If properly designed and universally used, such equipment could vastly 

 simplify performance of the detection and classification functions. 

 Such equipment could, for example, provide a "tag" for any foreign fish- 

 ing vessel that would immediately distinguish it from other classes of 

 maritime traffic so that enforcement activity could be concentrated on 

 (or if the system is foolproof, confined to) vessels known to be subject 

 to the act. At the cost of additional engineering sophistication such 

 a system of position fixing and identification equipment could provide 

 information on other classification and status factors of interest to 

 enforcement, such as permit number and provisions, status (fishing or 

 not), catch (quantity, kind), etc. 



However, the fact that the U.S. government can require such equip- 

 ment does not mean that it will do so or, if it does, that it will be 

 universally required. Even if it is universally required, there is no 

 feasible, purely technical means of insuring compliance or of guaranteeing 

 that the devices function properly under all circumstances including 

 deliberate tampering. Therefore, while surveys such as this one can 

 identify the technical potential of such devices it should not be inferred 

 that achieving this potential is purely a technical matter. 



Finally, enforcement is a joint responsibility of the USCG and the 

 NMFS, which raises problems of allocation of enforcement functions and 

 coordination of enforcement efforts. As a simple example of what this 

 situation implies, consider the matter of on-board observers, which are 

 permitted by the act. An observer with adequate communications on board 

 a foreign fishing vessel or at the point where it lands its catch is the 

 ultimate "remote sensor." If universally employed, the use of observers 

 could reduce the rest of the enforcement problem to little more than 

 supplying "muscle," on request, to carry out enforcement actions. 



16 



