<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FOR BLUEFIN TUNA, WE NEED STRONG LEADERSHIP</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.reel-time.com/articles/for-bluefin-tuna-we-need-strong-leadership/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.reel-time.com/articles/for-bluefin-tuna-we-need-strong-leadership/</link>
	<description>The Internet Journal of Saltwater Fishing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:35:08 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: joe jancewicz</title>
		<link>http://www.reel-time.com/articles/for-bluefin-tuna-we-need-strong-leadership/#comment-398</link>
		<dc:creator>joe jancewicz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:40:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reel-time.com/?p=10623#comment-398</guid>
		<description>In the early 1980&#039;s Drs. Brad Brown and Steve Turner of the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center told the world that there were 10,000, thats 10,000 Bluefin Tuna left in the entire Atlantic Ocean.  The latest best available science in 2009 says that there are now over 5,000,000 thats no typo, 5,000,000 Bluefin in the Atlantic.  Where I went to school thats 500 times the number of Bluefin now than there were in the 1980&#039;s.  If this kind of recovery warrants a CITES listing so be it.  I just need to know what American fishermen did wrong for the past 25 years to justify a CITES listing.  Did we bring the stock back too quickly?  Were we too conservative?  I just don&#039;t have the answers.  Perhaps someone else here can shed some light on this subject.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the early 1980&#8242;s Drs. Brad Brown and Steve Turner of the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center told the world that there were 10,000, thats 10,000 Bluefin Tuna left in the entire Atlantic Ocean.  The latest best available science in 2009 says that there are now over 5,000,000 thats no typo, 5,000,000 Bluefin in the Atlantic.  Where I went to school thats 500 times the number of Bluefin now than there were in the 1980&#8242;s.  If this kind of recovery warrants a CITES listing so be it.  I just need to know what American fishermen did wrong for the past 25 years to justify a CITES listing.  Did we bring the stock back too quickly?  Were we too conservative?  I just don&#8217;t have the answers.  Perhaps someone else here can shed some light on this subject.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Capt. John McMurray</title>
		<link>http://www.reel-time.com/articles/for-bluefin-tuna-we-need-strong-leadership/#comment-390</link>
		<dc:creator>Capt. John McMurray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:13:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reel-time.com/?p=10623#comment-390</guid>
		<description>here&#039;s the full release:

Strickland Announces Continued United States Support
for International Proposal to Protect Bluefin Tuna
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The United States will continue its support for a proposal to ban all
international commercial trade of Atlantic bluefin tuna at this month’s meeting of the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wildlife Fauna and Flora (CITES)
in Doha, Qatar, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Tom
Strickland announced today.
Strickland, who will head the U.S. delegation to the 15th Conference of Parties (CoP15) of the
175-nation treaty, initially announced support for the proposal last October, but left open the
possibility that the United States could modify its position if the International Commission for
the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) adopted significantly strengthened management
and compliance measures during its November 2009 meeting.
“Under the leadership of NOAA, the United States entered the meeting seeking the strongest
possible agreement for the conservation of eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna. We
recognize that the parties to ICCAT took some unprecedented steps,” said Strickland.
“However, in light of the serious compliance problems that have plagued the eastern Atlantic and
Mediterranean fishery and the fact that the 2010 quota level adopted by ICCAT is not as low as
we believe is needed, the United States continues to have serious concerns about the long-term
viability of either the fish or the fishery.”
The Atlantic bluefin tuna is highly prized, especially for sashimi, and a single fish can be sold for
tens of thousands of dollars. The Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean stock is threatened by
overharvesting, which includes illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing.
Current population information for the species shows it meets the biological criteria for listing in
Appendix I. In the Atlantic Ocean, bluefin tuna are managed as two separate stocks, an Eastern
Atlantic and Mediterranean, and a Western. The Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean stock of the
Atlantic bluefin tuna has declined steeply during the last 10 years. Based on estimated catches,
scientists estimated the spawning stock biomass in 2007 to be 78,724 metric tons. This contrasts
with the biomass peak of 1955, at 305,136 metric tons. The decline over the 50-year historical
period ranging from 1955 to 2007 is estimated at 74.2 percent, the bulk of which (60.9 percent)
took place during the last 10 years.
The Western Atlantic spawning stock has declined by 82.4 percent from 49,482 metric tons in
1970 to 8,693 metric tons in 2007. During the past decade, the Western stock has stabilized at a
very low population level. Many experts correlate this stabilization to adoption of rigorous
science-based catch quotas and other management measures together with effective monitoring
and enforcement. Such measures ensured strict compliance with ICCAT’s ruled by the U.S. fleet.
Strickland noted that the parties to ICCAT took positive steps at the November meeting. These
steps included a commitment to set future catch levels in line with scientific advice, to shorten
the fishing season, reduce fishing capacity, and close the fishery if the stocks continue to decline.
