Northeast - here the end to tuna fishing

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.




View Full Version : here the end to tuna fishing


luckytuna
03-10-2010, 03:12 PM
Following is a news release from WWF, ABTA will provide more info after the conditions are examined. Don't though the rope over the beam yet!! Ralph

Subject: WWF Bluefin Tuna Bulletin 108 - EU backs international tradeban
Bluefin Tuna Bulletin #108
The voice of the bluefin - news from WWF Mediterranean on the bluefin
tuna fishery in crisis.
 
WWF Media Statement For immediate release, 10 March 2010
* * * All 27 EU countries to back Atlantic bluefin tuna international
trade ban * * *
Brussels, Belgium – WWF applauds the confirmation from European Union
member states that they will vote for a ban on international commercial
trade in Atlantic bluefin tuna during a meeting of the largest wildlife
trade convention starting this week.
The 27 EU members said today they would vote to list Atlantic bluefin
tuna on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species (CITES), joining a growing list of supporting
countries, including the United States of America.
"WWF welcomes the EU announcement, which will give this devastated
species the possibility to recover," said Dr Sergi Tudela, Head of
Fisheries at WWF Mediterranean. "Other governments must back the ban
when they meet for CITES later this week."
"The EU is a major trade and development partner in many key regions of
the world, and some countries may have been hanging back on Atlantic
bluefin tuna to see what the Europeans would decide to do," Tudela said.
 
"With the two largest holders of bluefin tuna fishing quota on either
side of the Atlantic – the U.S. and EU – now supporting the trade ban,
other countries should follow suit," Dr Tudela said.
"Our only remaining concern is that we do not understand the continuing
need on the part of the EU for conditions to be attached to the Appendix
I listing. WWF believes this trade ban should be implemented
immediately, without conditions or delay.
"The EU must now push for widespread support of this proposal during the
CITES meeting."
The proposal to list Atlantic bluefin tuna on CITES Appendix I was
submitted by the Principality of Monaco in October. Atlantic bluefin
tuna is at serious risk of commercial extinction because of decades of
unsustainable and illegal fishing in the Mediterranean Sea, driven by
demand from Japan’s luxury seafood markets.
The eligibility of Atlantic bluefin tuna for the CITES Appendix I
listing proposal is backed by independent experts including a United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization panel, and the scientific
committee of the International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the regional fisheries management organization
in charge of this fishery.
The 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES
CoP 15) will take place March 13-25 in Doha, Qatar. The Convention is an
international agreement between governments that aims to ensure that
international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not
threaten their survival in the wild.
 
Note to editor: Footage, photos and other material media available at
www.panda.org/cites/media
* * *
Please see www.panda.org/tuna or contact WWF Mediterranean Programme for
further information.
Regards,
WWF


PJJR
03-10-2010, 03:39 PM
Uh Oh :o

Birdman
03-10-2010, 04:05 PM
Except for the obvious hit on commercial tuna fisherman, isn't this a good thing?


PJJR
03-10-2010, 05:11 PM
Depends on how long and the recreational guys don't really put a dent in the catch compared to the commercial guys.

CMP
03-10-2010, 05:24 PM
You think the pew assholes and the other enviro-nazi douchebags in the obummer admin are gonna stop here? If you do, you'r eeven more stupid than the comments you just made indicate...

CMP

twofinbluna
03-10-2010, 05:29 PM
Guys, this should be a lesson in why you should never believe what WWF tells you.

What we have been told is that EU has supported a conditional listing of bluefin. That is, they are only supporting it if certain conditions are attached to the listing- one of them, we have been told, being a delayed entry into force. In other words, they are supporting a listing after a set amount of time (18 months is what we have been told), which would allow for ICCAT nations to get into compliance. So not only are they not supporting a full blown listing, but there is some debate about whether a delayed entry is even allowed. If it isnt, than this position would actually be a non-position, and the real position would only be revealed at the CITES meeting in the coming weeks.

Until an actual EU press release comes out, none of us will know for sure, but that is what we have been led to believe. People really need to stop reading the BS that WWF puts out. They are so full of **** it is not even funny. They tell you what they want you to hear, in the hopes that it will dupe you into believing it. In this case, they want CITES nations to believe the EU supported a full blown listing so that they will then vote for the listing themselves. Its call propaganda. Dont believe it. Nobody will know where the EU is going to go until the vote actually happens.

PJJR
03-10-2010, 05:34 PM
Twofin - thanks for the clarification

luckytuna
03-10-2010, 05:40 PM
Depends on how long and the recreational guys don't really put a dent in the catch compared to the commercial guys.

are you ok the rec kill more tuna than the com it 3-4 rec tun to one giant. and if you think you will fish if it passes you are gone . they will shut it all down

Irish Jig 78
03-10-2010, 05:43 PM
This is a disgrace!

There's no way (in my opinion) that they're going to allow recreational BFT fishing and not commercial. The Mediterranean is at fault for this, for sure, ever see the Discovery special, "Tuna Wranglers"?
It's sickening.

There's alot of scary stuff going on w/ these green/conserv groups but it's not just them...it's our own politicians that we voted into office as well; check out the post from the Lady Diane the other day...Barack is backing all of this!

Recreational...Commercial...it doesn't matter; if they approve this, we're all S.O.L.!

GT FISH
03-10-2010, 06:58 PM
Can anyone dis agree that he stocks are not in good shape?

intrepid 24
03-10-2010, 06:59 PM
Guys, this should be a lesson in why you should never believe what WWF tells you.

What we have been told is that EU has supported a conditional listing of bluefin. That is, they are only supporting it if certain conditions are attached to the listing- one of them, we have been told, being a delayed entry into force. In other words, they are supporting a listing after a set amount of time (18 months is what we have been told), which would allow for ICCAT nations to get into compliance. So not only are they not supporting a full blown listing, but there is some debate about whether a delayed entry is even allowed. If it isnt, than this position would actually be a non-position, and the real position would only be revealed at the CITES meeting in the coming weeks.

Until an actual EU press release comes out, none of us will know for sure, but that is what we have been led to believe. People really need to stop reading the BS that WWF puts out. They are so full of **** it is not even funny. They tell you what they want you to hear, in the hopes that it will dupe you into believing it. In this case, they want CITES nations to believe the EU supported a full blown listing so that they will then vote for the listing themselves. Its call propaganda. Dont believe it. Nobody will know where the EU is going to go until the vote actually happens.

I have been trying to research donations made by certain large enviro groups, any tips ?
Just thought it would demonstrate clearly how a donation might influence a countries policy on this issue.

twofinbluna
03-10-2010, 08:04 PM
That is something I have wondered about but I have not come across anything. There is certainly a ton of money being spent on this battle, one person who has been involved in CITES for decades said that he has never seen anything like this in terms of the level of effort being put in to getting a species listed. He said nothing comes close. It seems that a lot of the money being spent is on lobbying and press. I can barely use the internet anymore without coming across ten stories about the need for a listing. If you come across anything let us know.

