. Summary of key findings from survey and planned responses from NOAA Fisheries.
the third has yet to be determined. e review
14
found that
“none of the losses were considered to have stemmed from
systemic shortcomings in the U.S. domestic observer safety
programs” and generally found the agency’s national and
regional observer safety programs for domestic sheries to
be robust, mature, and eective. However, the review team
did identify “a number of gaps and inconsistencies, as well as
best practices, which formed the basis for the ndings and
recommendations” in the report.
NOAA Fisheries closely monitors observer safety and health.
After the agency initiated an observer program safety review
14
https://www.sheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/observer-safety-program-review-report
*“Harassment” was not defined in the survey and could have been anything between a hostile glare to physical assault.
This anonymous, voluntary, and informal online survey was intended to help NOAA Fisheries better
understand observer attitudes and experiences. Results reflect responses received between August and
December 2016. Inferences from the data collected are limited by several factors, including the self-selected
nature of the survey, the lack of national or regional databases with information to contact past observers, and
because outreach efforts for the survey were more likely to reach former observers who had stayed in marine-
related careers rather than those who had left the field. The report on this survey will be available at
https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tech-memos.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Liz Chilton
(301) 427-8201
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/fishery-observers
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service
26 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
recommendations. e reports will be made publicly
available online every six months, following the biannual
meetings of the National Observer Program Advisory Team.
One of the most signicant steps NOAA will take as a
result of the external safety program review is to develop
a comprehensive list of Observer Safety Standards by
incorporating many of the external recommendations with
current observer safety policies. Additional safety measures
will be further integrated into observer training, equipment,
pre-deployment vessel tours, at-sea reporting, debrieng,
and reviews.
ese and other changes and improvements will help ensure
consistent guidance throughout the regional programs, and
demonstrate NOAA Fisheries’ continued commitment to the
health and safety of sheries observers.
15
https://www.sheries.noaa.gov/leadership-message/observer-safety-our-priority;
https://www.sheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/noaa-launches-observer-safety-program-review
16
https://www.sheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/observer-safety-program-review-report
17
https://www.sheries.noaa.gov/national/laws-and-policies/science-and-technology-policy-directives
in 2016
15
, the independent report was received in early
2018.
16
The Observer Safety Program Review provided 118
recommendations (95 domestic and 23 international) that
focus on seven areas related to safety and health including
safety-focused reporting; communications; practices and
policies; training; regulations; equipment; and international
observers. Some recommendations may be challenging
to implement due to legal, regulatory, and jurisdictional
limitations, and could require legislative xes, new
authorities for NOAA, collaborative eorts across agencies,
or increased resources for regional observer programs.
However, many recommendations are already in place or in
progress; for instance, in February 2018, NMFS Procedure
04-110-01 revised observer safety training standards.
17
Moving forward, the agency will develop an action plan
based on the report’s recommendations, and will make
regular progress reports to track implementation of
6. Literature Cited
Brooke, S. G. (2014), Federal shery observer programs in the United States: over 40 years of independent data collection.
Mar. Fish. Rev., 76(3):1-38.
Chelton, D. B., and R. E. Davis (1982), Monthly mean sea-level variability along the west coast of North America, J. Phys.
Oceanogr., 12(8), 757–784, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1982)012<0757:MMSLVA>2.0.CO;2
Dillman, D. A. 1991. e design and administration of mail surveys, Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 225-249.
Dillman, D. A., J. D. Smyth, and L. M. Christian. 2008. Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: e tailored design method.
(3rd ed.), Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Dillman, D. A., K. A. Christenson, E. H. Carpenter and R. Brooke. 1974. Increasing mail questionnaire response: A four-state
comparison. American Sociological Review, 39, 744-756.
Haberlein, T.A and R. Baumgartner. 1978. Factors aecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of
the published literature, American Sociological Review, 43, 447-462.
Kanuk, L and C. Berenson. 1975. Mail surveys and response rates: A literature review, Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 400-
453.
