Northeast - Just came across this on Bluefin :(

THE HULL TRUTH is the world's largest FREE network for the discussion of Boating & Fishing. Whether you're researching a new boat, or are a seasoned Captain, you'll find The Hull Truth Boating & Fishing Message Forum contains a wealth of information from Boaters and Sportfishermen around the world.




jbg108
03-03-2010, 09:14 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030301436.html?hpid%3Dtopnews


CMEBoston
03-03-2010, 09:20 AM
Like always, the US will be the only nation to abide by the rules.

luckytuna
03-03-2010, 10:43 AM
boy that will suck hope they still let us fish for them


CMEBoston
03-03-2010, 10:47 AM
boy that will suck hope they still let us fish for them
Its a shame you even have to say that:banghead:

loligo
03-03-2010, 10:52 AM
Strickland is an ass. But what do you guys expect from the administration bringing you - catch shares - killing soon at a port no longer near you......$#@&^$*&*)#%&&(!@!!!!!!

CMP
03-03-2010, 11:49 AM
Unreal-never thought it would happen, even under this arsehole president. Un-friggin-real...

CMP

buckman
03-03-2010, 12:35 PM
Just a little hint of what to expect from Cap and Trade. They are selling out America, just as they sold out our kids future.

auguste
03-03-2010, 12:35 PM
Like always, the US will be the only nation to abide by the rules.

The USA is not the only nation. Read and learn before you make statements like that.

You post attacks all nations of the world exc ept the USA.

Canada is even more restrictive than the USA.

Jeez . . . look over that 2 foot high fence in your backyard and see what is happening

LI32
03-03-2010, 12:46 PM
Look on the bright side - it looks like POTUS and his environmental dictators may let us fish fon Spiny Dogfish instead. mmm much tastier than Bluefin.

CMEBoston
03-03-2010, 12:46 PM
The USA is not the only nation. Read and learn before you make statements like that.

You post attacks all nations of the world exc ept the USA.

Canada is even more restrictive than the USA.

Jeez . . . look over that 2 foot high fence in your backyard and see what is happening
What I am trying to say is we will be and have been the only nation to follow rules regarding the bluefin tuna fisherey. this will only make the juvinile fish taken in the east atlantic worth more money and overfished even more.
I would not expect someone who does not follow this fishery as close as others to understan so its OK if you dont:roll

luckytuna
03-03-2010, 12:51 PM
thats it the nations looking for the cities wont obay and still will sell fish to japan . japan will still keep buying tuna even with a cities

auguste
03-03-2010, 01:18 PM
What I am trying to say is we will be and have been the only nation to follow rules regarding the bluefin tuna fisherey. this will only make the juvinile fish taken in the east atlantic worth more money and overfished even more.
I would not expect someone who does not follow this fishery as close as others to understan so its OK if you dont:roll

Another critical assumption based upon your perception and not reality

Don't assume that every country does what the Japannese and Spaniard do

luckytuna
03-03-2010, 01:31 PM
here is the latest

FinalNRbl...pdf (javascript:;)

CMEBoston
03-03-2010, 01:32 PM
You think its just spain?

CMP
03-03-2010, 01:48 PM
Gus, the Japanese are rightfully telling the cites ppl to go f themselves, IMO. The problem is not the Japanese, Canadians or US. It's the eurotrash, africans and other third world hell-holes who have been overfishing for years without any meaningful sanctions. Out pols have never had the balls to sanction nations that overfish, so what makes anyone think that will change with cites? All it does is allow for massive effort and a speeding up of the further decline of the species as they won;t be fishing on teh larger fish, but on small ones. Laughable if it weren't so friggin sickening...

CMP

GT FISH
03-03-2010, 02:30 PM
http://http://www.google.com/hostedn...KZNIEDAyk7d3Og (http://http//www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h3qTAuqOooBhuvKZNIEDAyk7d3Og)
US seeks Atlantic bluefin tuna ban in challenge to Japan

By Shaun Tandon (AFP) – 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON — The United States called Wednesday for a ban on the international trade in Atlantic bluefin tuna to save the species from extinction, challenging Japan ahead of a major global meeting.

With demand for sushi and sashimi driving the world's tuna stocks to dangerously low levels, the United States said it would ask a meeting in Qatar to declare the commercial trade in tuna a threat to the species' survival.

"The United States continues to have serious concerns about the long-term viability" of eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna, said Tom Strickland, the assistant secretary of the interior for fish and wildlife.

"The US government is committed to working with our many international partners to continue to rebuild Atlantic bluefin tuna and ensure sustained conservation and management of the species into the future," he said in a statement.

Some 175 nations will consider the ban at a meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) from March 13 to 25 in the Qatari capital Doha.

"The US administration decision is a turning point," said Susan Lieberman, director of international policy at the Pew Environment Group. "We are now much more optimistic."

Japan, which consumes three-quarters of the global bluefin tuna catch, says an international trade ban is too drastic and has left open the option of defying the restrictions if they are approved.

The bluefin is the largest in the tuna family and is highly prized in sushi and sashimi. Stocks have fallen drastically, declining in the Western Atlantic by more than 80 percent from 1970 to 2007.

A 232.6-kilogramme (512-pound) bluefin fetched a near-record 16.28 million yen (176,000 dollars) at this year's first auction at Tokyo's iconic Tsukiji fish market.

A ban on the global trade of bluefin tuna would require a two-thirds vote by the CITES conference. It would not affect Pacific bluefin tuna, whose stocks are also in decline but are administered separately, or other varieties of tuna consumed in many western countries.

European nations are divided. Monaco has spearheaded the drive for a ban, which enjoys strong support from Britain and Germany.