What I want to know is how they got Monaco to make the proposal in the first place.

twofinbluna
03-10-2010, 08:11 PM
Can anyone dis agree that he stocks are not in good shape?

I think everyone can agree that management has not been effective but the solution is not CITES. The only solution is to get enough pressure on ICCAT to do what is right. They made big changes this fall and they know the pressure is on to make even more changes at the next meeting. While they have failed us in the past, I have faith that given all this new pressure that they will be smart enough to make the necessary changes in the coming years. This CITES threat is not going away until they make those changes.

But again, CITES is not the answer. It was never meant to be used for fisheries management and all it will do is add a whole new level of complex rules to a system that does not need more complex rules. Countries like Japan will take reservations and so you will end up with the US, Canada and maybe a few others paying the biggest price. It will also make the black market grow immensely. The only solution for real long term management is for ICCAT to do its job. It can be probably be argued that the threat of CITES has been helpful in getting ICCAT to take this seriously, but thats where it should have ended. A listing will not do any good and will punish those who have followed the rules.

Look at all the pressure that has been put on by some to get this listing. If half of that pressure had been put on ICCAT it would have done so much good. Hopefully this listing will be shot down and the pressure will stay on ICCAT and they will do what is needed to ensure proper management.

Tunapooner
03-11-2010, 03:13 AM
Depends on how long and the recreational guys don't really put a dent in the catch compared to the commercial guys.

PJJR are you kidding? For every commercially harvested 73"+ bluefin, there are at least 10 caught and retained recreational bluefin. See it every day I fish. Not trying to start a debate about this, but look around you next time and count the number of recreational boats around you. I won't even get in to the number of boats who do not hold a recreational HMS Permit or hold a permit and do not report their catch.

LI32
03-11-2010, 05:00 AM
PJJR are you kidding? For every commercially harvested 73"+ bluefin, there are at least 10 caught and retained recreational bluefin. See it every day I fish. Not trying to start a debate about this, but look around you next time and count the number of recreational boats around you. I won't even get in to the number of boats who do not hold a recreational HMS Permit or hold a permit and do not report their catch.

Where do you get your statistics from?
Commercial guys take (and commercial includes head boats, charter boats and longliners) take a far greater share of the Bluefin catch than recreationals - at 1 or 2 per trip ever do or for that matter could.

madkate88
03-11-2010, 06:07 AM
You think the pew assholes and the other enviro-nazi douchebags in the obummer admin are gonna stop here? If you do, you'r eeven more stupid than the comments you just made indicate...

CMP

X2

Tunascapes
03-11-2010, 06:58 AM
Where do you get your statistics from?
Commercial guys take (and commercial includes head boats, charter boats and longliners) take a far greater share of the Bluefin catch than recreationals - at 1 or 2 per trip ever do or for that matter could.

Can you please explain to me how the wide open YEAR LONG slaughter of sub 73" fish is ok. Check your numbers cause the amount of recs fars exceeds the number of commercial. Right now they are doing there thing off of hatteras putting plenty of small fish on the dock and not a single plus 73" is being sold. I understand that each region should get a go at their shot for the recs in a season however the mismanagement of the rec fishery is just appalling. I would consider the piss poor management of the rec fishery in line with how bad the med is managed.

PJJR
03-11-2010, 07:45 AM
Originally Posted by LI32 http://www.thehulltruth.com/cb/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thehulltruth.com/northeast/270969-here-end-tuna-fishing.html#post2842301)
Where do you get your statistics from>
Commercial guys take (and commercial includes head boats, charter boats and longliners) take a far greater share of the Bluefin catch than recreationals - at 1 or 2 per trip ever do or for that matter could. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Tunascapes : What "you see" is not the WHOLE REALITY, the # of permits are simply permits, not catches. The amount of tuna caught commercially is 90% of the problem. Do you think that the foreign fleets don't keep small fish ?

Codfisher
03-11-2010, 08:33 AM
According to NMFS Landing Reports (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/newslist/2010/02-24-10_2009_Lg_Med_Giant_Bluefin_Tuna_Landings_Report. pdf) commercial fisherman in 2009 landed a total of 2,487 fish which represented only 42.1% of their alloted quota.

Charter/Headboat operators are considered recreational and are not included in commercial landing reports (unless they have declared a trip commercial and fish under commercial restricitons).

Recreational anglers do in fact catch many more bluefin tuna than commercials. This is why we are concerned that if a CITES I listing is approved there is a very likely chance that the US Fish & Wildlife service would have a severe problem with recreational fisherman killing the "babies" of an endangered species. They have just banned the taking of wolfish and they are only considered a "species of concern", so the pressure will be on them to close down the tuna fishery by enviromental groups who have been advocating such.

Fisherman need to stand together in this battle and not point fingers at one sector or another...thats exactly what the antis are hoping for. JMO

luckytuna
03-11-2010, 08:37 AM
Depends on how long and the recreational guys don't really put a dent in the catch compared to the commercial guys.

the recs have been catching more than com the last few years

https://hmspermits.noaa.gov/other/bluefin%20tuna%20specifications%20listserve%20noti ce%206-01-09.pdf

Irish Jig 78
03-11-2010, 10:00 AM
Well stated George...you hit it dead on!

blackfinmike
03-11-2010, 12:17 PM
the recs have been catching more than com the last few years

https://hmspermits.noaa.gov/other/bluefin%20tuna%20specifications%20listserve%20noti ce%206-01-09.pdf

Re-read it right, 199 tons for rec's (angling) and just in general (which is commercial) is 475 tons, now add all the rest which is all commercial and the total is 1000 (+ or -) and subtract 199 tons from that. In case it's hard, commercial is harvesting 5 times rec's according those numbers.;?