MRAG Americas, 2000, Independent Review of the North Pacic Groundsh Observer Program, https://www.afsc.noaa.gov/
FMA/PDF_DOCS/NPGOP%20Review%20Final%20Report.pdf
Patterson, J., Perry, A., Miller, A., DiCosimo, J. 2017. National Observer Program 2016 Observer Provider Insurance
Workshop Report. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-176, 15 p. https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/sites/default/les/
TMSPO176nal.pdf
Williams, I. D., W. J. Walsh, B. N. Tissot and L. E. Hallacher. 2006. Impact of observers’ experience level on counts of shes in
underwater visual surveys, Marine Ecology Progress Series, 310, 185-191.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 27
Appendix 1:
Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
28 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
-
- -
-
– – – –
– – – –
-
-
OMB Control No: 06
48-0740
Expires: 8-31-19
United State Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Observer Program
1315 East West Hwy, Silver Spring, MD 20910
This survey is designed to investigate factors that contribute to observer retention. The collection of information in
turn will improve regional observer programs. The survey is voluntary, but by completing it, you will help us
understand how national and regional observer policies and practices affect your experience and provide you with
an opportunity to affect the programs in areas where you work. Please respond to this survey if you are a current or
former observer in a U.S. fishery.
Your responses will be anonymous. We estimate it will take approximately 20 minutes to respond to the survey.
Please take the survey once. Thank you for your cooperation.
Please indicate if you have observed in a U.S. fishery? ☐ Yes (Start the survey) ☐No (End the survey)
1. What is your gender?
☐Male ☐Female
2. What is your age (years)?
☐Less than 20 ☐20 29 ☐30 39 ☐40 49 ☐50 59 ☐60 or More
3. What level of education did you have when you became an observer?
☐High school or less ☐Associate’s degree
☐Master’s degree ☐Doctorate or higher
☐Bachelor’s deg
ree
4. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
☐High school or less ☐Associate’s degree
☐Master’s degree ☐Doctorate or higher
☐Bachelor’s degree
5. When did you first become an observer? Year _______
6. Please specify the month, if 2015 or later _______
7. When did you stop being an observer? ☐Currently active or Year _______
8. Please specify the month, if 2015 or later _______
9. How many sea days have you observed in total?
☐Less than 10 ☐10 30 ☐31 90 ☐91 270 ☐271 900 ☐More than 900
10. Please indicate each period of continuous work, where observing was your primary form of employment?
(Please limit your responses to the 5 most recent periods)
Region
North
Pacific
West
Coast
Pacific
Islands
Program Type
Groundfish and halibut (full coverage)
Groundfish and halibut (partial coverage)
Not listed above
Groundfish non catch share
Groundfish catch share
California gillnet fisheries
California longline fishery
Not listed above
Hawaii pelagic longline
Samoa longline fisheries
Not listed above
Start/
Leave
Region
Northeast
Southeast
Start/
Program Type
Leave
NEFOP observer
At sea monitor
Both NMFS and ASM
Industry funded scallop
Not listed above
Pelagic longline
Shark bottom longline
Gillnets
Reef fish
Shrimp trawl
Not listed above
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 29
United State Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Observer Program
1315 East-West Hwy, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Region
Program Type
Start/
Leave
Region
Program Type
Start/
Leave
North
Pacific
Groundfish and halibut (full coverage)
Northeast
NEFOP observer
Groundfish and halibut (partial coverage)
At-sea monitor
Not listed above
Both NMFS and ASM
West
Coast
Groundfish non-catch share
Industry funded scallop
Groundfish catch share
Not listed above
California gillnet fisheries
Southeast
Pelagic longline
California longline fishery
Shark bottom longline
Not listed above
Gillnets
Pacific
Islands
Hawaii pelagic longline
Reef fish
Samoa longline fisheries
Shrimp trawl
Not listed above
Not listed above
-
– – – – –
– – –
– – – –
-
-
11. How long did you intend to work as an observer when you first decided to become an observer?
☐A few months ☐One year ☐Two years
☐Between two and five years ☐More than five years ☐Not decided at that time
12. Why did you want to become an observer? (Choose all that apply)
☐Contact with the ocean ☐Seasonal work schedule ☐Fill an education/employment gap
☐Protect environment ☐Good pay ☐Travel opportunity ☐Field work
☐Adventure ☐Advancement in my field ☐Other: _____________
13. What type of contract did you have with your employer during your most recent observer experience?
For question 13 to 20, please respond based on your most recent experience as an observer
