4 ms·

Just over 50% of the vessels were responsible for 66% of the gap events - that makes them more likely doesn't it?

• yorwba 5y ago
  I was basing it on 69% of fishing time vs. 66% of gaps. Of course it could just be that their average gap is longer. That statistic is unfortunately missing even from the full report, although they must have it if they were able to identify the ten vessels with the longest gaps.
  • tw04 5y ago
    That’s kind of missing the point. There were 400 Chinese vessels turning off their AIS to illegally fish. Even if they were turning them off less frequently, the sheer numbers are far more damaging than 9 Spanish ships. When you have that many vessels you don’t need to turn them off as much because you’re catching everything that moves in a far shorter period of time.
    • yorwba 5y ago
      The relative prevalence is relevant if you want effective regulations. If the EU requirement for constant AIS transmissions is ineffective, then it's unlikely that political pressure on the Chinese government would result in a more effective policy. If, however, the owners of those Spanish vessels are fined enough to force them to end their illegal fishing, then there's hope that introducing similar regulations in China would also effectively curb illegal fishing by Chinese vessels. Aside: There were actually 316 Chinese vessels with gaps in AIS transmission, 71 Taiwanese, 36 South Korean, 27 Spanish, 5 Argentine and 5 unknown ones.