But Spain, Greece and Malta -- which all have significant tuna industries -- are opposed. France has called for a ban but said it should only come into force after 18 months.

Other countries believed to be opposed to the ban include Canada and China.

"US support could make a huge difference with the EU in particular," said John Hocevar, the oceans campaign director at Greenpeace USA.

"We already have reports that Japan is lobbying countries, primarily the ones they give aid to in the Pacific and in Africa, so strong US support can help counter that," he said.

The US decision came the same day that delegates were meeting in Florida to take up another controversial oceans issue -- whaling.

The negotiators were considering a compromise that would let Japan openly hunt whales but aim to reduce the catch, which infuriates whale-loving Australia.

"Some say that Japan's tough position on whaling is to deflect the debate on tuna, where there is much more at stake for Japan," Hocevar said.

Any international trading ban would not stop US fishermen from catching tuna in US waters for domestic consumption. Strickland said scientific guidelines were in place to prevent overfishing in the United States.

Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

Bluefin73
03-03-2010, 02:31 PM
This is a complete and utter fu*king joke. Our government has repeatedly ignored our cries for help on the this matter (ICCAT's failure and overfishing in the Med) for years and now they are going to thow us under the bus. This is the best our government can do for us?

Strickland's announcement is a load of bullshit.

If you do a search on google for news articles concerning this matter you will see a lot of happy comments from enviro's but I don't see any fisherman or the organizations that represent us being contacted or interviewed? WTF?

I am going go puke

twofinbluna
03-03-2010, 02:43 PM
Like always, the US will be the only nation to abide by the rules.

Canada too. It will be us and them that will pay the biggest price if a CITES listing happens at the meeting in a couple weeks. Typical.

BACKTOTHESEA
03-03-2010, 02:48 PM
Put tuna on a listing governed by the pigmies that run the UN. Brilliant move.

Unless I am mistaken, once listed, this policy is self enforced by the importing nations through their customs officials, i.e. unfunded enforcement. How do folks think that will work out?

twofinbluna
03-03-2010, 02:54 PM
Press Release- Sen. Olympia snowe (Maine)

Weds. March 3rd, 2010
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, during a Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard hearing on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s FY 2011 Budget and Fisheries Enforcement Programs and Operations, Ranking Member Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) urged Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to fully examine the economic impact the agency’s fishery management and law enforcement policies have on the American fishing industry and take action to rectify the adverse affects of onerous regulations.

“I am deeply troubled that this budget for 2011 does not put nearly enough emphasis on providing an investment in sound fisheries science so our regulators are not force to use insufficient data to make decisions that affect lives, jobs, and entire coastal communities. This is precisely the situation that we have seen play out in Prospect Harbor with the closing of the Bumble Bee sardine cannery. Better science would have save those jobs,” said Senator Snowe. “Clearly, what is called for here is a dose of reality in Washington and some attention to the implications on the ground of these decisions.”

Snowe went on to blast today’s announcement by the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, that it would support a petition by Monaco to list bluefin tuna as an endangered species under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wildlife Flora and Fauna (CITES). Senator Snowe said the reckless decision will ultimately prove ineffectual and cause disproportionate harm to the U.S. bluefin tuna fishery.

“Even though our fishermen have operated under the strongest conservation measures in the world, if this CITES listing is approved they will have to pay the price for all the other bad actors’ failure to control harvest levels,” said Senator Snowe. “This egregious decision creates a perverse incentive for our domestic bluefin tuna fishery and other Nations. I fail to see the logic in supporting a policy that will penalize our fishermen for their contributions to the long-term sustainability of this critical species.”

Last month, Senator Snowe spearheaded a letter with 14 of her House and Senate colleagues to Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Thomas Strickland, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, asking them not to support a proposal by the principality of Monaco to list bluefin tuna under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wildlife Flora and Fauna (CITES). During today’s hearing, Senator Snowe called on NOAA to implement policies that will mitigate the adverse impact of onerous regulations on the American fishing industry.

“At a time when fishermen and women are trying to eke out a living in this industry, this ruling ought to be a big reality check for everyone,” continued Senator Snowe. “The Fish and Wildlife Service’s press release says ‘we understand fishermen’s frustration’ but they really don’t. It is imperative NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service take swift action to develop and implement a mitigation effort that will ease the financial burden this ruling will impose.”

Senator Snowe went on to further criticize NOAA for the egregious mismanagement by the Office of Law Enforcement for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and highlighted a recent report by the U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General, which demonstrated systemic nationwide issues adversely affecting NOAA’s ability to regulate the fishing industry. In addition, the report found that these same issues have “contributed significantly to a…dysfunctional relationship between NOAA and the fishing industry – particularly in the northeast.”

“I was stunned by the IG’s report revealing the magnitude of the management problem regarding law enforcement on the fishing community – in particular in the Northeast region,” said Senator Snowe. “It was horrifying, frankly, to learn of the disproportionate treatments within the industry, which have resulted in devastating consequences for fishermen and it is vital for NOAA to take immediate action to change these policies.”

Dr. Lubchenco pledged to continue to work with Senator Snowe and resolve the issues facing the fishing industry and agrees to implement new policies that will better take into consideration the economic impact of regulations and rulings.

###

twofinbluna
03-03-2010, 02:55 PM
Congresswoman Chellie Pingree condemns Obama Administration decision on bluefin tuna. Says decision will put Maine fishermen out of business

March 3, 2010
For immediate release
Contact: Willy Ritch 207-841-8400

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree today condemned a decision by the Obama Administration to have bluefin tuna listed as endangered species under an international treaty.