☐Trip based ☐Less than 3 months ☐3 to 6 months ☐7 to 11 months ☐
Yearly or longer ☐No contract ☐Other: _________
14. How many sea days do/did you work during a typical month?
☐1 5 ☐6 10 ☐11 15 ☐16 20 ☐21 25 ☐More than 25
15. Please indicate your level of satisfaction concerning the number of sea days you worked.
☐Too many days ☐More than expected ☐About right ☐Less than expected ☐Too few days
16. How often are/were trips cancelled?
☐Never ☐less than 5% ☐6% 20% ☐21% 50% ☐51% 80% ☐More than 80%
17. How far in advance are/were you usually notified before being deployed on a trip?
☐Less than 6 hours ☐6 12 hours ☐12 24 hours ☐24 48 hours ☐48 72 hours ☐ 72 hours or longer
18. How satisfied are you with each of the following aspects of the observer program?
Very
Very
Not
Type
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
dissatisfied
satisfied
applicable
(1)
Tools and technical support
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(2)
Debriefing
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(3)
Outreach and conferences
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Resolving observer reported
(4)
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
incidents (e.g. harassment, safety)
Dealing with staff from NMFS/
(5)
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Observer Program office
19. How satisfied are you with each of the following aspects of your employer/provider company?
Type
Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very
satisfied
Not
applicable
(1)
Wage
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(2)
Health insurance
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(3)
Advance notice of upcoming trip
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(4)
Advance notice of trip
cancellation
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(5)
Types of contracts available
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(6)
Emergency response
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(7)
Technical support
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(8)
General support
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(9)
Ease of switching
employer/provider company
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(10)
Resolving observer reported
incidents (e.g. harassment, safety)
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
30 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
20. How satisfied are you with each of the following aspects of captain/crew that you have worked with?
Type
Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very
satisfied
Not
applicable
(1)
Setting up deployment details
(e.g., phone call, text, email)
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(2)
Cooperation with data
collection activities
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(3)
Verbal interactions
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(4)
Physical interactions
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(5)
Safety
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(6)
Condition of accommodations
(e.g., sleeping area, bathroom)
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
For question 21 to 32, please respond based on your entire experience as an observer
21. Have you experienced harassment during your deployment?
☐Yes (If yes, continue to Q22) ☐No (If no, continue to Q27)
22. Did you report the incident(s) of harassment?
☐Yes (If yes, continue to Q23 - 25) ☐No (If no, continue to Q26)
23. Who did you directly report the incident to? (Please mark all that apply)
☐Employer ☐NMFS Observer Program ☐NMFS OLE ☐Coast Guard ☐Other
24. Were you kept informed until there was a resolution to your report?
☐Yes ☐No
25. How satisfied are you with the handling of your report?
☐Very dissatisfied ☐Dissatisfied ☐Neutral ☐Satisfied ☐Very satisfied
26. Why didn’t you report the incident? (Please mark all that apply)
☐Worried about retaliation or damage to my professional reputation ☐Resolved situation at sea myself
☐Just wanted to put the experience behind me and not relive it ☐Didn't think NMFS would do anything about it
☐Upon return, the situation didn't seem as bad as I had originally thought ☐Other: _________
27. What is your current job?
☐Fishing industry ☐Observer ☐Observer provider company ☐NMFS (observer program)
☐NMFS (other than observer program) ☐NOAA NOS ☐Other NOAA office ☐DOI ☐
DOE ☐USGS ☐BOEM ☐State agency ☐Other U.S. Government
☐NGOs ☐International agency ☐University/College ☐Others: ________
28. How interested are you in continuing to work in a marine related field, after having worked as an observer?
☐Less ☐Same ☐More ☐Not sure
29. Do you think being an observer is helpful for advancing a career in marine related field?
☐Very useless ☐Useless ☐Neutral ☐Helpful ☐Very helpful
30. Do you think fishery community value the contribution of observers?
☐Strongly unvalued ☐Unvalued ☐Neutral ☐Valued ☐Strongly valued
31. What is your attitude towards the use of technology for data collection? (e.g., use of tablets, laptops, electronic
scales)
☐Very unsupportive ☐Unsupportive ☐Neutral ☐Supportive ☐Very supportive
32. What is your attitude towards the use of electronic monitoring? (e.g., the use of camera, computer vision)
☐Very unsupportive ☐Unsupportive ☐Neutral ☐Supportive ☐Very supportive
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 31
International / Regional Questions (North Pacific, Northeast, West coast)
33. Were you ever deployed in a foreign fishery?
☐Yes (If yes, continue to Q34 –36) ☐No (If no, continue to Q37)
34. What organization(s) have you worked with? (Please mark all that apply)
☐IATTC – Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission ☐IOTC – Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
☐ICCAT – International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas ☐SPTT – South Pacific Tuna Treaty
☐NPFC – North Pacific Fisheries Commission ☐FFA – Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency
☐WCPFC – Western/Central Pacific Fisheries Commission ☐IPHC – International Pacific Halibut Commission
☐CCAMLR – Convention for Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources ☐Other: ________________
35. What kind of vessel(s) did you work with? (Please mark all that apply)
☐Commercial fishing vessel ☐Transshipment vessel ☐Other: ________________
36. For each of the following categories as it relates to your experience in an international fishery, please indicate
whether you prefer working in a foreign or U.S. fishery.
