# data[].attributes.body
AutoFish Systems is a mobile fish tagging laboratory made for the mass tagging or marking of fish species, making the process faster, more comprehensive, and cost effective.

Photo Credit: Northwest Marine Technology, Inc.

# data[].attributes.body
Fish are sucked up through an intake pipe and funneled by water flow into different pipes after a computer calculates through images the rough weight and size of the fish (Tabor, 2010)

The AutoFish System uses Coded Wire Tags or CWT which injects the tag into the snout of the fish. The wire tags range in size but are considered minimally invasive to the animal (Holt, Cox, and Sawanda, nd).

After the fish has been tagged, it will swim through a pipe on its way to the exit where a magnetic sensor can check to see if the tag was put in correctly so that it can be read in the future (Tabor, 2010).

Photo Credit: Nathan Kirkman

# data[].attributes.body
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department as well as several other state agencies now use AutoFish Systems to monitor their stock and populations (Tabor, 2010)

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) has used the AutoFish System to tag fish being stocked in Lake Ontario (Moorhouse, 2008)

The AutoFish System is mainly used in hatcheries for large quantities of stock fish such as salmon and trout. I cannot find any information on this system being used for tagging non-stock fish.

Attached below is an interesting video from Idaho Fish and Game and Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission on using the AutoFish System (2017.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tagging Millions of Salmon and Steelhead with Automated Fish Marking Systems

# data[].attributes.body
The main strength of the AutoFish is the ability to tag mass amounts of fish, sometimes up to 60,000 fish per day (Tabor, 2010).

Fish being tagged by the mobile system do not have to leave the water which greatly reduces the stress put on the animal. Also with the system being mobile it can be used in many different areas and jurisdictions with a shared cost of use.

The Coded Wire Tags used on the fish have not be shown to have any affect on the fish and are considered to be minimally invasive. (Blankenship and Thompson, 2003)

Photo Credit: Nathan Kirkman

# data[].attributes.body
The main weakness is cost, while it is relatively inexpensive for how advanced the system is, most units cost over $1 million (Tabor, 2010).

Currently The AutoFish system is used mainly for stock fish like salmon and trout and so that could be limiting when it comes to conservation efforts. Unless it is tested and tried on oceanic species or less abundant fish, the limitation of this technology may be in the species it is used on.

# data[].attributes.body
The future of AutoFish Systems looks bright as access becomes easier and agencies around North America use the tagging system to monitor hatcheries and stock fish all across the continent.

In the future I would hope to see this technology either made larger or used on maybe sport fish such as trevally, tuna, and tarpon. These fish are facing increasing population crisis levels and so I feel like having such an efficient tagging and tracking system for more endangered fish species would be beneficial for conservation programs.

Being portable the system has great potential and I wonder if as technology advances if the system could become smaller or even built into research boats so all you would have to do is park your boat on top or near a school of fish and you could mass tag the school right then and there.

# data[].attributes.body
AutoFish System - Northwest Marine Technology Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2019, from https://www.nmt.us/autofish-system/

Blankenship H., Thompson, D. 2003. The effect of 1.5-length and double-length coded wire tags on coho salmon survival, growth, homing, and electronic detection. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 23(1). 60-65.

Holt, K., Cox, S., Sawanda, J. In-season forecasting of coho salmon marine survival via coded wire tag recoveries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 29(4). 1165-1182.

Idahofishgame. (2017, October 12).

Tagging Millions of Salmon and Steelhead with Automated Fish Marking Systems

. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfbhhvSNxg

Kirkman, N. (n.d.). [Photograph].

Moorhouse, B. (2008). Stocking Goes Hi-Tech. Ontario Out of Doors, 40(5), 14. Retrieved from http://proxy.lib.miamioh.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip&db=f5h&AN=32576254&site=eds-live&scope=site

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. (n.d.). Automated Fish Marking – Using The AutoFish System in Oregon [Press release]. Retrieved March 3, 2019, from Automated Fish Marking – Using The AutoFish System in Oregon

Tipping, J. M. (2011). Effect of Juvenile Length on Chinook Salmon Survivals at Four Hatcheries in Washington State. North American Journal of Aquaculture, 73(2), 164. Retrieved from http://proxy.lib.miamioh.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip&db=edb&AN=61204985&site=eds-live&scope=site

Tabor, D. (2010). Process: Like Tagging Fish In A Barrel. Wired, 18(12), 50–1. Retrieved from http://proxy.lib.miamioh.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip&db=iih&AN=56505394&site=eds-live&scope=site