PJJR
03-11-2010, 12:19 PM
The NMFS numbers are garbage, as we all know. The real problem is lack of real scientific numbers. Where are the foreign fleets numbers? This isn't a species that stays only in our waters. To use those statistics is just more conjecture.
But I have to agree that if they split the Rec-Comm guys we are going to lose.
Here is NMFS #'s:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/images_fw/header.gif fishwatch home (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/) | about fishwatch (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/about_us.htm) | management (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/management.htm) | gear (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/fishinggears.htm) | profiles in fishing (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/profiles.htm) | trade (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/trade_and_aquaculture.htm) | seafood & health (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/seafood_and_health.htm) http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/images_fw/header_title.gif http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/images_fw/transparent.gif
Search Species Search NMFS

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus)



Atlantic bluefin tuna population levels are low. International overfishing is occurring.
Atlantic bluefin tuna is a highly migratory species that requires high levels of international cooperation for appropriate management and conservation. It is managed both domestically (by NOAA Fisheries Service Highly Migratory Species Management Division) and internationally (by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (http://www.iccat.es/) and other organizations). The United States recently announced (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091014_bluefintuna.html) that it supports a proposal to list Atlantic bluefin tuna under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (http://www.cites.org/) to prohibit international trade of the species.
Bluefin is low in sodium and is a very good source of vitamins A, B6, and B12, selenium, niacin, and phosphorous. For more on nutrition, see Nutrition Facts. (USDA)
Atlantic bluefin tuna is the highest valued Atlantic tuna species in the market. The United States is responsible for about 2% of the global Atlantic bluefin tuna catch. Over half of the U.S. catch is exported to foreign markets, primarily Japan. The United States also imports bluefin tuna for consumption, mainly from Malta, Canada, and Spain, among several other countries.

Last paragraph: "The US is responsible for about 2% of the Global Atlantic bluefin tuna Market."

We ONLY catch 2%

luckytuna
03-11-2010, 01:10 PM
Re-read it right, 199 tons for rec's (angling) and just in general (which is commercial) is 475 tons, now add all the rest which is all commercial and the total is 1000 (+ or -) and subtract 199 tons from that. In case it's hard, commercial is harvesting 5 times rec's according those numbers.;?
ya but how many rec fish from 27" to 73" does it take to get to a real giant . com catch 3000 on a good year the recs catch 10000 the recs always catch more than com. the gove just don't put it out much they play games with the numbers

blackfinmike
03-11-2010, 01:44 PM
ya but how many rec fish from 27" to 73" does it take to get to a real giant . com catch 3000 on a good year the recs catch 10000 the recs always catch more than com. the gove just don't put it out much they play games with the numbers

From what was posted the 199 ton number is all the numbers below added up, that is the total for Recs. The next box down is general (which is com.) and that total is 475 ton, again, all numbers added up and the total on the top of the box. That is how that whole page is done, except for the last total number on the bottom which is 1000 and something ton. Rec is only the top box, the rest is com.:rofl::rofl: Finally numbers that make sense:rofl::rofl:

PJJR
03-11-2010, 05:57 PM
Luckytuna : Give it up!! No way rec's catch nearly as much blue fin as commercials. FACT :grin: PERIOD!! Take the NMFS data and READ it Again :)

The US catches 2% of the Atlantic Blue fin Tuna :o That's All ?

ARGGHHH We are almost on the same side, except you are totally wrong.

OPPS ! The Truth Shall prevail !! despite the dumb numbers.

If three trawlers were working the same area, which one would catch more small blue fin tuna ?

Answer : The ones from Indonesia !!

See Ya :joincc:

Really,get your facts in order then go check them again :banghead:

CMP
03-11-2010, 06:08 PM
You ppl are what is known as useful imbeciles for 2 reasons. First, you buy nmfs numbers. Second, you believe that recreational numbers are anywhere close to accurate and honestly reported. The funny thing is that none of this is releveant to the plight of bluefin tuna. Imbeciles like you 2 dumbphucks who buy into the nmfs failures amuse me to no end. The fact that you buy into this sh!t tells me that you are a newcomer to this game with no concept as to what has happened or will happen.

The numbers tell the tale, shitheads. The US and Canada are a pisshole in the snow whe it comes to harvesting tuna. The eurotrash and africans kill such prodigious numbers of far smaller fish than we do that our participation in the fishery is a fucking joke. ANYONE who has the patheric temerity to bitch about US commercial or charter fishermen with regard to the plight in which we find ourselves is a phucking imbecile and if I were asked to say this face to face, I will be happy to do so. Ignorance is ok unless and until you become "not ignorant"and at that point, you are just a fucking idiot. Do the math.We are not, and never have been, the problem. The bad actors need to be held to account...

CMP

jbg108
03-11-2010, 06:17 PM
I bet one in five rec. Bluefin are reported at best. It's probably more like one in ten.

RD1234
03-11-2010, 06:49 PM
Are these guys really going off what the Rec QUOTA was in 2009???? Yeah the Rec quota was 199mt but the Recs blew way past 199 and that was reported fish. Multiply what was reported for the Recs atleast by 1.3 to get the real number if not more.

There is no quota for small fish. It just goes on and on. It never gets shut down. You're telling me you think the quota wasn't hit in 2009 about Sept 1 and shouldn't have been closed? As far as I'm concerned there is no rec quota. I've personally never seen it closed once reached. Joke...lifeblood of the fishery and it's just a year long catch. Hell of a plan.

Don't get me wrong...plenty of small fish out there so a reasonable small fish take is acceptable.

And it's not about tonnage caught as giants weigh alot more than small fish. It's about the fish count. If 500mt of giants were caught and 300mt of 140lb ave. fish were caught alot more small fish died than big fish. For quick math a metirc ton is 2,000lb. Figure it out.

For the love of God I saw guys come in with 30-37" fish last year. Get friggin real. How friggin short sighted do you want to be? And these guys were in big expensive boats and had caught 150lb fish the week prior and it wasn't like they were in need of meat.

Yeah, yeah we (the U.S.) catch 2% but we don't have to be douches about it.

I am tired of this f*cken debate. Anyone who thinks killing 10,000 juvenile fish in 2009 that have never spawned from Maine to NC either has not been in this fishery very long or doesn't have the first clue about science & biology. Or both. You choose.

Another Rec debate I Iove is "Why should I let a 65" fish go just so when it gets to 83" you catch and sell it". Because when that fish hit 79" it spawned for the first time and replaced itself in the population. Come on. Do some research. And while you're at it show a little repect for the guys who have been working this fishery for years and years. 5 years ago you were friggin stiper & bluefishing and now you've caught a couple dozen small fish and you're a friggin expert.

And I do believe there should be a Rec fishery with better controls, better catch data and closures once quotas are met. Rec fishing is very important to the waterfront community and economy.

Have a nice night unless you've made other plans.

PJJR
03-11-2010, 07:01 PM
See Ya

Too much Red Red Wine ! LOL

I'm surprised that the spelling was coherent LMAO

So I amended it to what can be understood, but in my crazy mind I actually know what I meant, but I should have been politer, but Red Red Wine prevented it.

RD1234
03-11-2010, 07:37 PM
Aren't you the voice of: "your own stupid ego"

A genius in your own tme, "ER" mind, if you have one,?

I already stated the the NMFS #'s are crap, But you must prove that your mind is crap too ?

It takes a "Village of Idiots" to prove that you are an idiot too !!

Don't tax me bro, I'm incapable of figuring out the numbers.

Don't stop Now !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What is your problem. I don't root for the Pats ?