Preference
Foreign
fish
U.S.
fish
No
eferen
Not applicable
Interaction with Captain/Crew
Safety (emergency response, vessel equipment
etc.)
Communication
Length of trip
Working conditions
Pay
Travel to deployment
Availability of deployment
Health concerns (bedbug, accommodation etc.)
37. What are the major reasons you didn’t observe in a foreign fishery? (Check all that apply)
☐Deployment unavailable ☐Safety ☐Worries about language and communication
☐Low pay ☐Length of trip ☐Far away from home ☐Others: _________
38. Were you an observer in the North Pacific region after 1999?
☐Yes (If yes, continue to Q39-41) ☐No (If no, continue to Q42)
39. How satisfied are you with each type of deployments you participate in?
Type
Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very
satisfied
Not
applicable
(1)
Fixed gear Catch-Processor (CP)
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(2)
Mothership
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(3)
Trawl CP
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(4)
Trawl non-CP
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(5)
Processor
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(6)
Catcher vessel (CV)
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(7)
Pot vessel
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(8)
Longline CP
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(9)
Longline CV
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
32 2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
40. How satisfied are/were you with the variety of deployment opportunities?
☐Very dissatisfied ☐Dissatisfied ☐Neutral ☐Satisfied ☐Very satisfied
41. Please indicate your most recent certification level in the North Pacific observer program.
☐3-week
certification (If checked, continue to Q42 – 43) ☐Lead Level 2 (If checked, continue to Q44 –
45)
☐Not applicable (If checked, continue to Q46)
42. Please indicate your interest for pursuing a higher level of observer certification.
☐Very uninterested ☐Uninterested ☐Neutral ☐Interested ☐Very interested
43. Why do you think there may be a shortage of Lead level 2 observers? (Please mark all that apply)
☐Lead level 2 is not prestigious ☐Too much responsibility ☐Difficult to fulfill performance requirement
☐Deployments are not flexible ☐Too much work ☐Few opportunities to fulfill fixed gear requirement
☐Safety ☐Low salary ☐I am unsure ☐Others: ____________
44. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with being a Lead Level 2 observer
☐Very dissatisfied ☐Dissatisfied ☐Neutral ☐Satisfied ☐Very satisfied
45. Why do you think there may be a shortage of Lead level 2 observers? (Please mark all that apply)
☐Lead level 2 is not prestigious ☐Too much responsibility ☐Difficult to fulfill performance requirement
☐Deployments are not flexible ☐Too much work ☐Few opportunities to fulfill fixed gear requirement
☐Safety ☐Low salary ☐I am unsure ☐Others: ____________
46. Did you observe in the Northeast Region after 2000?
☐Yes (If yes, continue to Q47) ☐No (If no, continue to Q48)
47. How satisfied are you with each type of deployments that you have participated in?
Type
Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
Very
satisfied
Not
applicable
(1)
Northeast Fishery observer
Program (NEFOP)
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(2) At-Sea Monitoring Program
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(3)
Industry-Funded Scallop Program
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
48. Did you observe in the West Coast Region after 2011?
☐Yes (If yes, continue to Q49) ☐No (If no, continue to Q50)
49. How satisfied are you with each type of deployments you participate in?
Type
Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
Very
satisfied
Not
applicable
(1) Catch-share Program
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
(2) Non-catch-share Program
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
50. If you have any comments, suggestions or statements for the National Observer Program, please write them in
the following space. All information in this survey should be anonymous.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 33
______________________________________
51. Are you interested in sharing or giving additional comments to your observing experience with National
Observer Program by a follow-up interview?
☐Yes (If yes, continue to Q52 in a separate link to provide contact information) ☐No (If no, end of the survey)
*52. Please leave your name and email or phone number in the following space. Your contact information will be
not linked with your response to the survey. You may be contacted by National Observer Program by the method
you provided.