However, in light of the serious compliance problems that have plagued the eastern Atlantic and
Mediterranean fishery and the fact that the 2010 quota level adopted by ICCAT is not as low as
needed, the United States will support the proposal to list Atlantic bluefin tuna in Appendix I at
CoP15 and will work actively with Monaco and other CITES and ICCAT Parties in order to
achieve positive results for bluefin tuna at CoP15 and at the 2010 ICCAT annual meeting.
If the bluefin tuna is listed under Appendix I, commercial fishermen in the United States could
continue to sell western Atlantic bluefin tuna caught in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
domestically. Fishing in the EEZ is tightly regulated in the United States to ensure that it meets
the ICCAT science-based quota. The United States is both a consumer and a net importer of
Atlantic bluefin tuna. Strickland indicated that the United States will explore measures to assist
fishermen if international trade is restricted.
“We understand the frustration of our U.S. fishermen who have followed the scientific
recommendations and regulatory provisions of ICCAT for many years while their counterparts in
the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean have often overfished and engaged in ineffective
management,” Strickland said. “The U.S. 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.”
A CITES-regulated species may be included in one of three appendices to the convention:
• Appendix I includes species for which it is determined that any commercial trade is
detrimental to the survival of the species. Therefore, no commercial trade is allowed in
Appendix-I species. Non-commercial trade in such species is allowed if it does not
jeopardize the species&#039; survival in the wild. Permits are required for the exportation and
importation of Appendix-I species.
• Appendix II includes species for which it has been determined that commercial trade may
be detrimental to the survival of the species if that trade is not strictly controlled. Trade in
these species is regulated through the use of export permits.
• Appendix III includes species listed by a range country that requires the assistance of
other parties to ensure that exports of their native species are legal. Permits are used to
control and monitor trade in native species. Any CITES party may place a native species
in Appendix III.
Any listing of a species in either Appendix I or II requires approval by two-thirds of the CITES
party countries that vote on the proposal.
The Conference of the Parties will be held March 13-25, 2010, in Doha, Qatar.
#####</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>here&#8217;s the full release:</p>
<p>Strickland Announces Continued United States Support<br />
for International Proposal to Protect Bluefin Tuna<br />
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The United States will continue its support for a proposal to ban all<br />
international commercial trade of Atlantic bluefin tuna at this month’s meeting of the<br />
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wildlife Fauna and Flora (CITES)<br />
in Doha, Qatar, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Tom<br />
Strickland announced today.<br />
Strickland, who will head the U.S. delegation to the 15th Conference of Parties (CoP15) of the<br />
175-nation treaty, initially announced support for the proposal last October, but left open the<br />
possibility that the United States could modify its position if the International Commission for<br />
the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) adopted significantly strengthened management<br />
and compliance measures during its November 2009 meeting.<br />
“Under the leadership of NOAA, the United States entered the meeting seeking the strongest<br />
possible agreement for the conservation of eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna. We<br />
recognize that the parties to ICCAT took some unprecedented steps,” said Strickland.<br />
“However, in light of the serious compliance problems that have plagued the eastern Atlantic and<br />
Mediterranean fishery and the fact that the 2010 quota level adopted by ICCAT is not as low as<br />
we believe is needed, the United States continues to have serious concerns about the long-term<br />
viability of either the fish or the fishery.”<br />
The Atlantic bluefin tuna is highly prized, especially for sashimi, and a single fish can be sold for<br />
tens of thousands of dollars. The Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean stock is threatened by<br />
overharvesting, which includes illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing.<br />
Current population information for the species shows it meets the biological criteria for listing in<br />
Appendix I. In the Atlantic Ocean, bluefin tuna are managed as two separate stocks, an Eastern<br />
Atlantic and Mediterranean, and a Western. The Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean stock of the<br />
Atlantic bluefin tuna has declined steeply during the last 10 years. Based on estimated catches,<br />
scientists estimated the spawning stock biomass in 2007 to be 78,724 metric tons. This contrasts<br />
with the biomass peak of 1955, at 305,136 metric tons. The decline over the 50-year historical<br />
period ranging from 1955 to 2007 is estimated at 74.2 percent, the bulk of which (60.9 percent)<br />
took place during the last 10 years.<br />
The Western Atlantic spawning stock has declined by 82.4 percent from 49,482 metric tons in<br />
1970 to 8,693 metric tons in 2007. During the past decade, the Western stock has stabilized at a<br />
very low population level. Many experts correlate this stabilization to adoption of rigorous<br />
science-based catch quotas and other management measures together with effective monitoring<br />
and enforcement. Such measures ensured strict compliance with ICCAT’s ruled by the U.S. fleet.<br />
Strickland noted that the parties to ICCAT took positive steps at the November meeting. These<br />
steps included a commitment to set future catch levels in line with scientific advice, to shorten<br />
the fishing season, reduce fishing capacity, and close the fishery if the stocks continue to decline.<br />
However, in light of the serious compliance problems that have plagued the eastern Atlantic and<br />