Too Friggin BAd

See Ya

No one knows what any of that means but See Ya.

twofinbluna
03-11-2010, 08:59 PM
I think that right now we have a lot bigger issues to deal with than this and I have no interest in getting into a rec/commercial debate. Both sectors are important and think we need to do what we can to protect both. But at the same time its important to get some of these facts right. Some of the things that have been said here are just not accurate.

PJJR-

First, is there really any need for the comments about the commercial fishery? Our commercial fishery is extremely well managed and has not caused any problems, and so I do not see the reason for you making those comments.

Second, You are wrong about the breakdown in recent years between the commercial and recreational sectors of our fishery. Your mistake is looking at the quota for the upcoming year and assuming that has anything to do with recent landings. The same goes for the commercial fishery- you are looking at what the quota is for next year, but the quota has not been caught in a number of years. While, thankfully the landings have been growing over the last couple years in the commercial fishery with the lack of midwater boats inshore during the season, we still are not back to catching our quotas. Assuming we get through the CITES thing intact, I think you will see it continue to grow until we get pretty close to catching our Harpoon and General quotas, even with the dogfish plague.

But the fact is that the US rec fishery has caught been catching an amount similar to that of the commercial fishery (tonnage) over the last 5-6 years, with a 2-3 years of greater landings in that span. And in terms of #s of fish, the rec fishery has estimated landings much higher than the commercial fishery in all of those years. This past year it will probably be closer in terms of tonnage since we did a lot better in the commercial fishery than in recent years, but the the rec fishery still caught way more in terms of numbers of fish. If we start filling the commercial quota then you will see the landings in that sector probably double the rec fishery but even then the rec fishery will still be landing more fish (in terms of #s). In terms of the accuracy of the estimates, I think you would find a lot more people who would guess the landings are probably higher than estimated than the other way around.

Dont take that to be a hit on the rec fishery, because its not, and I am just pointing that out because its important for people to know the facts. The bottom line is that with all that is going on right now there is no need for us to be having this argument. And while its important for us to manage our domestic fisheries as well as we can, our landings have been dwarfed by the rest of the world over the last couple decades.

twofinbluna
03-11-2010, 09:02 PM
Once again a big thank you to Senator Snowe and her staff...

---------------

Snowe Reiterates Opposition to Endangered Listing for Bluefin Tuna in Phone Conversation with Interior Secretary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, March 11, 2010
CONTACTS 202-224-5344

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, in a one-on-one phone conversation with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, U.S. Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Ranking Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, reiterated her opposition 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 called the decision reckless and said it would ultimately prove ineffectual and cause disproportionate harm to the U.S. bluefin tuna fishery.

“Today, I reiterated to Secretary Salazar my strong opposition to listing bluefin tuna under CITES,” said Senator Snowe. “It is the wrong policy decision at the wrong time for this fishery and for our coastal economy. ICCAT has committed to scientifically-based catch limits that will rebuild the population, and we should give proper fisheries management the chance to do its job instead of imposing restrictions that quite simply will not achieve the desired outcome of rebuilding bluefin populations.”

On March 3, 2010, the Department of Interior announced that it intends to support Monaco’s proposal to list bluefin under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), even though last November, the International Commission on Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) took strong strides towards responsible management, cutting the total allowable catch of the eastern stock to just 13,500 metric tons (more than a 40% reduction from 2009), and committing to impose catch limits that have at least a 60% probability of rebuilding the stock by 2023 following the new scientific assessment that will be presented at the 2010 meeting next fall.

U.S. landings of bluefin have declined steadily from 2000-2008, due in large part to increasingly strict management provisions designed to protect this valuable species. In 2000, US fishermen caught over 1100 metric tons of bluefin worth more than $19.1 million. By 2008, those figures had declined to just over 300 metric tons valued at $4.7 million.

“U.S. fishermen have led the world in efforts to reduce harvest and rebuild depleted stocks of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Supporting policies that will further disadvantage our industry sends a terrible message to fishermen and to the rest of the world that doing the right thing and imposing strict domestic harvest reductions will only beget greater penalties,” added Senator Snowe. “We should pursue policies that reward Nations like the U.S. that manage domestic fisheries responsibly.”

###

PJJR
03-12-2010, 08:47 AM
Twofin

My comments about commercials are meant for the foreign fleets, heck the US only harvests 2%.

CSBennett
03-12-2010, 09:55 AM
Looks like there may be a pretty big striper fleet this season if it all goes south.

Birdman
03-12-2010, 12:25 PM
1st: You Commercials are absolutly idiots, PERIOD, if you want to argue the Rec's vs Comm's on tuna, and YOU KNOW IT. So just STOP it. You sound like 2 year old that no yoru wrong. The takage between comm's and Rec's is not even on the same map. Yes, there are 200 recs for every commercail boat probably. But guess what, 198 of those recs, don't go out. Of the 2 that do, 1 MAYBE catches a fish or two. Of the Comm's that go out (AKA ALL OF THEM!), THEY ALL take 100's of fish. Give that argument a rest already. Com's take more fish, and there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, deal with it, admit it.

That said, as stated, until the rest of the world stops picking apart the oceans, what either of us takes makes no difference. Hell, the japs are still killing whales for gods sake!!

RD1234
03-12-2010, 06:21 PM
1st: You Commercials are absolutly idiots, PERIOD, if you want to argue the Rec's vs Comm's on tuna, and YOU KNOW IT. So just STOP it. You sound like 2 year old that no yoru wrong. The takage between comm's and Rec's is not even on the same map. Yes, there are 200 recs for every commercail boat probably. But guess what, 198 of those recs, don't go out. Of the 2 that do, 1 MAYBE catches a fish or two. Of the Comm's that go out (AKA ALL OF THEM!), THEY ALL take 100's of fish. Give that argument a rest already. Com's take more fish, and there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, deal with it, admit it.

That said, as stated, until the rest of the world stops picking apart the oceans, what either of us takes makes no difference. Hell, the japs are still killing whales for gods sake!!

You're confused. It's okay.

shinerdunker
03-12-2010, 06:37 PM
Can only speak for our small harbor in Ma., but I saw over 170 recreationaly caught fish come to the dock with an average weight a hair under 140lbs. 9 commercial fish with an average weight of 305lbs were sold. I can't imagine what the numbers at the trailer jump off (we don't have a ramp) and charter boat harbors near us were. My guess is 5x as many fish but I really don't know.

When you think about how many harbors and ramps in our state have access to this fishery, the numbers of recreationaly caught fish become really large. Factor in the great spring fishery in NC and the summertime Juvy fishery off Jersey and the numbers become numbingly huge.

I hate seeing nmfs rely on such obviously terrible data from the reporting system. Perhaps if they went to a tag system they might get some data that is at least reasonably close.