We greatly appreciate your efforts and contributions to the management and conservation of marine resources. Safe travels.
Thank you!
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 minutes per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments or any other suggestions for this burden to Dr. Yuntao Wang and Jane
DiCosimo, NOAA NMFS, 1315 East-West Hwy., Silver Spring, MD 20910.
This is a voluntary survey, and responses are anonymous as required by section 402(b) of the Magnuson Stevens Act and NOAA
Administrative Order 216-100, Confidentiality of Fisheries Statistics, and will not be released for public use except without
identification as to its source. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any
person be subjected to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey 34
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 35
Appendix 2: Aggregate Survey Responses
36
Please indicate if you have observed in a U.S. fishery?
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
95.7%
529
No
4.3%
24
answered question
553
What is your gender?
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Male
59.4%
306
Female
40.6%
209
answered question
515
What is your age (years)?
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Less than 20
0.0%
0
20 – 29
40.6%
210
30 – 39
32.3%
167
40 – 49
17.0%
88
50 – 59
8.3%
43
60 or more
1.7%
9
answered question
517
What level of education did you have when you became an observer?
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
High school or less
1.6%
8
Associate’s degree
1.0%
5
Bachelor’s degree
86.6%
447
Master’s degree
10.5%
54
Doctorate's degree
0.4%
2
answered question
516
What is the highest level of education you have completed?
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
High school or less
1.0%
5
Associate’s degree
1.0%
5
Bachelor’s degree
71.4%
369
Master’s degree
23.6%
122
Doctorate's degree
3.1%
16
answered question
517
2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 37
When did you stop being an observer? (End of last deployment)
Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Currently active
36.9%
192
2016
7.3%
38
2015
9.8%
51
2014
4.2%
22
2013
5.6%
29
2012
5.0%
26
2011
3.1%
16
2010
3.7%
19
2009
2.3%
12
2008
2.5%
13
2007
1.7%
9
2006
2.7%
14
2005
1.9%
10
2004
1.5%
8
2003
1.0%
5
2002
1.5%
8
2001
1.2%
6
2000
1.0%
5
1999
0.8%
4
1998
0.6%
3
1997
0.6%
3
1996
0.4%
2
1995
0.6%
3
1994
0.0%
0
1993
0.8%
4
1992
0.2%
1
1991
0.2%
1
1990
0.6%
3
Before 1990
2.5%
13
answered q uestion
520
38
Please specify the month you left the program?
Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Not sure
5.8%
5
Jan
3.5%
3
Feb
4.7%
4
Mar
5.8%
5
Apr
18.6%
16
May
9.3%
8
Jun
8.1%
7
Jul
4.7%
4
Aug
11.6%
10
Sep
11.6%
10
Oct
7.0%
6
Nov
4.7%
4
Dec
4.7%
4
answered question
86
How many sea days have you observed in total?
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Less than 10
1.3%
6
10 - 30
2.0%
9
31 - 90
11.4%
52
91 - 270
26.3%
120
271 - 900
37.5%
171
More than 900
17.5%
80
Not sure (please specify as below)
3.9%
18
answered question
456
How long did you intend to work as an observer when you first decided to become an observer?
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
A few months
7.7%
35
One year
18.5%
84
Two years
12.3%
56
Between two and five years
20.2%
92
More than five years
3.3%
15
Not decided at that time
38.0%
173
answered question
455
2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
39
Why did you want to become an observer? (Choose all that apply)
Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Contact with ocean
68.8%
313
Seasonal work schedule
29.5%
134
Fill on education/employment gap
27.9%
127
Protect environment
38.9%
177
Good pay
54.3%
247
Travel opportunity
54.7%
249
Field work
82.6%
376
Adventure
68.4%
311
Advancement in my field
58.9%
268
Other (please specify below as comment)
9.0%
41
Comment
62
answered question
455
What type of contract did you have with your employer during your most recent observer
experience?
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Trip based
13.2%
60
Less than 3 months
25.6%
116
3 to 6 months
20.3%
92
7 to 11 months
2.4%
11
Yearly or longer
21.4%
97
No contract
15.5%
70
Other (please specify below as comment)
5.1%
23
Comment
60
answered question
453
How many sea days do/did you work during a typical month?