“I’m outraged by this decision,” Pingree said. “US fishermen have been leaders in protecting the bluefin tuna stock and now these same fishermen are being asked to do even more. It’s completely unreasonable.”

The Obama Administration announced that it wants to list bluefin tuna as an internationally endangered species under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). A CITES listing would effectively stop Maine fishermen from selling bluefin tuna outside the United States, which closes off the important Japanese market. Since the Maine tuna season is short and there isn’t freezer capacity to store tuna, limiting Maine fishermen to a domestic market would put many of them out of business.

“Maine has a strong tuna fishing tradition and in these tough economic times, the ability to catch and sell a tuna makes the difference for coastal Maine families,” Pingree said. “This is the worst possible time to place this unreasonable burden on them.”

Pingree said international quotas set last fall as part an international agreement should be allowed to work. (The quota was set by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.) Pingree says the problem with the CITES listing is that countries like Japan are likely to opt out, which means they will continue to buy tuna internationally from non-U.S. fishermen, while Maine fishermen who play by the rules will be left on the dock.

“This will just means that the bad actors in other countries will get rich, while our fishermen are frozen out of the market,” Pingree said.

buckman
03-03-2010, 03:09 PM
Did Kerry ever sign that letter????????

CMP
03-03-2010, 03:14 PM
No, that useless piece of shit did not...

CMP

twofinbluna
03-03-2010, 03:44 PM
Did Kerry ever sign that letter????????

Despite lots of effort over a long period of time to get him to...NO, he never did. He was the only Senator from MA, NH, ME and RI that did not support us on this. Keep in mind that in MA, not only did Scott Brown and all the relevant Reps support us, but so did the MA DMF and the governor's office. So, Kerry was pretty much the only person in power in MA that did nothing to help us.

DKD
03-03-2010, 04:01 PM
I need to throw up.....

GT FISH
03-03-2010, 04:03 PM
It states recreationals will still be able to fish for BFT domestically for food.. What am i missing here..I really don't know to much about the affects..One thing i know is that if we don't do anything these fish will become more scarce..

Semper Fi-sh
03-03-2010, 04:30 PM
All I can say is WTF over :mad:

Codfisher
03-03-2010, 04:47 PM
It states recreationals will still be able to fish for BFT domestically for food.. What am i missing here..I really don't know to much about the affects..One thing i know is that if we don't do anything these fish will become more scarce..


If a CITES listing is passed how long do you think NOAA and the US Fish & Wildlife Service will allow recreational fisherman to kill thousands of juvenille fish of an "endangered species".

hanson
03-03-2010, 05:02 PM
''TO THE LEFT TO THE LEFT,EVERY THING THAT IS PHUCKED UP IS TO THE LEFT""Wasnt that a song?

gerg
03-03-2010, 05:23 PM
So whats the solution then?

If Europe and Africa will ignore a CITES ban, they certainly won't respect the less restrictive agreements that have been in the news recently.

Is it just a mad dash to grab the last of the fish at this point?

Is there anything short of gunboat diplomacy that will work?

twofinbluna
03-03-2010, 06:23 PM
gerg-

They will oppose a complete ban on trade, yes, but that does not mean they will oppose regulations. Our only hope is for our leaders, and leaders of other counties, to put real pressure on ICCAT nations to comply with rules. At the same time our leaders and other leaders put pressure on ICCAT itself to continue to put better rules in place, along with built-in penalties to nations that do not comply with quotas. There is hope, IMO, to get success at ICCAT if powerful leaders keep the pressure on. Over the last few months we have seen all kinds of people getting involved in bluefin issues that had never once lifted a finger to help. If all that effort can be funneled into getting ICCAT to do its job, it will go a long ways.

But there is no hope for CITES because it is overly restrictive- it bans trade permanently- and so none of this should surprise anyone. The scary thing is that the enviros, and now our own government, are supporting something that everyone knows will do the most damage to US and Canadian fishermen while allowing the problem nations to escape any restrictions. At the same time it will add more complexity to an already-complex management system, likely ensuring more problems than we already have.

auguste
03-03-2010, 06:25 PM
Gus, the Japanese are rightfully telling the cites ppl to go f themselves, IMO. The problem is not the Japanese, Canadians or US. It's the eurotrash, africans and other third world hell-holes who have been overfishing for years without any meaningful sanctions. Out pols have never had the balls to sanction nations that overfish, so what makes anyone think that will change with cites? All it does is allow for massive effort and a speeding up of the further decline of the species as they won;t be fishing on teh larger fish, but on small ones. Laughable if it weren't so friggin sickening...

CMP

I agree with you on that point . . . 150%

luckytuna
03-03-2010, 06:42 PM
Weds. March 3rd, 2010
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, during a Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard hearing on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s FY 2011 Budget and Fisheries Enforcement Programs and Operations, Ranking Member Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) urged Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to fully examine the economic impact the agency’s fishery management and law enforcement policies have on the American fishing industry and take action to rectify the adverse affects of onerous regulations.

“I am deeply troubled that this budget for 2011 does not put nearly enough emphasis on providing an investment in sound fisheries science so our regulators are not force to use insufficient data to make decisions that affect lives, jobs, and entire coastal communities. This is precisely the situation that we have seen play out in Prospect Harbor with the closing of the Bumble Bee sardine cannery. Better science would have save those jobs,” said Senator Snowe. “Clearly, what is called for here is a dose of reality in Washington and some attention to the implications on the ground of these decisions.”

Snowe went on to blast today’s announcement by the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, that it would support a petition by Monaco to list bluefin tuna as an endangered species under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wildlife Flora and Fauna (CITES). Senator Snowe said the reckless decision will ultimately prove ineffectual and cause disproportionate harm to the U.S. bluefin tuna fishery.