Not trying to rain on anybody's argument - just reporting what I saw firsthand.

jb

oceanluresmfg
03-12-2010, 07:49 PM
cmp very well said ! would love to know how many giants were caught up north this year by rec boats and not reported. and better yet hit the commercial blackmarket. hey birdman how many commercial boats sat down in the glory hole or the chicken canyon this year? not many at all! at any point in time their were hundreds of recreational boats down their taking the small bluefins. from the glory hole to barnegate.from june thru october.how can u even compare. someone on here hit the nail on the head we dont rate as far as our harvest compared to over seas harvest.
birdman dont make this into rec vs comm battle. fight it together and you will go further. unless obama helps out on all fishing related topics we should not allow any porgies blackfish or whiting be delivered to the whitehouse lol.

PJJR
03-13-2010, 09:54 AM
I'm going to drop the Rec vs Comm debate, as it is counterproductive. But the reality is: 2% for the US Harvest. As I suspect that the NMFS #'s are off by as much as 400-500% that would still only equate to 8% - 10%.

So the real problem is the international community - PERIOD !! That is what Obama should be working on. :mad:

gerg
03-13-2010, 10:23 AM
It's only 2% if the rest of the world is only taking it's quota as well. Guess what. They aren't, they are vastly exceeding it and nobody is keeping track.

CMP is correct that we aren't the problem, even with all the misreporting on both sides (and don't tell me that no comm fisherman has ever taken more than they were allowed).

However, CITES may be the only answer. Even with the nations that won't sign on, japan can only consume so much, so the market will shrink. The fish will rebound quickly however.

It was reported that during the brief period in WWII when fishing boats wouldn't go out into the north atlantic, swordfish and tuna populations exploded. That was only a few years of restricted pressure. Look at what banning longliners alone did for swordfish in florida. Bans work.

I hate the idea, but the world-wide commercial sector is forcing this to happen. They are leaving governments no choice.

And it's not like there is a plan B. With no bans, it continues to be a race to get the last of the fish. Self regulation hasn't worked. It won't work in the future.

Captain AL
03-13-2010, 10:50 AM
The bluefin tuna is one of the most valued fish in the world. Not only is it valued by commercial fisherman, but also by sport fisherman, who all agree that this species of fish is great fun to catch. There is only one problem with all of this, the bluefin tuna is “threatened with extinction”(Kowitt, 2010). The main reason that the bluefin tuna is in its current position is because it is being both legally, and illegally overfished. This high demand for bluefin is due to the Japanese fish markets where these fish can reach prices of over $100,000 per fish. Recently, a 513-pound bluefin was purchased for $177,000. (Kowitt 2010) With prices like that, bluefin meat can cost up to $400.00 per pound. These high prices are driving this species to near extinction. There are many fishing methods for the bluefin tuna, but the most detrimental one, called bluefin ranching, should be banned completely. There is a law that bluefin tuna have to be a certain size before being killed and sold. Fishing companies are netting thousands of undersized bluefin, which they then tow closer to shore. The fisherman then keep them in captivity for months, even years and fatten them up until they are able to legally kill and sell them on the market (Ellis, 2008). There is one thing that will determine whether or not the tuna is eaten to extinction: Captive breeding and farming. Millions of dollars and thousands of hours have been spent on an attempt to breed these large fish in captivity. Salmon, cobia, and other smaller fish are very easy to breed in captivity, the problem with the bluefin is that it spans whole oceans. In one year, the bluefin will swim from the Gulf of Mexico to the Mediterranean Sea and all the way back. Recently, immature bluefin tuna have been raised in captivity, but they have not quite reached adulthood (Ellis, 2008), (Kluger, et al, 2009). The Atlantic bluefin tuna has declined to just 10% of its population since 1975. Right now, unless fishing quotas are reduced to a minimum number (they won’t be), the bluefin tuna will have a 50% chance of recovery by 2023. If, the quotas were reduced, the bluefin would have a 90% chance of recovery by 2019. The ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas), which is a group that is supposed to help the tuna, is not following the guidelines of their own scientists. They are ignoring the facts, and will not completely ban international trade of the bluefin (Economist, 2009). They are also not too concerned with current quotas, but they do hope for a successful captive breeding program in order to save the tuna. Many habits need to be changed in order to save the bluefin tuna from extinction. These changes would not change much, but organizations around the world need to act quickly if they want to make an impact. Stricter quotas need to be put into place, captive breeding should be heavily invested into, and people should think twice before they decide to go to their favorite sushi restaurant.

oceanluresmfg
03-13-2010, 11:09 AM
Yes tuna ranching should be illegal. That should be an easily fightable situation for the feds. Here in the united states are we allowed to harvest millions of lbs of any species of fish that are undersize and force feed them till a later date to be harvested.they are taking a breedable size fish out of the system that isnt supposed to be harvested.

Tunascapes
03-13-2010, 02:17 PM
1st: You Commercials are absolutly idiots, PERIOD, if you want to argue the Rec's vs Comm's on tuna, and YOU KNOW IT. So just STOP it. You sound like 2 year old that no yoru wrong. The takage between comm's and Rec's is not even on the same map. Yes, there are 200 recs for every commercail boat probably. But guess what, 198 of those recs, don't go out. Of the 2 that do, 1 MAYBE catches a fish or two. Of the Comm's that go out (AKA ALL OF THEM!), THEY ALL take 100's of fish. Give that argument a rest already. Com's take more fish, and there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, deal with it, admit it.

That said, as stated, until the rest of the world stops picking apart the oceans, what either of us takes makes no difference. Hell, the japs are still killing whales for gods sake!!

Not sure how it is in NJ or NY but you may want to come take a look at what goes on in MA or ME on a Saturday in july. Your way off base here.

ladyjane
03-13-2010, 04:29 PM
the eurotrash assholes will and do take tuna at wil and most of the reporting agencies are corrupt.

intrepid 24
03-13-2010, 04:41 PM
It's only 2% if the rest of the world is only taking it's quota as well. Guess what. They aren't, they are vastly exceeding it and nobody is keeping track.

CMP is correct that we aren't the problem, even with all the misreporting on both sides (and don't tell me that no comm fisherman has ever taken more than they were allowed).

However, CITES may be the only answer. Even with the nations that won't sign on, japan can only consume so much, so the market will shrink. The fish will rebound quickly however.

It was reported that during the brief period in WWII when fishing boats wouldn't go out into the north atlantic, swordfish and tuna populations exploded. That was only a few years of restricted pressure. Look at what banning longliners alone did for swordfish in florida. Bans work.

I hate the idea, but the world-wide commercial sector is forcing this to happen. They are leaving governments no choice.