Response Response
Percent Count
Answer Options
1 - 5
2.9%
13
6 - 10
8.5%
38
11 - 15
28.3%
127
16 - 20
13.8%
62
21 - 25
18.0%
81
More than 25
28.5%
128
Comment
57
answered question
449
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service
40
Please indicate your level of satisfaction concerning the number of sea days.
Too
Too
Answer
More than
About
Less than
Rating
Response
many
few
Options
expected
right
expected
Average
Count
days
days
18
37
309
64
21
3.07
449
answered question
449
How often are/were trips cancelled?
Less
Answer
6%
21%
51%
More
Rating
Response
Never
than
Options
- 20%
- 50%
- 80%
than 80%
Average
Count
5%
142
143
116
35
12
0
2.18
448
answered question
448
How far in advance are/were you usually notified before being deployed on a trip?
Answer
Less than
6 - 12
12 - 24
24 - 48
48 - 72
72 hours
Rating
Response
Options
6 hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
or longer
Average
Count
34
61
155
115
41
38
3.41
444
answered question
444
How satisfied are you with each of the following aspects of the NMFS observer program?
Answer
Very Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Not
Response
Options
applicable
Count
Tools and
10
39
78
189
114
3
433
technical
support
Debriefing
18
61
67
163
117
7
433
experience
Outreach
47
102
133
68
24
57
431
and
conferences
availability
Resolving
24
60
96
131
62
60
433
observer-
reported
incidents
(e.g.,
harassment,
safety, etc.)
Working with
16
24
77
171
140
5
433
NMFS
Observer
Program
staff
Comment
65
answered question
433
2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 41
How satisfied are you with each of the following aspects of your employer/provider company?
Answer Options
Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Not
applicable
Response
Count
Wage
41
91
60
170
63
2
427
Health insurance
81
79
73
84
43
63
423
Advance notice of
upcoming trip
19
55
124
175
40
14
427
Advance notice of
trip cancellation
10
40
157
121
25
74
427
Types of
contracts
available
15
57
118
141
58
37
426
Emergency
response
5
21
104
115
72
110
427
Technical support
14
44
91
180
66
32
427
General support
19
53
74
169
103
7
425
Ease of switching
employer/provider
company
13
35
106
43
20
208
425
Resolving
observer-reported
incidents (e.g.,
harassment,
safety, etc.)
24
33
117
110
43
100
427
Comment
60
answered question
428
42
How satisfied are you with each of the following aspects of captain/crew that you have worked with?
Answer Options
Very
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very
Not
Response
dissatisfied
satisfied
applicable
Count
Setting up
10
29
107
187
64
30
427
deployment
details (phone
call, text, email,
etc.)
Cooperation with
6
30
73
233
83
2
427
data collection
activities
Verbal
11
31
85
222
76
1
426
interactions
Physical
6
17
95
214
68
26
426
interactions
Safety
9
39
81
205
90
2
426
Condition of
23
53
119
174
56
2
427
accommodations
(e.g., sleeping
area, bathroom)
Comment
79
answered question
427
Have you experienced harassment during your deployment?
Response Response
Percent Count
Answer Options
Yes
46.3%
198
No
53.7%
230
answered question
428
Did you report the incident(s) of harassment?
Response Response
Percent Count
Answer Options
Reported every time
33.0%
67
Reported sometime
39.9%
81
Never reported
27.1%
55
answered question
203
2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
How satisfied are you with the handling of your report?
Answer Options
Response Percent
Response Count
Very dissatisfied
15.7%
19
Dissatisfied
18.2%
22
Neutral
40.5%
49
Satisfied
20.7%
25
Very satisfied
5.0%
6
Comment
37
43
Who did you directly report the incident to? (Please mark all that apply)
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Employer
57.5%
84
NMFS Observer Program
85.6%
125
NMFS OLE
25.3%
37
Coast Guard
4.8%
7
Other
7.5%
11
answered question
146
Were you kept informed until there was a resolution to your report?
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
41.8%
61
No
58.2%
85
answered question
146
How satisfied are you with the handling of your report?
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Very dissatisfied
15.2%
22
Dissatisfied
17.2%
25
Neutral
41.4%
60
Satisfied
20.7%
30
Very satisfied
5.5%
8
Comment
43
answered question
145
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service
44
Why didn’t you report the incident? (Please mark all that apply)
Response Response
Percent Count
Answer Options
Worried about retaliation or damage to my professional
20.0%
11
reputation
Resolved situation at sea myself
65.5%
36
Just wanted to put the experience behind me and not relive it
30.9%
17
Didn't think NMFS would do anything about it
30.9%
17
Upon return, the situation didn't seem as bad as I had
25.5%
14
originally thought
Other (please specify below as comment)
18.2%
10
Comment
13
answered question
55
Where do you currently work?