“Even though our fishermen have operated under the strongest conservation measures in the world, if this CITES listing is approved they will have to pay the price for all the other bad actors’ failure to control harvest levels,” said Senator Snowe. “This egregious decision creates a perverse incentive for our domestic bluefin tuna fishery and other Nations. I fail to see the logic in supporting a policy that will penalize our fishermen for their contributions to the long-term sustainability of this critical species.”

Last month, Senator Snowe spearheaded a letter with 14 of her House and Senate colleagues to Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Thomas Strickland, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, asking them not to support a proposal by the principality of Monaco to list bluefin tuna under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wildlife Flora and Fauna (CITES). During today’s hearing, Senator Snowe called on NOAA to implement policies that will mitigate the adverse impact of onerous regulations on the American fishing industry.

“At a time when fishermen and women are trying to eke out a living in this industry, this ruling ought to be a big reality check for everyone,” continued Senator Snowe. “The Fish and Wildlife Service’s press release says ‘we understand fishermen’s frustration’ but they really don’t. It is imperative NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service take swift action to develop and implement a mitigation effort that will ease the financial burden this ruling will impose.”

Senator Snowe went on to further criticize NOAA for the egregious mismanagement by the Office of Law Enforcement for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and highlighted a recent report by the U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General, which demonstrated systemic nationwide issues adversely affecting NOAA’s ability to regulate the fishing industry. In addition, the report found that these same issues have “contributed significantly to a…dysfunctional relationship between NOAA and the fishing industry – particularly in the northeast.”

“I was stunned by the IG’s report revealing the magnitude of the management problem regarding law enforcement on the fishing community – in particular in the Northeast region,” said Senator Snowe. “It was horrifying, frankly, to learn of the disproportionate treatments within the industry, which have resulted in devastating consequences for fishermen and it is vital for NOAA to take immediate action to change these policies.”

Dr. Lubchenco pledged to continue to work with Senator Snowe and resolve the issues facing the fishing industry and agrees to implement new policies that will better take into consideration the economic impact of regulations and rulings.

jdl
03-03-2010, 09:08 PM
From the New York Times:

February 20, 2010
Japan Plans to Ignore Any Ban on Bluefin Tuna
By DAVID JOLLY
PARIS — Japan will not join in any agreement to ban international trade in Atlantic bluefin tuna under the United Nations treaty on endangered species, the country’s top fisheries negotiator said.

The negotiator, Masanori Miyahara, said in a telephone interview this week that Japan “would have no choice but to take a reservation” — in effect, to ignore the ban and leave its market open to continued imports — if the bluefin tuna were granted most-endangered species status.

“It’s a pity,” he said, “but it’s a matter of principle.”

Mr. Miyahara, Japan’s top delegate to the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, referred to as Cites, said the convention was the wrong forum for managing the fishing of the bluefin tuna.

A formal proposal for a ban — which requires the approval of two-thirds of its 175 member countries — is scheduled to be presented at a Cites meeting next month in Doha, Qatar.

The position of Japan, which consumes about 80 percent of the bluefin tuna caught in the Mediterranean, “is very simple,” Mr. Miyahara said. He said Japan believed that a different organization, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, known as Iccat, should manage bluefin tuna catches and protection.

Mr. Miyahara said Japan acknowledged that the bluefin tuna needed protection, but the endangered-species convention was “quite inflexible,” he said.

Historically, he said, almost no species added to the Cites endangered species list had ever been removed. “We don’t believe the bluefin tuna is endangered to that extent,” he said.

Meanwhile, Europe appeared to be moving to a compromise.

France, home of the largest Mediterranean bluefin fleet, said on Feb. 3 that it was prepared to back an international trade ban at the Cites meeting, to take effect after 18 months. But a person with knowledge of the European Commission’s thinking who asked not to be identified because the commission had not formally adopted the position, said on Friday that officials were planning to propose that Iccat be given a last chance to give depleted stocks of the tuna a chance to recover by temporarily banning all commercial trade in the fish.

gerg
03-04-2010, 03:19 AM
But a person with knowledge of the European Commission’s thinking who asked not to be identified because the commission had not formally adopted the position, said on Friday that officials were planning to propose that Iccat be given a last chance to give depleted stocks of the tuna a chance to recover by temporarily banning all commercial trade in the fish.

A non-CITES, temporary ban? I guess that would be a limited nuclear exchange as opposed to an all out war?

Who knows, some good may come out of this if ICCAT gets scared enough to make some meaningful regulations stick.

LI32
03-04-2010, 05:28 AM
Weds. March 3rd, 2010
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, during a Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard hearing on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s FY 2011 Budget and Fisheries Enforcement Programs and Operations, Ranking Member Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) urged Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to fully examine the economic impact the agency’s fishery management and law enforcement policies have on the American fishing industry and take action to rectify the adverse affects of onerous regulations.


Dr. Lubchenco pledged to continue to work with Senator Snowe and resolve the issues facing the fishing industry and agrees to implement new policies that will better take into consideration the economic impact of regulations and rulings.


Because the good Dr. Lubchenco is such a supporter of the rights of domestic recreational fisherman, I am sure we can take her at her word - NOT.
This is just a precursor for her to ban all Bluefin fishing by Americans - because the US endangered Species Act specifically states that once a species is listed, it can not be hunted or harvested for any purpose whatsoever - I didn't see any Bluefin exclusion in the Act.

