Save the Bluefin tuna denied at ICCAT

[finchaser]

Breaking News: Atlantic bluefin tuna CITES listing denied

"Today's vote was a setback for the Atlantic bluefin tuna..."

March 18, 2010
By U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (More articles by this author (http://www.saltwatersportsman.com/article_search.jsp?author=U.S.+Fish+%26+Wildlife+S ervice))
Share (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0))| http://www.saltwatersportsman.com/images/email_envelope_icon.jpg Email this article (http://www.saltwatersportsman.com/email_friend.do) | http://www.saltwatersportsman.com/images/article_print_icon.jpg Printer friendly version (http://www.saltwatersportsman.com/article_print.jsp?ID=1000081721)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The proposal to list Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) under Appendix I of CITES was not adopted on Thursday.
The proposal, sponsored by the Principality of Monaco, and strongly supported by the United States, garnered intense debate due to the importance of this migratory fish species for commercial purposes.
The final tally was 20 in support, 68 against and 30 abstentions.
"The U.S. is strongly committed to protecting the bluefin tuna and restoring the health of the fishery for the benefit of all nations," said Tom Strickland, head of the U.S. Delegation. "Today's vote was a setback for the Atlantic bluefin tuna, but we will keep fighting to ensure that the fishery is managed sustainably, so that future generations may see it return to health."
"The United States remains committed to ensuring that International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas keeps its commitments to science-based, well enforced management of bluefin tuna," said National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere. "ICCAT took some unprecedented management steps in 2009, but they are not enough. We will continue to work with ICCAT members to conserve and recover the species."
Spain, speaking on behalf of the European Union, introduced an amendment to the proposal that would have provided for some assurance that the species could be delisted in the future in order to attempt a compromise position.
This amendment was also rejected.

"The U.S. calls on all Parties of CITES and those who are also members of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas to fulfill the promises made today to conserve the Atlantic bluefin tuna," said Jane Lyder, acting Head of the U.S. Delegation. "The responsibility is now on ICCAT to manage the fishery in a sustainable manner. The world will be watching."

[nitestrikes]

"Today's vote was a setback for the Atlantic bluefin tuna..."

. "Today's vote was a setback for the Atlantic bluefin tuna, but we will keep fighting to ensure that the fishery is managed sustainably, so that future generations may see it return to health."
"The United States remains committed to ensuring that International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas keeps its commitments to science-based, well enforced management of bluefin tuna," said National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere. ". "The responsibility is now on ICCAT to manage the fishery in a sustainable manner. The world will be watching."

Help me out on something here, please. Dr L can shut down domestic fishing but can only make suggestions here? What if we recommend something like they did above but the other nations refuse to abide by it. I wonder if there is any pressure that can be applied to nations who aren't in compliance, other than a "strong verbal rebuke". :huh:

[finchaser]

Help me out on something here, please. Dr L can shut down domestic fishing but can only make suggestions here? What if we recommend something like they did above but the other nations refuse to abide by it. I wonder if there is any pressure that can be applied to nations who aren't in compliance, other than a "strong verbal rebuke". :huh:

We abide every year the other nations don't. Mainly Asian because of the money Japan pays for blue-fin. There are 5 purse seine permits in the US everything they catch goes to Japan. Rumor has it they are owned by the Kennedy's. I believe 2 years ago they made 439 million after taxes. US and other nations wanted to stop exporting to Japan as they buy most of the worlds bluefin. It was denied at ICCAT.

[basshunter]

Eventually Japan will take all the fish and their actions will leave their future generations fishless.

[DarkSkies]

We abide every year the other nations don't. Mainly Asian because of the money Japan pays for blue-fin. There are 5 purse seine permits in the US everything they catch goes to Japan. Rumor has it they are owned by the Kennedy's. I believe 2 years ago they made 439 million after taxes. US and other nations wanted to stop exporting to Japan as they buy most of the worlds bluefin. It was denied at ICCAT.


Eventually Japan will take all the fish and their actions will leave their future generations fishless.