Response Response
Percent Count
Answer Options
Fishing industry
3.6%
15
Observer
30.0%
126
Observer provider company
8.8%
37
NMFS Observer Program
21.2%
89
NMFS (other than observer program)
8.6%
36
Other NOAA office
2.4%
10
DOI / DOE / USGS / BOEM
1.0%
4
State agency
10.0%
42
Other U.S. Government
3.3%
14
NGOs
1.2%
5
International agency
2.6%
11
University/College
6.7%
28
Other (please specify below as comment)
16.7%
70
Comment
95
answered question
420
After working as an observer, how interested are you in continuing to work in a marine related
field?
Answer
Less
Same
More
Not sure
Rating
Response
Options
interested
interested
Average
Count
39
168
205
11
2.44
423
answered question
423
Do you think being an observer is helpful for advancing a career in marine related field?
Answer
Very unhelpful
Unhelpful
Neutral
Helpful
Very
Rating
Response
Options
helpful
Average
Count
14
35
83
170
119
3.82
421
Comment (for questions 19 and 20)
75
answered question
421
2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
45
How do you feel fishery communities value the contribution of observers?
Answer
Strongly
Unvalued
Neutral
Valued
Strongly
Rating
Response
Options
unvalued
valued
Average
Count
75
136
125
78
7
2.54
421
answered question
421
What is your attitude towards the use of technology for data collection? (e.g., use of tablets, laptops,
electronic scales)
Answer
Very
Unsupportive
Neutral
Supportive
Very
Rating
Response
Options
unsupportive
supportive
Average
Count
9
22
100
150
140
3.93
421
Comment
78
answered question
421
What i s your attitude towards the use o f e lectronic monitoring? (e .g., the u se of camera, c omputer v ision)
Answer
Very
Unsupportive
Neutral
Supportive
Very
Rating
Response
Options
unsupportive
supportive
Average
Count
45
70
135
127
46
3.14
423
Comment
100
answered question
423
Were you ever deployed in a foreign fishery?
Answer Options
Response Percent
Response Count
Yes
5.9%
25
No
94.1%
400
answered question
425
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service
46
0
What organization(s) have you worked with? (Please mark all that apply)
Response Response
Percent Count
25.0% 6
Answer Options
IATTC – Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
IOTC – Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
0.0%
0
ICCAT – International Commission for the Conservation of
0.0%
Atlantic Tunas
SPTT – South Pacific Tuna Treaty
0.0%
0
NPFC – North Pacific Fisheries Commission
12.5%
3
FFA – Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency
0.0%
0
WCPFC – Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
4.2%
1
Commission
IPHC – International Pacific Halibut Commission
8.3%
2
CCAMLR – Convention for Conservation of Antarctic Marine
0.0%
0
Living Resources
Other (please specify)
62.5%
15
answered question
What kind of vessel(s) did you work with? (Please mark all that apply)
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Response Count
Commercial fishing vessel
Transshipment vessel
Other (please specify)
72.0%
20.0%
16.0%
answered question
18
5
4
25
For each of the following categories as it relates to your experience with international fishery,
please indicate whether you prefer working in a foreign or U.S. fishery.
Answer Options
Foreign
U.S.
No
Not
Response
fishery
fishery
preference
applicable
Count
Interaction with Captain/Crew
12
4
4
3
23
Safety (emergency response,
3
8
9
3
23
vessel equipment etc.)
Communication
5
10
5
3
23
Length of trip
10
4
6
3
23
Working conditions
13
3
4
3
23
Pay
7
5
7
4
23
Travel to deployment
11
3
6
3
23
Availability of deployment
7
4
7
5
23
Health concerns (bedbug,
10
1
9
3
23
accommodation etc.)
answered question
2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
24
23
47
What are the major reasons you didn’t observe in a foreign fishery? (Check all that apply)
Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Deployment unavailable
47.7%
186
Safety
30.5%
119
Worries about language and communication
20.3%
79
Low pay
12.8%
50
Length of trip
16.7%
65
Far away from home
22.3%
87
Others
11.3%
44
Comments
21.5%
84
answered question
390
Were you an observer in the North Pacific Region after 1999?