Fresh Fish
03-04-2010, 10:59 AM
Over the years, it seems I have seen less and less pictures of any real GIANTS. Not the 200 - 300 lb. pictures, we see, but the 700 lb + pictures that used to be routine.
I used to have an old map of Ipswich Bay that notes at least a half dozen 1,000 lb. fish caught there. The largest I have ever caught (with a handline and bunch of friends on a charter 20 + years ago was close to 700.) Fortunately, one of the guys (now deceased) was a master meatcutter. That was one fish that never made it to the Japanese!!

What a shame the world will never wake up til its either too late or well on the way to it!

buckman
03-04-2010, 02:58 PM
Over the years, it seems I have seen less and less pictures of any real GIANTS. Not the 200 - 300 lb. pictures, we see, but the 700 lb + pictures that used to be routine.
I used to have an old map of Ipswich Bay that notes at least a half dozen 1,000 lb. fish caught there. The largest I have ever caught (with a handline and bunch of friends on a charter 20 + years ago was close to 700.) Fortunately, one of the guys (now deceased) was a master meatcutter. That was one fish that never made it to the Japanese!!

What a shame the world will never wake up til its either too late or well on the way to it!

The guys that for the most part catch these monsters aren't interested in posting pictures of them and crowding the fishing grounds with want-to-be's. :grin:

Locke N Load
03-04-2010, 03:19 PM
Plenty of big fish still out there. Spotter planes last Summer reported an estimated 1,500 lber swimming around. No one caught her. I personally saw an 800+ on a Comm's deck. Seen plenty of 500+ swimming around as well.

The problem with ICCAT is how do you enforce it? Only way is to have Japan regulate where they buy the fish, from which country. Once that country has filled its quota they don't buy any more from them. It is impossible to tell Libya to control its fishing fleet and stop once their quota is filled.
On another note, bluefin tuna fishing is pretty low on the priority list of issues. Greece has a lot more to worry about than spending money to regulate fishing or adhering to regulations that take money out of the pockets of the people and government. I just don't see adherence from some of these countries so if you can't control the supply, you have to look to the demand. Japan says they will not take part in CITES so it is an absolute waste of time for any one else to. It won't have any impact.

luckytuna
03-04-2010, 05:26 PM
The guys that for the most part catch these monsters aren't interested in posting pictures of them and crowding the fishing grounds with want-to-be's. :grin:

that is so true alot of fish taken the last few years where over 700lbs and a bunch over 1000lbs

intrepid 24
03-04-2010, 05:51 PM
I am trying to understand this, is he the one person that has the authority to make this call ?
ps, I just can't believe Kerry would'nt support the nor'east....thank god for Snowe !!!!!

CB Haws
03-04-2010, 07:02 PM
Time to stop killing giants period!
Say what you want commercial con-artists.

luckytuna
03-04-2010, 07:04 PM
this why kerry did'nt support us

http://www.heinzawards.net/recipients/jane-lubchenco (http://www.heinzawards.net/recipients/jane-lubchenco)

intrepid 24
03-04-2010, 07:59 PM
this why kerry did'nt support us

http://www.heinzawards.net/recipients/jane-lubchenco (http://www.heinzawards.net/recipients/jane-lubchenco)

oh my F*n GOD......this sort of thing does exist..AND have major effect on tuna fisherman...good god is there any justice.

twofinbluna
03-04-2010, 08:17 PM
I am trying to understand this, is he the one person that has the authority to make this call ?
ps, I just can't believe Kerry would'nt support the nor'east....thank god for Snowe !!!!!

He is a powerful Senator, and it would have really helped to have him supporting us. But of course, he didnt. Shows how much he cares about the fishermen in his state.

Snowe has been very helpful, thankfully.

Hooper
03-05-2010, 03:31 AM
Look on the bright side - it looks like POTUS and his environmental dictators may let us fish fon Spiny Dogfish instead. mmm much tastier than Bluefin.

And they'll hit a fly like nobody's business! :thumbsup:

Tunascapes
03-05-2010, 06:53 AM
Time to stop killing giants period!
Say what you want commercial con-artists.

Please tell me your kidding.

CMP
03-05-2010, 07:47 AM
He's not-he can't help himself and has NO CLUE as to bluefin issues world-wide. Best ignored on this issue...

CMP

Tunapooner
03-05-2010, 08:00 AM
POST FROM CB HAWS IN SPORTFISHING FORUM OF THT

"Post this on the Northeast Forum. The commercial hypocrites will jump all over you. We don't need to ship any bluefins to the whale eating Japanese".

CB Haws, 6:54 PM yesterday

Tunascapes
03-05-2010, 08:06 AM
If his point was to ban fishing all together I would have left it alone. To single the commercial guys out is laughable. I will stop there, I already have a headache today.

BACKTOTHESEA
03-05-2010, 08:20 AM
A couple excerpts from a NOAA study helps put some things into perspective on this issue:

Potential Economic Effects of a Ban on the Trade of North Atlantic Bluefin Tuna on US Commercial Fishermen


Prepared by NOAA Fisheries Service

October 2009


Overview

US Tuna Harvest: For the past decade, the United States has been a relatively small player in Atlantic bluefin production as well as other tuna production. Since 1998, the United States has produced on average 2.2% of Atlantic bluefin, 3.5% of Pacific bluefin, 2.3% of bigeye tuna, and 2.4% of yellowfin tuna total world production.[1] (http://www.thehulltruth.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=2829309#_ftn1) For the most recent five years, the US has played a smaller role in the world Atlantic bluefin tuna market, accounting for only 1.3% of total production from 2003-2007. As shown in Figure 1, US Atlantic bluefin tuna landings (revenue) fell 73% (-71%) from its peak in 2001 of 2.2 million pounds ($18.1 million) to 0.6 million pounds ($5.2 million) in 2008.