So what can we do here, guys? I have resented that one family controls the majority of purse seine permits for years. While Capitalism is the best form of competition in my book, what's described above here is more like cronyism. http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/images/icons/icon13.gif

People should be outraged at this. However, it doesn't affect them because they don't fish for bluefin.

When there are no more bluefin left, there will be massive protests. People have a tendency to be concerned when it's too late. :don't know why:

So if there are any more thoughts here on this Fin, please share them. I'm listening. :thumbsup:

[finchaser]

Banning export to Japan they eat 80% of the Worlds blue fin tuna of which 13.5 metric tons come from the US. You can not eat bluefin tuna in the US unless you catch it for yourself

[blitzhunter]

We know that Japan eats 80% of the BlueFin but did it not also fail because of the monies made by the exporters?

[DarkSkies]

Sent in by Finchaser, thanks!




CITES LISTING FOR BLUEFIN TUNA VOTED DOWN

RFA Says Recreational Tuna Anglers Should Be Pleased


March 19, 2010 - Delegates at a United Nations conference on endangered species in Qatar this week soundly defeated a U.S. government proposal to ban the international trade of bluefin tuna. While there were many sportfishing and conservation groups who have helped promote the U.S. backed proposal for a ban on the international sale of bluefin tuna, the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) is pleased with the decision.

"Most of the arguments from this side of the Atlantic were about how a commercial ban would not have an impact on the sportfishing industry or the quota, which was simply not accurate," said Jim Donofrio, RFA's Executive Director. Since recreational bluefin harvest quotas are determined by a percentage of the overall U.S. commercial quota, CITES listing could have turned the school, large school, and small medium fisheries into catch and release only fisheries and completely destroyed the recreational anglers' opportunity to harvest western bluefin.

"Yes, we have a problem with the international community's refusal to adhere to the committee's past recommendations on quota, and the gross international overharvest during the past 10 years has contributed to the decline of Atlantic bluefin tuna," Donofrio said, while noting that during this same 10-year period U.S. fishermen have complied with its country specific quota "to the disadvantage of our own sportfishermen." The RFA's point of view is that CITES listing on bluefin would be patently unfair to countries like the United States who have been fishing under the ICCAT recommended quotas.

"RFA believes that action to protect the bluefin tuna must be taken, but there's a much greater chance that successful Atlantic bluefin rebuilding can be achieved if all international parties are forced to comply with annual harvest quotas recommended by the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS)," Donofrio said.

In August, the RFA sent a letter to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that noted that an international CITES listing would be excessive, particularly in a quota management system. The RFA instead recommended that international trade sanctions be used to curb the overharvest of bluefin quota by some members of the international community. "At considerable expense, the RFA first petitioned President George W. Bush on September 11, 2002 to take action against the European Union (EU) under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended," the letter noted, adding that some EU members are among the "biggest violators of international recommendations."

In the petition, the RFA noted that the actions of the EU continue to greatly undermine the biological objectives of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas or ICCAT. "These actions by certain EU fishing parties also result in serious and unfair economic injury to fishermen of the U.S. who are required to comply with programs designed to achieve the ICCAT mandate for sustainable fishing practices," the letter said.

For the RFA and its tuna fishermen, the news that CITES listing for bluefin has been denied should not be considered bad news for saltwater sportsmen who are concerned about the future of bluefin. "U.S. fishermen should not be punished for foreign noncompliance to the ICCAT recommended quotas on Atlantic bluefin tuna harvest, but instead it's a problem that ICCAT and the U.S. State Department need to deal with immediately," Donofrio said.

"The EU needs to comply first by getting their harvest under control and Japan needs to stop buying bluefin from other ICCAT contracting parties that are caught outside any SCRS recommended quotas," Donofrio said. "This will only happen when the U.S., Canada and other nations put forward a serious recommendation at ICCAT prohibiting ICCAT member Nations from buying fish that are caught out of compliance," he said.

"The U.S State Department has been weak when dealing with this issue and they need to put a serious recommendation up to stop Japan from buying up all of these fish," Donofrio noted.