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
53.3%
226
No
46.7%
198
answered question
424
How satisfied are you with each type of deployments you participate in?
Answer
Very
Very
Not
Response
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Options
dissatisfied
satisfied
applicable
Count
General fixed
gear Catch-
1
13
22
46
19
110
211
Processor
(CP)
Trawl CP
4
7
21
83
37
65
217
General
catcher vessel
6
9
21
102
46
31
215
(CV)
Pot vessel
7
13
27
47
24
97
215
Longline CP
10
18
23
42
22
96
211
Longline CV
3
5
16
36
27
122
209
Other (please specify)
21
answered question
How satisfied are/were you with the variety of deployment opportunities?
Answer
Very
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very
Rating
Response
Options
dissatisfied
satisfied
Average
Count
5
20
68
114
15
3.51
222
Comment
17
answered question
222
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service
221
48
Please indicate your most recent certification level in the North Pacific observer program.
Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
3-week certification ONLY
35.4%
79
3-week certification and Trawl Lead Level 2
14.3%
32
3-week certification and Fixed gear Lead Level 2
5.8%
13
3-week certification, Trawl and Fixed gear Lead Level 2
32.3%
72
Not applicable
12.1%
27
answered question
223
Please indicate your interest for pursuing a fixed gear Lead Level 2 deployment endorsement.
Answer
Very
Uninterested
Neutral
Interested
Very
Rating
Response
Options
uninterested
interested
Average
Count
42
31
24
9
3
2.08
109
answered question
Please indicate if any of the following prevent you from obtaining a fixed gear Lead Level 2
endorsement? (Please mark all that apply)
Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Lead level 2 is not prestigious
5.3%
5
Too much responsibility
11.6%
11
Difficult to fulfill performance requirement
8.4%
8
Deployments are not flexible
12.6%
12
Too much work
20.0%
19
Few opportunities to fulfill fixed gear requirement
11.6%
11
Safety
3.2%
3
Low salary
24.2%
23
I am unsure
23.2%
22
Others
49.5%
47
answered question
95
Please indicate your level of satisfaction with being a Fixed gear Lead Level 2 observer
Answer
Very
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very
Rating
Response
Options
dissatisfied
satisfied
Average
Count
4
15
27
30
7
3.25
83
answered question
83
2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
109
49
In your opinion, if any of the following prevent observers with 3-week certification from obtaining
a fixed gear Lead Level 2 endorsement? (Please mark all that apply)
Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Lead level 2 is not prestigious
12.7%
10
Too much responsibility
20.3%
16
Difficult to fulfill performance requirement
25.3%
20
Deployments are not flexible
15.2%
12
Too much work
38.0%
30
Few opportunities to fulfill fixed gear requirement
34.2%
27
Safety
6.3%
5
Low salary
26.6%
21
I am unsure
27.8%
22
Others
21.5%
17
answered question
79
Did you observe in the Northeast Region after 2000?
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
29.3%
122
No
70.7%
294
answered question
416
How satisfied are you with each type of deployments that you have participated in?
Answer
Very
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very
Not
Response
Options
dissatisfied
satisfied
applicable
Count
Northeast
0
10
6
29
9
26
80
Fishery
observer
Program
(NEFOP)
At-Sea
5
13
14
17
2
31
82
Monitoring
Program
Industry-
0
1
3
26
11
37
78
Funded
Scallop
Program
answered question
82
Did you observe in the West Coast Region after 2011?
Response Response
Percent Count
10.1% 42
Answer Options
Yes
No
89.9%
374
answered question
416
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service
50
How satisfied are you with each type of deployments you participate in?
Answer
Very
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very
Not
Response
Options dissatisfied satisfied applicable Count
Catch-
share
Program
3
1
9
7
3
16
39
Non
catch-
share
Program
1
0
6
13
6
16
42
answered question
43
Please use the space below to share any additional comments or suggestions you have for the
NMFS National Observer Program. As a reminder, the survey is anonymous. We hope you will
provide your open and candid response.
Answer Options Response Count
224
answered question
224
Are you interested in sharing or giving additional comments to regarding your observing
experience with National Observer Program by participating in a follow-up interview?
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Yes
49.1%
200
No
50.9%
207
answered question
407
2016 Fishery Observer Attitudes and Experiences Survey