And it's not like there is a plan B. With no bans, it continues to be a race to get the last of the fish. Self regulation hasn't worked. It won't work in the future.

maybe plan B could be the WWF, PEW, and others concentrate on correcting the iccat.....lobby them to enforce rules in place. Bring corrupt areas under the spotlight + Expose the abuse in the worst countries ? Unless they are not as interested in the survival of a species as they are their enviornmentalist agenda.

ladyjane
03-13-2010, 04:53 PM
the only people in the world who will suffer will be US and the rest will continue to harvest and make up the difference on our harvest to there own thank god for osama!

intrepid 24
03-13-2010, 05:13 PM
the only people in the world who will suffer will be US and the rest will continue to harvest and make up the difference on our harvest to there own thank god for osama!

y'now......those little orange boats have messed up more than 1 chumslick of mine.....what color are those boats @ the Med. ???

RD1234
03-13-2010, 07:02 PM
y'now......those little orange boats have messed up more than 1 chumslick of mine.....what color are those boats @ the Med. ???

Bingo. We have a winner. Never been there but they obviously don't police the fishery over there whatsoever. If they just stuck to their 20,000 mt quota in the past and didn't take 35,000mt we'd all be fine. I mean even Obama couldn't turn a blind eye to exceding a quota by 15,000 mt. Well, maybe he could.

RD1234
03-13-2010, 07:21 PM
However, CITES may be the only answer. Even with the nations that won't sign on, japan can only consume so much, so the market will shrink. The fish will rebound quickly however.


The Japanese consume 90% of the fatty bluefin tuna. Plus isn't everyone gung ho if this thing does goes CITES that we in the U.S. will still have a Rec fishery as well as a commercial fishery where we sell domestically???? So who will stop fishing?? So every country that goes CITES will still have a domestic fishery and every country that doesn't go CITES it's business as usual. So where will the catch drop? Please explain. I'm seriously not trying to be hostile just trying to figure it out. I feel the next step will be to stop the honest fisherman which is maybe 50% of the catch right now worldwide. And then it will be a geen light for the criminals. Just too much $$$ at stake here guys. If guys can go out and poach (not even poach because if CITES goes through many countries will be legal to fish!!!) and make big $$$ no one will stop fishing. The demand is there and the only thing CITES will do is increase demand.

Bottom line is..... the Med does not want to police their fishery. If the Med put their quota at 7,500mt and policed it game over. Walk on fish.

shinerdunker
03-13-2010, 07:53 PM
the japanese consume 90% of the fatty bluefin tuna. Plus isn't everyone gung ho if this thing does goes cites that we in the u.s. Will still have a rec fishery as well as a commercial fishery where we sell domestically???? So who will stop fishing?? So every country that goes cites will still have a domestic fishery and every country that doesn't go cites it's business as usual. So where will the catch drop? Please explain. I'm seriously not trying to be hostile just trying to figure it out. I feel the next step will be to stop the honest fisherman which is maybe 50% of the catch right now worldwide. And then it will be a geen light for the criminals. Just too much $$$ at stake here guys. If guys can go out and poach (not even poach because if cites goes through many countries will be legal to fish!!!) and make big $$$ no one will stop fishing. The demand is there and the only thing cites will do is increase demand.

Bottom line is..... The med does not want to police their fishery. If the med put their quota at 7,500mt and policed it game over. Walk on fish.

bingo

oceanluresmfg
03-13-2010, 08:48 PM
Tunascapes in what way are you refering too when you say im way off base? I dont know of any state dec law enforcement that allows any commercial fishermen to retain any undersized fish for later harvest.
And if we just went with a domestic sale of giant bluefin tuna the sale prices would be so ridiculously low. The japanese are the main buyers that are willing to give the big dollars for tuna. The majority of the sushi restaurants in the united states are not even using bluefins.
I commercialy bottom fish and when it is worth it i will tunafish.if i had to sell my catch to a packing house or a wholesaler you are talking a 1/4 the price of what the koreans are willing to pay for live fish.it is amazing the impact that would take place if we sold locally and were not allowed to ship overseas.even though this is kinda off topic but it is a very low scale version of the big picture of what could take place. We can all pretty much say it . It is all greed!!!!! Wanna see the bluefin tuna comeback strong. Think about white tuna ,not even tuna a fish called escalar.if the koreans come up with a fish to replace bluefin it is all over ,their will be no demand for it at all.
The tuna wranglers would be selling all their gear because they would not be going thru the effort for a fish that is only worth $2.00 a lb.

Tunascapes
03-14-2010, 09:13 AM
Tunascapes in what way are you refering too when you say im way off base? I dont know of any state dec law enforcement that allows any commercial fishermen to retain any undersized fish for later harvest.
And if we just went with a domestic sale of giant bluefin tuna the sale prices would be so ridiculously low. The japanese are the main buyers that are willing to give the big dollars for tuna. The majority of the sushi restaurants in the united states are not even using bluefins.
I commercialy bottom fish and when it is worth it i will tunafish.if i had to sell my catch to a packing house or a wholesaler you are talking a 1/4 the price of what the koreans are willing to pay for live fish.it is amazing the impact that would take place if we sold locally and were not allowed to ship overseas.even though this is kinda off topic but it is a very low scale version of the big picture of what could take place. We can all pretty much say it . It is all greed!!!!! Wanna see the bluefin tuna comeback strong. Think about white tuna ,not even tuna a fish called escalar.if the koreans come up with a fish to replace bluefin it is all over ,their will be no demand for it at all.
The tuna wranglers would be selling all their gear because they would not be going thru the effort for a fish that is only worth $2.00 a lb.

First off, what are you talking about? I'm not quite sure where I told you you were off base. I was simply commenting on someone else's comment that maybe 2 out of every 200 rec permits actually fish. Then out of those 2 permits only one may come back with a fish. So unless you have two names on this site I wasn't talking to you. Where have I ever said people are selling undersized fish? Im general cat through and through. Been commercial my entire life and not going to change. Everything you just tried to prove me wrong with I've been saying for years so thanks for the education.