About Recreational Fishing Alliance

The Recreational Fishing Alliance is a national, grassroots political action organization representing recreational fishermen and the recreational fishing industry on marine fisheries issues. The RFA Mission is to safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers, protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs, and ensure the long-term sustainability of our Nation's saltwater fisheries. For more information, call 888-JOIN-RFA or visit www.joinrfa.org (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211297348&s=10015&e=001ipKeqasCaWywBXJMUYrxD4Sr-Z41dKttVTFMKtq3KfoEuyxIvjbEFWbesdAnvHadIEJ8C4QPm94 _aPmeq2nBdju1SRr8-8iGzj8aiUuKdlPoj5mAy5l7CA==).

[DarkSkies]

Sent in by Finchaser, thanks!


"Most of the arguments from this side of the Atlantic were about how a commercial ban would not have an impact on the sportfishing industry or the quota, which was simply not accurate," said Jim Donofrio, RFA's Executive Director. Since recreational bluefin harvest quotas are determined by a percentage of the overall U.S. commercial quota, CITES listing could have turned the school, large school, and small medium fisheries into catch and release only fisheries and completely destroyed the recreational anglers' opportunity to harvest western bluefin.

considerable expense, the RFA first petitioned President George W. Bush on September 11, 2002 to take action against the European Union (EU) under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended," the letter noted, adding that some EU members are among the "biggest violators of international recommendations."

"The U.S State Department has been weak when dealing with this issue and they need to put a serious recommendation up to stop Japan from buying up all of these fish," Donofrio noted.



Banning export to Japan they eat 80% of the Worlds blue fin tuna of which 13.5 metric tons come from the US. You can not eat bluefin tuna in the US unless you catch it for yourself

It seems that as far as banning export of BFT to Japan, politics and the almighty dollar prevail here.

You and the RFA both made note of this as a serious issue. I wonder if anyone's listening? :don't know why:

[DarkSkies]

There are always 2 sides to every story. I'm trying to get this story out there to as many as possible so people can see the different perspectives.


http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkintheroad/archives/2010/03/administration.php


Obama Administration Supports Blue Fin Tuna Trade Ban (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkintheroad/archives/2010/03/administration.php)



By Sarah DiGregorio, Thursday, Mar. 4 2010 @ 9:36AM

Categories: DiGregorio (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkintheroad/archives/digregorio/), Featured (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkintheroad/archives/featured/)
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkintheroad/bluefin-tuna_greenpeace.jpg​The The New York Times reports (http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/03/03greenwire-us-backs-proposed-trading-ban-on-bluefin-tuna-74803.html) that yesterday, the Obama administration said that it would back a proposal sponsored by Monoco to ban the trade of bluefin tuna--the darling of sushi counters--across international borders.
Monoco has moved that the blue fin stock is so dangerously depleted that the fish can be categorized as an "appendix 1" species under the United Nations' Convention of International Trade of Endangered Species--a designation reserved for the most endangered animals, like tigers and gorillas, and one that automatically prohibits trade in that species.

The proposal will go to a vote on March 15th, when delegates from the 175 member countries of the UN Convention of International Trade of Endangered Species [CITES] meet in Qatar to vote. Many of the EU member countries are in favor of the ban, except Mediterranean fishing states like Greece and Spain.
Japan says it will not accept any ban, and that country eats up to 80% of the world's blue fin. However, if other countries refuse to trade the fish with Japan, the ban may still have teeth. Still, CITES does not have much enforcement power, and it will be up to member states to police themselves.

Meanwhile, whether the proposal passes or not, there's no restriction on catching blue fin for consumption in your own country. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas [ICCAT], which sets the blue fin quota each country is allowed to bring in, has ruled that the 2010 catch limit is 13,500 metric tons, a reduction from 2009's 22,000 metric tons, but not the lower quota of 8,000 metric tons that the U.S. had been pushing for.

If it can be enforced, the ban will be a good first step in trying to prevent the extinction of blue fin tuna--presumably it would mean no more blue fin flown in to New York's sushi restaurants from Tokyo. The US would simply have to make do with the 13,500 metric tons allotted to our fishing fleets.