Trade ban effect on domestic prices (GOOD)

While US landings peaked in 2001 and then fell precipitously, as shown in Figure 7 below, domestic consumption rose dramatically and has exceeded US landings since 2004.... This suggests that a potential trade ban would result in reduced supply to the US market and, based on basic supply and demand principles, higher prices would result.

The BAD Side

A careful examination of recent market trends (2005-2008) reveals, however, that US consumption of Atlantic bluefin tuna has been declining since 2005 (Figure 7). Thus, while US demand was 3.5 times larger than domestic landings (Figure 8) in 2006, by 2008, US landings exceeded market demand by only 54% (i think this is a misprint and should read market demand exceeded US landings by only 54%) . In 2009, eroding economic conditions including declining income and wealth and reduced consumer confidence could decrease demand for high-end seafood products such as Atlantic bluefin tuna. A demand driven decline in price could be partially, fully or more than offset by a price increase anticipated from the supply-side driven price increase from a trade ban.:rofl::rofl:

And then there is this

There is concern, however, that a trade ban under CITES could have both the supply effects cited above and demand side effects. That is, US fishermen are concerned that environmentalists may use the CITES listing to organize a consumer boycott of Atlantic bluefin tuna. If such a campaign were effective in reducing demand for Atlantic bluefin tuna, any supply-side driven price increase could partially or more than be offset by the decrease in demand and potentially leave harvesters worse off.

Conclusion

US Atlantic bluefin tuna fleet revenues are most likely to increase as a result of a trade ban and landings ban of high seas catch. Because the United States is a significant net importer of Atlantic bluefin tuna, at the wholesale level we would expect price to rise as a result of a ban: fewer fish overall will be available to domestic wholesalers, which would tend to drive price up. The diversion of otherwise exportable fish to the domestic market would tend to dampen the price increase, but given that domestic consumption has been more than double domestic landings since 2005, some price rise is very likely.

Lastly, note that the impact on consumers of a trade ban depends upon the extent to which wholesalers are able to pass along the price increase they pay for Atlantic bluefin product to the consumers. The extent to which wholesalers can pass along the price increase cannot be determined from the information available.

CMEBoston
03-05-2010, 09:47 AM
If his point was to ban fishing all together I would have left it alone. To single the commercial guys out is laughable. I will stop there, I already have a headache today.
His point is to allow the killing of juvinile fish by elitist sportfishermen, he has no argument to back it up though.

luckytuna
03-05-2010, 11:02 AM
One of the reason the catch has droped is the midwater boats started fishing here around the time of declinning started. The last two years things were picking up with hearing around more and more tuna to .

RD1234
03-05-2010, 11:07 AM
Please tell me your kidding.

I think what he meant to say but he got mixed up was stop killing juvenile fish that have not had a chance to spawn once yet.

CMEBoston
03-05-2010, 12:22 PM
I think what he meant to say but he got mixed up was stop killing juvenile fish that have not had a chance to spawn once yet.
No he means what he said................

twofinbluna
03-05-2010, 02:57 PM
this why kerry did'nt support us

http://www.heinzawards.net/recipients/jane-lubchenco (http://www.heinzawards.net/recipients/jane-lubchenco)

WOW. I had missed this one yesterday. Again, WOW!

stickboat
03-05-2010, 02:57 PM
what cb is in denial about is that if comm cant fish for them , then he cant either, it will be just like harassing a whale.Hes always been a complete azz on here since the day he arrived.

twofinbluna
03-05-2010, 03:03 PM
Backtothesea- That study they did was a joke. They simply said "we import a lot so if we stop imports US fishermen will be fine"....everyone was fuming when it came out. And people at NOAA realized it, that is why they never did anything to shop it around. Its embarrassing to them since a 9th grader could have dont it better. It was put together to justify a position, it was not an objective study. (The only thing they did right was mention the impact of enviros on our domestic market, even if they did not do real justice to just how big an impact this would have.) One of the big dealers wrote this response, which sums up the reality of the situation, sorry for the Caps, this is how it was sent to me and I am not taking the time to fix it.

RESPONSE TO NOAA FISHERIES SERVICE ASSESMENT OF THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF A CITES LISTING OF ATLANTIC BLUEFIN TUNA ON U.S. COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN.

A U.S. BLUEFIN TUNA EXPORT BAN WOULD ESSENTUALLY CRIPPLE THE WHOLESALE DEALERS ABILITY TO MARKET OUR U.S. FISHERMENS PRODUCT.
THE NOAA FISHERIES SERVICE PERSONEL WHO DRAFTED THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF AN ATLANTIC BLUEFIN TUNA CITES LISTING ON US FISHERMEN HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMPLETE DYNAMICS OF WHOLESALE AND RETAIL SALES OF BLUEFIN TUNA IN THE U.S A AND IN JAPAN.

NO PARTICIPATION IN THE NOAA DOCUMENT WAS ASKED FROM THE U.S. BLUEFIN TUNA INDUSTRY OR ANY OTHER TUNA OR SEAFOOD INDUSTRY OR COUNCIL.

THE MAJORITY OF THE U.S. DOMESTIC BLUEFIN TUNA LANDINGS (90%) HAPPEN IN SHORT TIME PERIODS. THE U.S. FISHERY IS ACTIVE ONLY FOR 5 MONTHS IN NEW ENGLAND AND 2 MONTHS IN NORTH CAROLINA. DURING THESE MONTHS IT IS COMMON TO HAVE LARGE BLUEFIN LANDINGS WHERE 100 METRIC TONS ARE LANDED IN A FEW DAYS TIME. HISTORICAL DATA CONFIRMS THESE LARGE LANDINGS OVER RELATIVELY SMALL TIME PERIODS.