I challenge anyone to take a walk around a dock in New England from June through October and not see at least a 10 to 1 rec fish to commercial fish ratio. A season long rec fishery with out control limits is a disgrace. I do not understand how all of you pro rec guys that have only been tuna fishing for 3 to 4 years dont think you are impacting this fishery. Sure we only deal with 2% of the global quota but that does not make any of this right. You people need to get your heads on straight and realize that every fish you take has not had a chance to repeat it self in the stocks.

junior11
03-14-2010, 09:24 AM
Twofin is right. This is exactly what the greenies want us to do is hash this debate out. For now we have a common enemy. We'll have this fight later. We are just giving them more ammo to shut everything down. For the most part we agree that if they take one away it will likely lead to the other fishery being taken away as well. Stop shooting ourselves in the foot. It doesn't even matter who is right at this point both sides are going to lose if we don't put this aside for now. This is not the time to talk about how many fish the other sector kills.

intrepid 24
03-14-2010, 11:27 AM
Twofin is right. This is exactly what the greenies want us to do is hash this debate out. For now we have a common enemy. We'll have this fight later. We are just giving them more ammo to shut everything down. For the most part we agree that if they take one away it will likely lead to the other fishery being taken away as well. Stop shooting ourselves in the foot. It doesn't even matter who is right at this point both sides are going to lose if we don't put this aside for now. This is not the time to talk about how many fish the other sector kills.

united we manage, divided we fish for dogfish.....

gerg
03-14-2010, 03:59 PM
Can't land dogfish any more. There is a recreational ban on them effective sometime last winter.

You have to throw them back now. Too bad, they are actually kind of tasty.

intrepid 24
03-15-2010, 05:03 AM
any news ?

mr buck
03-15-2010, 06:47 AM
My question is this proposed " ban on international commercial
trade in Atlantic bluefin tuna" refer to just international trade but not domestic.....meaning that you could still harvest domestic but can't sell them internationally?

We all need to start standing together, rec & commercial together! Things are only going to get worse with the enviro's on all fronts in the coming years. MPAs, closures, smaller quotas, etc. Both sides are guilty in the plight of the stocks, but we are only 2% of the worldwide catch which must be taken into consideration. That doesn't give us a reason to simply ignore the fact that the stock is under immense pressure and continue status quo. I am a rec and think more of us really need to recognize that we do have a big effect on the fishery. I feel like we need need to start taking to the lead as good stewards of ocean and push for changes, even if it means we take less fish, versus waiting for the enviros to push change by sueing and having them blame us for being irresponsible. Just my thoughts.....

Bluefin73
03-15-2010, 08:05 PM
Debate over bluefin tuna heats up in Dohahttp://www.gulf-times.com/site/images/spacer.gif
By Bonnie James
Deputy News Editor

The US “intends to try very hard” to get a ban on all international commercial trade of Atlantic bluefin tuna, a senior official told Gulf Times yesterday.

A proposal to save the highly prized and “overharvested” “sushi-sashimi”
species will be hotly debated at the ongoing CITES conference in Doha with the US and Japan leading the rival packs.

“Though we have fishermen who will be very affected with a ban, we believe we should not lose a species that is important to the world,” deputy assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks, Jane Lyder said in an interview.

The official, who is leading the US delegation to the 15th Conference of Parties of the CITES this week, asserted that the bluefin tuna is eligible for Appendix I, the highest level of protection offered by the Convention.

The most endangered species of plants and animals, including the tiger, mountain gorilla and all sea turtles, are on Appendix I.

“We have a good amount of support, we are still counting votes and looking at what the chances are,” said Lyder who is engaged in hectic consultations with representatives from various countries.

In all, 175 nations are parties to CITES and their delegations are attending the conference which runs until March 25 at the Sheraton Doha.
“Our view point is that someday the Japanese grandchildren and great grandchildren will be eating bluefin tuna if we can ensure its long term viability and make it a sustainable fishery,” the US official observed.

Bluefin73
03-15-2010, 08:56 PM
What a load of BS...

Note Jane Lyder's comment concerning how a CITES I listing would effect US fisherman.

"Though we have fishermen who will be very affected with a ban, we believe we should not lose a species that is important to the world," deputy assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks, Jane Lyder said in an interview.

Next, note her comment at the end of the article.

"Our view point is that someday the Japanese grandchildren and great grandchildren will be eating bluefin tuna if we can ensure its long term viability and make it a sustainable fishery," the US official observed.

These comments from our government are completely insulting and condescending to the US fisherman.

The Japanese have already clearly stated that they will file a reservation (they will not adhere to the CITES I listing) if Bluefin are given a CITES I listing and this moron is talking about wanting to ensure that Japanese grandchildren and Japanese great grandchildren will be eating bluefin? The Japanese great great great grandchildren will be eating bluefin regardless of this CITES I dog and pony show that our government is pushing for.

The bottom line is that if our government was legitimately concerned about, "ensure its long term viability and make it a sustainable fishery" they would have gotten involved years ago when we (US fisherman) repeatedly asked for help to pressure ICCAT to better manage the bluefin fishery.

This is disgusting...

reel 'n 'easy
03-16-2010, 05:35 AM
I'm a rec fishermen and respect all the com. guys if it were'nt for them we would be fishing for bait half the time. MR BUCk ask if it will affect the domestic trade of the fish and I haven't seen a reply. Can one of the Com. guys explain this. Will you be able to sell to the domestic market? If you can please explain the down side. How many of the fish go overseas. Do you guys sell them to the Japenese because of a higher dollar value? If you can only sell only domestic do you think the markets would then be flooded with tuna driving down your bottom line?

Tunascapes
03-16-2010, 10:01 AM
They say domestic trade will be allowed. If you buy that I have some swamp land for sale. Its under water now from the rain, but it will be dry and buildable by tomorrow.

Domestic trade will be somewhat limited. The US imports about 550mt of tuna a year. The last few years we have not reached that number in the quota we have filled. From the outside looking in you would think that would be great given simple rules of supply and demand. However, Our season is so short we can not spread out the tonage over a full 12 months. On top of that, as any fisherman knows, decent bites come in spurts. So when your loading the dock at the same time as other guys the market will be flooded very easily. A big fall bite on the cape will leave the fish being worthless after the first day or two of the bite. The next problem is that the US mainly imports yellowfin and bigeye for the market. There will be no trade ban on these species so that actual tonage needed is way below that 550mt number. Buyers are commenting that they will have to considering freezing catches during bigger bites to keep a 12 month supply.

Bottom line is that the US market does not support the tonage needed and does not support a high enough price to make it worth it. Another factor to consider is the consumption of bluefin becoming taboo with americans because it will be a protected species. This too will limit the amount of bluefin needed.

RD1234
03-16-2010, 10:13 AM
I'm a rec fishermen and respect all the com. guys if it were'nt for them we would be fishing for bait half the time. MR BUCk ask if it will affect the domestic trade of the fish and I haven't seen a reply. Can one of the Com. guys explain this. Will you be able to sell to the domestic market? If you can please explain the down side. How many of the fish go overseas. Do you guys sell them to the Japenese because of a higher dollar value? If you can only sell only domestic do you think the markets would then be flooded with tuna driving down your bottom line?

I'll try to answer to the best of my knowledge.

