Video observation, again.

[Once and Future]

We had an excellent discussion last year regarding possible future requirements of carrying video cameras on board. I see the topic of observers on small vessels, and the video alternative, has come up again in an article at the Anchorage Daily News. I have a little better control of my emotions at this point, and would like to make a few points I may have not gotten across last time.

The root cause of my concern is an article I read years ago which detailed how video cameras and computers would be getting smaller, and probably more importantly, cheaper, in the future. The upshot of that is it becomes feasible to monitor a lot of activities which were once off limits due to technology and cost, even if you ignored right-to-privacy issues. So what I’m saying is, once you let video cameras on board, they can end up all over your boat monitoring things that are not nearly so important as the original issues.

As much as I would not look forward to co-existing with an observer on my small boat, there is a benefit. Namely, it is uncomfortable for the observer and the government as well. So presumably, the period of observation would be temporary. Once video cameras were allowed aboard, it would be too easy to leave them there permanently. And I have a problem with that because I place a high value on my personal liberty.

Another issue I have is that the media articles often mention Canada as having had a successful video monitoring program. In reality, as we have established on our forums, the Canadian small boat fleet has largely been forced out of business. I know a lot of Canadian boats have been sold into Alaska as they ran out of opportunities. In fact, that is where mine came from. My feeling (could be wrong) is Canadian politics forced them out of business because people determined commercial fishing was no longer politically correct. And the video observation was another nail in the coffin, not a success story which kept the small fisherman in business.

Commercial fishing does have its opponents. And think of how some of the activities that you and I consider normal would play out if the animal rights and environmental groups got ahold of them.

I never have smoked myself, but I use smokers as an example in discussions with my daughter. The first battle ground of the anti-smokers was restaurants. There was to be non-smoking sections. That was a reasonable request, wasn’t it? Well 25 years later, in the lower 48, the whole restaurant is now smoke free. And so are the bars. And now the area just outside the door. So that first “solution” of a smoke fee area was just the first step in a war of attrition. This is how these battles are fought in the modern day. Perhaps some of you feel smoking has killed enough people that all tactics to get people to stop smoking are fair play. I would caution you that some zealots feel just as strongly about stopping commercial fishing.

The question arises as to whether the regulators are our “ally”. Some of them no doubt are. But I was horrified a couple years ago when federal officers one the east coast felt it was their legal right to board boats without the knowledge of the owner to fit tracking devices on them. Luckily, the Supreme Court eventually told them they did not have that right. So my point is while some regulators surely are our ally, there are others who definitely see the relationship differently.

Damn it. I’m sorry to submit such a long-winded and uninspiring post. We need to be submitting more posts to the “Stories” section of the forum, to combat the mid-winter blues.

[SilverT]

Once and future,

I really enjoy it when someone clearly explains what I believe using better examples than I would have thought of, particularly where you wrote, "Namely, it is uncomfortable for the observer and the government as well." So true. Thanks for taking the time.

Lane

[Jackson Combs]

Great post

[Salty]

Thoughtful discussion, and I too am looking forward to the stories posts.

[Abundance]

I know what you mean about not being happy with the last discussion of this topic. I've worried for a while that I came off as too pro camera last time around. I disliked the thought of a camera, but the privacy issue didnt mean much to me. I think that I sometimes come off as more contrary on these discussions than I actually am. The very well reasoned and thought out statement above has me in your camp, thank you. Increased regulation as a weapon is a different matter than increased regulation as a protection.

[FV_Wild_Card]

http://www.adn.com/2012/11/28/2706631/f ... anded.html

the comments after the article are interesting.

[akfisher78]

I saw in the Juneau Empire yesterday talks of more Halibut Boats getting or possibly getting observers this coming year!

[Carol W]

I don't need a camera or an observer just because I am a commercial fisherman doesn't mean I am a criminal, the federal goverment has more important business than worrying about what I am doing, and I would suggest they tend to their business of running this country in a responsible manner.

[Salty]

And here I was thinking the Congress, the Courts, and the President ran this country. Its actually that nice lady down at Sitka Historical Park?