THE U.S. DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION IS NOT CAPABLE OF ABSORBING THESE LARGE VOLUMES OF BLUEFIN TUNA IN SUCH SHORT TIME SPANS. EXPORT OF BLUEFIN IS CRITICAL TO PREVENT A PRICE CRASH. DURING ENORMOUS LANDINGS IN SHORT TIME PERIOD THE U.S WHOLESALE DEALERS ARE CAPABLE OF SELLING A MAXIMUM OF 15%-20% OF THESE BLUEFIN LANDINGS DOMESTICALLY. THE OTHER 80% MUST BE EXPORTED.

THERE SEEMS TO BE LITTLE OR NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE MARKETING OF THE WORLD WIDE TUNA SUPPLY AND DEMAND AND VALUE BY NOAA ECONOMISTS IN THEIR DOCUMENT. THEY ARE ONLY APPLYING THE MOST BASIC PRINCIPLES OF ECONOMICS, USING ONLY DATA THAT THEY HAVE AT HAND (IE: BI-WEEKLY REPORTING OF U.S. BLUEFIN EXPORT, IMPORT AND DOMESTIC SALES) WITHOUT ASKING INDUSTRY FOR INPUT OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE IS A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE WITHIN THE BLUEFIN INDUSTRY. WHEN NOAA COMPARES PRICES OF EXPORTS AND DOMESTIC PRICES THEY DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE DOMESTIC PRICES VARY DUE TO QUALITY. LEAN BLUEFIN ARE SOLD DOMESTICALY FOR LOW PRICES. ALL OTHER FISH SOLD DOMESTIC ARE OF VERY HIGH QUALITY AND BRING TOP PRICES. THESE TOP PRICE FISH SALES ARE OF LIMITED VOLUME. WE CANNOT JUST INSTANTANEOUSLY SELL 100 HIGH PRICE FISH IN THE U.S. AS THE DOCUMENT SUGGESTS. WITHOUT EXPORT CAPABILITIES THE U.S. BLUEFIN VESSEL PRICES WILL DROP TO $3 PER LB. DURING ANY VOLUME LANDINGS WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR 80 %-90% OF THE HARVEST.

ANOTHER ASPECT THAT DIRECTLY AFFECTS PRICE IS THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF DOMESTIC AND IMPORTED BIGEYE, YELLOWFIN AND SOUTHERN BLUEFIN TUNA. ALL HAVE LARGE IMPACTS ON THE PRICE AND VOLUME OF SALES OF DOMESTIC ATLANTIC BLUEFIN TUNA IN THE U.S. FOR EXAMPLE IF EQUADOR EXPORTS 20 TONS OF FATTY BIGEYE AND TRINIDAD EXPORTS 20 TONS OF YELLOWFIN TUNA INTO THE U.S. AND AT THE SAME TIME U.S. FISHERMAN LAND 100 GIANT BLUEFIN TUNA, THE BLUEFIN PRICE WILL BE $3. IF ANOTHER 100 FISH IS LANDED THE NEXT DAY IN THE GENERAL CATEGORY OR IF THE PURSE SEINER CATEGORY MAKES A BIG SET, THESE BLUEFIN WILL BE WORTHLESS.

THE CITES LISTING OF BLUEFIN TUNA WILL RESULT IN A LARGE LOSS OF THE U.S. TUNA MARKET SHARE. WE ALL KNOW THAT SALES WILL BE DECIMATED BY THIS LISTING. U.S. CONSUMERS WILL REACT TO THE LISTING IN A VERY NEGATIVE FASHION, CREATING A BLACKLIST OR BOYCOTT OF BLUEFIN TUNA. THEY WILL TURN THEIR TASTES TO ANOTHER SPECIES OF TUNA OR EVEN POSSIBLY STOP EATING TUNA ALL TOGETHER AND SUBSTITUTING ANOTHER FISH. WHEN THIS HAPPENS THE DOMESTIC SALES OF BLUEFIN TUNA WILL BE A FRACTION OF WHAT THEY ARE TODAY IN VOLUME AND IN REVENUE.

luckytuna
03-05-2010, 03:50 PM
WOW. I had missed this one yesterday. Again, WOW!
nice ha chris there were a couple others he linked to

BACKTOTHESEA
03-05-2010, 04:11 PM
Backtothesea- That study they did was a joke. .

I realize that. That was the whole purpose of my post with my comments and laughter. More importantly, though, the study demonstrated how little the US actually harvest compared to the worldwide harvest, something like 1.5% in the most recent years.

A cites listing can only harm the US, while in essence bolster the market for those countries that do not sign on.

twofinbluna
03-05-2010, 04:17 PM
I realize that. That was the whole purpose of my post with my comments and laughter. More importantly, though, the study demonstrated how little the US actually harvest compared to the worldwide harvest, something like 1.5% in the most recent years.

A cites listing can only harm the US, while in essence bolster the market for those countries that do not sign on.

Agreed, I was not implying that you thought it was a good study, but wanted to post that info so people could see it.

twofinbluna
03-05-2010, 08:02 PM
Guys- if you want to really help out and make sure we are able to send someone over to the CITES meeting, please join ABTA and make a donation. Much of what has been done the last 5 months or so has been volunteer efforts but we cannot send someone to Doha without $$$$. People have started to help out more in recent days, but we need more help. Our opponents are puttings millions and millions of dollars into this and while we will never have that, we need something.

Here is the ABTA site which will show you how to join and donate:

ABTA (http://theabta.com/contactus.html)

CB Haws
03-06-2010, 08:39 AM
Saw this posted up on another board. I think it pretty well sums up why you commercial guys don't agree with the cites listing.