Will it affect the domestic trade: Well, right now from what I have heard if CITES goes through the politicians and NOAA and whoever else is in charge are PROMISING a domestic commercial and recreational fishery. I haven't seen anything in writing. Well you know how good promises are. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if CITES goes through in 2010we have a rec & commercial fishery. Then the green groups could push even further and try to completely shut down the fishery because US fisherman are catching fish on an endangered species list which is nonsense. 2011 fishery could be completely shut down. Or even 2010. Just don't know but a CITES listing will give them the leverage to shut down the USA...which for the most part has a quota and follows the quota. I can't say that for Med countries.

The down side to selling domestically: People in the US won't be willing to pay big $ for fatty sushi like the Japanese do. Sushi reataurants in the US use yellowfin tuna at much cheaper prices than bluefin. The bluefin will most likely have to compete with the cheaper yelowfin. Also, USA just does not consume the volume of sushi that the Japanese do. Over supply of bluefin in the US and competition with yellowfin means cheap prices and low prices paid to the boats. I honestly question if CITES goes through and they do allow a commercial fishery if it will be economically viable for people to tuna fish to make $. I highly doubt it will if prices paid to the boat are $3-4lb. And then if there is a good giant bite off of Chatham for instance I could see the market getting flooded and boats being paid $2lb for fish or less. The buyers will most likely then sell what they can frresh and freeze tuna for later in the year when there is no catch.

How many of the fish go overseas: All bluefin in the US that are caught that are of high enough quality get sent to Japan. I am completely guessing but I'd say 80-90% of the USA catch. Another thing on price, the fish that do stay in the USA becasue they are not of high enough quality (red meat no fat) in the past few years paid $2-3lb. I even heard of some domestic prices cheaper than $2 paid. So that is probably a pretty good indicator of what the US will pay for bluefin.

Do you guys sell them to the Japenese because of a higher dollar value? Yes

If you can only sell only domestic do you think the markets would then be flooded with tuna driving down your bottom line? Yes

madkate88
03-16-2010, 10:48 AM
Why not allow rod and reel harvest only? If they want to protect them start with the seiners. Ever watch the show on discovery following the tuna cowboys? one set and they take up to something like a hundred tons...... yeah great idea stop the guys in the US fishing with rod & reel that should fix it WTF get a clue.

RD1234
03-16-2010, 11:34 AM
Why not allow rod and reel harvest only? If they want to protect them start with the seiners. Ever watch the show on discovery following the tuna cowboys? one set and they take up to something like a hundred tons...... yeah great idea stop the guys in the US fishing with rod & reel that should fix it WTF get a clue.

Good point. Would be very nice. Trying to get the Med to switch to rod & reel is the problem. Some places in the Med use traditional old school fish traps to harvest from what I have heard/seen on tv.

Tuna farms should be flat out eliminted. I knew when they started popping up there would be huge issues. For awhile (years) my opinion the fish weren't even counted as caught against any quota. And if they were just way too many ways to hide fish. And if fish die in the pen (not sure how often) weren't even counted. Plus you have to then go out and hammer the bait fish to feed them.

yeah great idea stop the guys in the US fishing with rod & reel that should fix it WTF get a clue. EXACTLY

reel 'n 'easy
03-16-2010, 04:21 PM
Thank you for the clarification. I think positive dialog will help all our causes. Pointing fingers is never a good approach. We all have a problem! Lets figure out what we can do to rectify it. The past is the past. What can we do for the future. So the recs can fish and the Com. guys can make money!

intrepid 24
03-17-2010, 04:38 AM
it sounded pretty good, china was supporting japan, and some of the EU countries were re-thinking their position....
trying to post the link...
Japan was adamant about srticter regulation + enforcement, and something about the iccat
getting tougher....

Codfisher
03-18-2010, 05:36 AM
Today's the day...keep your 130s crossed

Vote on bluefin tuna ban today
Web posted at: 3/18/2010 3:42:48
Source ::: The Peninsula
BY Huda NV
DOHA: The fate of Atlantic bluefin tuna, polar bears, and many other species are set to be decided today with the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) putting the proposals for vote today. A huge divide is already evident with the delegation from 175 countries switching sides on various proposals.........
........Also seeking Appendix I listing is North Atlantic bluefin tuna, proposed by Monaco. Thanks to Sushi and Sashimi market, bluefin numbers have fallen by nearly 75 percent since 1957. According to Japan, which imports 80 percent of the tuna, the issue should be handled regional bodies.
Experts are skeptical of any proposal coming to being as a majority of two-thirds is needed to pass the proposals. Due to this issue, Sharks and Stingrays management proposal received a set back, on Tuesday.
ARTICLE (http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=Local_News&subsection=Qatar+News&month=March2010&file=Local_News2010031834248.xml)

Codfisher
03-18-2010, 08:06 AM
VICTORY (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6918839.html)

Thanks to all who worked to help defeat this motion!

PJJR
03-18-2010, 08:21 AM
Cites defeated
VICTORY (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6918839.html)



:grin::grin::grin::grin::grin: YESSSSS !!

twofinbluna
03-18-2010, 08:30 AM
After months of worry and hard work, sounds like we may have dodged a bullet here boys! Trying to get as many details as possible, will keep everyone posted on what I hear. Stay tuned.

intrepid 24
03-18-2010, 08:30 AM
Yesss..:grin:
...and WTH does the US think its doing pushing for polar bear issues....
good grief.....:nono:

CMP
03-18-2010, 09:24 AM
Good news that must be tempered with a caveat-that iccat member nations start to police the bad actors, otherwise, we'll be back here in a couple of years. Time for us to step up politically and punish these nations with meaningful measures. The pressure now shifts to that scenario so continued support of ABTA is a must...

CMP

Codfisher
03-18-2010, 09:35 AM
Wish I had a press pass to listen in on this teleconference to see how Strickland spins these defeats :D

Assistant Secretary Strickland to Hold Media Teleconference To Discuss CITES’ Polar Bear and Bluefin Tuna Votes
Submitted by Christine Eustis on March 18, 2010 - 7:13pm
Polar Bear
Assistant Secretary Strickland to Hold Media Teleconference To Discuss CITES’ Polar Bear and Bluefin Tuna Votes
WASHINGTON – Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks will hold a media teleconference this afternoon to discuss today’s votes on polar bear and bluefin tuna at the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora meeting today in Doha, Qatar.
Who: Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Tom Strickland and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Jane Lyder
What: Media Teleconference on CITES’ polar bear and bluefin tuna votes.
When: 1:15 p.m. EDT 8:15 p.m. in Doha, Thursday, March 18, 2010
Call-in: Domestic toll free call-in: 1-888-606-5929 Password: Science
International toll free call-in: 001-517-308-9003
Passcode: BLUE FIN
Media: Credentialed news media only are invited to call in.

DKD
03-18-2010, 10:13 AM
My St.Patty's day hangover just instantly got better !!!!!!! :grin::grin::grin:



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0