Bluefin Tuna Ban?

[Tweaked]

From the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030301436.html?hpid=topnews

[LowellR]

Not too surprising - Bluefin Tuna stocks are down 75 percent in the last 50 years, 60 percent of which is in the last 10 years ( more info, if you're interested ), and they're very slow maturing fish.

[Ericandblueboy]

As a practical matter, even if there is a ban, who enforces it? Will our navy blast poachers (be they Japanese or otherwise) out of the water?

[LowellR]

As a practical matter, even if there is a ban, who enforces it? Will our navy blast poachers (be they Japanese or otherwise) out of the water?

It would be enforced like any other endangered species ban - it would be illegal to sell or own the tuna. So the fisherman, wholesaler, retailer and customer could all be enforced against. And usually each countries' authorities enforce against their own citizens. . .

[DanielK]

I'm with Eric on this one - Asia's willingness to support a ban on any particular marine product seems to be only as deep as the demand for that product. If the people want it, the government finds a way to skirt the ban.

[Ericandblueboy]

It would be enforced like any other endangered species ban - it would be illegal to sell or own the tuna. So the fisherman, wholesaler, retailer and customer could all be enforced against. And usually each countries' authorities enforce against their own citizens. . .

Meaning the product could be confiscated after the fact? The fish is already dead at that point. I was hoping we'd arm Green Peace and let them take out poachers.

[LowellR]

Meaning the product could be confiscated after the fact?

Yep.

The fish is already dead at that point.

True, but so is the murder victim, and murder is neverthless illegal. (Though I'm sure you weren't actually suggesting that after-the-fact enforcement is not worthwhile).

I was hoping we'd arm Green Peace and let them take out poachers.

Now that would make it interesting. As would arming the tuna.

[Ericandblueboy]

True, but so is the murder victim, and murder is neverthless illegal. (Though I'm sure you weren't actually suggesting that after-the-fact enforcement is not worthwhile).

I'm saying that in some instances, you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent crime. If we have warships fire on poachers, that would be a more effective deterrent.

[DonRocks]

I'm saying that in some instances, you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent crime. If we have warships fire on poachers, that would be a more effective deterrent.

As long as they don't install automatic grenade launchers on top of speed cameras.

[Waitman]

I'm with Eric on this one - Asia's willingness to support a ban on any particular marine product seems to be only as deep as the demand for that product. If the people want it, the government finds a way to skirt the ban.

So the answer is to do nothing? Besides, I'm sure boats flying many flags are doing the actual catching, thus giving a head start on diminishing supply, if not demand.

Meaning the product could be confiscated after the fact? The fish is already dead at that point. I was hoping we'd arm Green Peace and let them take out poachers.

I think the seizure of a couple of hundred-thousand-dollar fish would have almost as strong a deterrent effect. Besides, those GreenPeacers are too pacifistic. The ALF would be a better choice.

[Poivrot Farci]

So the answer is to do nothing?

Pretty much.

The innate unscientific reaction is to clench and find toilet paper before one craps their pants, not afterward. It sucks, but fishermen will find something else to fish/exploit. Coastal and pelagic (Atlantic and elsewhere) fisheries are a frighteningly underfunded, mismanaged and unenforced natural resource. Unless fish will power your car or home there is no real reason for governments like ours to put already scarce money towards regulating ungovernable oceans. They do the opposite by providing subsidies to too many boats that fish in waters of developing countries and have technology to catch a lot more, more easily. NOAA is not permitted to make fishing recommendations to fishermen like Seafood Watch does to consumers. ICCAT is cheekily referred to as Int’l Conspiracy to Catch All Tuna by some conservation scientists. In some cases, total national catches are reported to ICCAT as many as two years after they occurred.

FromWWF

Although ICCAT was formed in 1969, it did not recommend limits on catching bluefin until the early 1980s. The first quotas for the eastern population were not established until 1998. Even then, the limits have been too generous, and member nations often ignore them.

For example, in 1996, ICCAT scientists stated that catches of 25,000 tonnes or less would halt the decline of the eastern population. However, in 2002, quotas were set at 32,000 tonnes for the years 2003 to 2006 - 23% higher than the maximum recommended level. And actual catches are even higher than the quotas

Susan Lieberman last year:

"ICATT has continually disregarded countless opportunities to do the right thing and secure the Atlantic bluefin tuna and guarantee the recovery of this species," Susan Lieberman, director of international policy at the Washington-based Pew Environment Group, told reporters. According to Lieberman, ICATT has for decades set quotas above what its own scientists have recommended for bluefin tuna. Governments systematically exceed the ICATT-set quotas and allow their industrial fleets to over-fish the species. Combined with illegal fishing, this has caused the population to decline by more than 85 percent in the eastern Atlantic and by more than 90 percent in the western Atlantic.”

Marine biologist Carl Safina president of the Blue Ocean Institute, which studies how human behavior impacts the ocean, called ICATT "the poster child for not only failure which is demonstrable but cynicism and a real unwillingness to get serious, be professional and listen to what the science has to say.”

"The world's first fisheries management agency formed out of concern for this one species, never followed their own science, never lived up to their mandate to manage for a sustainable yield," Safina said.

[Poivrot Farci]

Atlantic bluefin tuna ban unsurprisingly rejected by UN.

68 countries voted against the ban, with 20 in favor and 30 countries abstaining. Only the United States, Norway and Kenya supported the dilusional proposal outright.