"The only way we are commercially fishing for tuna this year if if the other countries vote this down. If voted for all bluefin sales(if any) will have to stay local and get a shitty price. $2 -$6 bucks/pound for the end user. Not the fisherman....
Plus a majority of these fish come in waves...During a two week span in June nearly a 1/4 of the quota was cought and same with October (more then a 1/4) This will flood the market and make the price even lower. SAD...


And for the RECS who say I dont care or what does this mean for me...if this passes...trust me you will not be bringing any tuna back to the dock legally."

I hope this is true. I don't give a sheeet if you all starve fishing for Giants. You want to sell to the Japanese because you are greedy bastards and don't really care about the Giant Bluefins. You blame the problem on other countries, rec fisherman and anyone but yourselves. If you want the save Bluefins you just have to stop killing the ones at the top of the food chain, the breeders. You blab on about killing them before the reach breeding age. Give me a break. As a % very few Bluefins reach breeding age due to natural mortality (getting eaten by another fish). Some of you blame the hook and line rec fisherman for the problems. Shut the F up. You don't have a clue.
Band the sale of Giants period.
As for the comment about recs not getting to keep Bluefins, dude that is old news. I have seem the season go from as many as you wanted to 5 fish per boat to closed seasons before the NJ Bite got any fish, to one small school, to one under 47 and one over. As far I am concerned the Rec Bluefin fishery has not been worth the diesel fuel. While you commercial pucks just kept on killing in the name of profit only (greed).
CMP go do you know what to yourself.

twofinbluna
03-06-2010, 12:43 PM
Man, you are really annoying CB. Go spew your anti-commercial nonsense somewhere else. You are useless.

CMP
03-06-2010, 03:18 PM
As I said, Chris, this asshole has no clue what he's talking about-never has regardless of the subject. Just a loud-mouth asshole yapping to hear himself speak. Best ignored, I do...

CMP

intrepid 24
03-06-2010, 03:55 PM
...I have respect for fisherman in the general category, as well as the rec category, from flyrodders to handliners.
I myself am in the general, and selling a fish requires a bit of paperwork, etc. It would seem that all of the fish were accounted for, and applied toward a quota.
So, I wanna ask this question about the "one trophy/year"...how does one report that info to noaa ? i've never seen nor heard of a form....can anyone post one here ?
I saw alot of fish hovering @ the 73" mark last season......i don't suppose there would be those taking more than 1 trophy per season, and never reporting it, I have alot of friends in both categories, and they are successful, AND respectfull of the others endeavors.
why is that such a difficult thing for some people ?

twofinbluna
03-06-2010, 08:12 PM
Good story in today's Gloucester Daily Times on the CITES decision, found: HERE (http://www.gloucestertimes.com/punews/local_story_064220823.html?dsq=38397619#comment-38397619)

andyp262
03-07-2010, 05:10 AM
...I have respect for fisherman in the general category, as well as the rec category, from flyrodders to handliners.
I myself am in the general, and selling a fish requires a bit of paperwork, etc. It would seem that all of the fish were accounted for, and applied toward a quota.
So, I wanna ask this question about the "one trophy/year"...how does one report that info to noaa ? i've never seen nor heard of a form....can anyone post one here ?
I saw alot of fish hovering @ the 73" mark last season......i don't suppose there would be those taking more than 1 trophy per season, and never reporting it, I have alot of friends in both categories, and they are successful, AND respectfull of the others endeavors.
why is that such a difficult thing for some people ?

youre supposed to call NOAA and report your catch. half the sports out there catching them dont even have a permit, nevermind calling to report their catch. no catch forms for the sports. to that point, i know a friend of a friend who catches at least 6 (he is self employed) small fish a season. half the time he is too lazy to clean the fish and is giving them away to people who have no clue what to do with them. ive never once heard him mention anything about calling to report his catch

luckytuna
03-07-2010, 01:17 PM
i know of atleast three or more giants over 73 inches put in the back of pickups with rec permits . that alot of meat for some one

intrepid 24
03-08-2010, 12:22 PM
i know of atleast three or more giants over 73 inches put in the back of pickups with rec permits . that alot of meat for some one

well, i'm sure those giants were reported as that 1 trophy per year, because rec's care sooooo much more about the well-being abt, and all of the comm's, who are only interested in $...would drive the resource to extinction for a dollar (according to SOME in this country).
I would love to see the data of how many rec's ever reported a fish over 73" as their only giant taken. Is there a quota on t the amount that can be taken for that situation ??
IF anyone could share some statistics on this issue, I and some friends would very much appreciate it.

BACKTOTHESEA
03-08-2010, 02:27 PM
[quote=intrepid 24;2832190So, I wanna ask this question about the "one trophy/year"...how does one report that info to noaa ? i've never seen nor heard of a form....can anyone post one here ?
I saw alot of fish hovering @ the 73" mark last season......i don't suppose there would be those taking more than 1 trophy per season, and never reporting it, I have alot of friends in both categories, and they are successful, AND respectfull of the others endeavors.
why is that such a difficult thing for some people ?[/quote]

You go to the permit section and there is a place to enter your permit number.

The following link has landing reports:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/hmsdocument_files/Tuna.htm

gerg
03-08-2010, 02:45 PM
Guys, all you have to do is a simple google search and you will find a lot of reports of both rec's AND comm's who take fish out of season, over their limit, under the min length, transfering fish at sea, or without the correct permits.

Neither community is free of dirtbags. It's not something one side can get away with throwing at the other. Just like there are a few dirty cops, there are also a lot of very outstanding ones.

What does it even have to do with CITES?



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0