Mediterranean fishery and the fact that the 2010 quota level adopted by ICCAT is not as low as<br />
needed, the United States will support the proposal to list Atlantic bluefin tuna in Appendix I at<br />
CoP15 and will work actively with Monaco and other CITES and ICCAT Parties in order to<br />
achieve positive results for bluefin tuna at CoP15 and at the 2010 ICCAT annual meeting.<br />
If the bluefin tuna is listed under Appendix I, commercial fishermen in the United States could<br />
continue to sell western Atlantic bluefin tuna caught in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)<br />
domestically. Fishing in the EEZ is tightly regulated in the United States to ensure that it meets<br />
the ICCAT science-based quota. The United States is both a consumer and a net importer of<br />
Atlantic bluefin tuna. Strickland indicated that the United States will explore measures to assist<br />
fishermen if international trade is restricted.<br />
“We understand the frustration of our U.S. fishermen who have followed the scientific<br />
recommendations and regulatory provisions of ICCAT for many years while their counterparts in<br />
the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean have often overfished and engaged in ineffective<br />
management,” Strickland said. “The U.S. government is committed to working with our many<br />
international partners to continue to rebuild Atlantic bluefin tuna and ensure sustained<br />
conservation and management of the species into the future.”<br />
A CITES-regulated species may be included in one of three appendices to the convention:<br />
• Appendix I includes species for which it is determined that any commercial trade is<br />
detrimental to the survival of the species. Therefore, no commercial trade is allowed in<br />
Appendix-I species. Non-commercial trade in such species is allowed if it does not<br />
jeopardize the species&#8217; survival in the wild. Permits are required for the exportation and<br />
importation of Appendix-I species.<br />
• Appendix II includes species for which it has been determined that commercial trade may<br />
be detrimental to the survival of the species if that trade is not strictly controlled. Trade in<br />
these species is regulated through the use of export permits.<br />
• Appendix III includes species listed by a range country that requires the assistance of<br />
other parties to ensure that exports of their native species are legal. Permits are used to<br />
control and monitor trade in native species. Any CITES party may place a native species<br />
in Appendix III.<br />
Any listing of a species in either Appendix I or II requires approval by two-thirds of the CITES<br />
party countries that vote on the proposal.<br />
The Conference of the Parties will be held March 13-25, 2010, in Doha, Qatar.<br />
#####</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Hubbard</title>
		<link>http://www.reel-time.com/articles/for-bluefin-tuna-we-need-strong-leadership/#comment-389</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Hubbard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:12:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reel-time.com/?p=10623#comment-389</guid>
		<description>The Obama Administration announced yesterday that it will vote to &quot;list&quot; Bluefin Tuna at the CITES meeting in Qatar on March 15th.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Obama Administration announced yesterday that it will vote to &#8220;list&#8221; Bluefin Tuna at the CITES meeting in Qatar on March 15th.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Capt. John McMurray</title>
		<link>http://www.reel-time.com/articles/for-bluefin-tuna-we-need-strong-leadership/#comment-288</link>
		<dc:creator>Capt. John McMurray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 11:13:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reel-time.com/?p=10623#comment-288</guid>
		<description>Ron...  Thanks for the comments...  Have to say I agree with you here.  Recreational discards have to be a significant source of mortality, particularly in the Cape.  From a management perspective, I&#039;m not sure how that can be addressed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ron&#8230;  Thanks for the comments&#8230;  Have to say I agree with you here.  Recreational discards have to be a significant source of mortality, particularly in the Cape.  From a management perspective, I&#8217;m not sure how that can be addressed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Capt. Ron Stearns</title>
		<link>http://www.reel-time.com/articles/for-bluefin-tuna-we-need-strong-leadership/#comment-287</link>
		<dc:creator>Capt. Ron Stearns</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 03:02:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reel-time.com/?p=10623#comment-287</guid>
		<description>First I must say that was an excellent article. A CITES listing is certainly a step in the right direction and is obviously needed. I know I won&#039;t be popular for this but frankly I don&#039;t care. I&#039;m an avid light tackle/fly guy and I have to say to the guys who pursue these fish with light tackle and fly might as well throw their catch in an ice box and take them home. Anyone who has fought a tuna large or small knows they literally smoke themselves from a long fight. For us to mess with them with light tackle and then complain about the commercial guys who sell them is retarded. Sure there needs to be drastic changes in the regulations and management of Bluefin (and other species) but we shouldn&#039;t shirk our responsibility for the fish we kill in our pursuit of excitement or worse egotistical glory.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First I must say that was an excellent article. A CITES listing is certainly a step in the right direction and is obviously needed. I know I won&#8217;t be popular for this but frankly I don&#8217;t care. I&#8217;m an avid light tackle/fly guy and I have to say to the guys who pursue these fish with light tackle and fly might as well throw their catch in an ice box and take them home. Anyone who has fought a tuna large or small knows they literally smoke themselves from a long fight. For us to mess with them with light tackle and then complain about the commercial guys who sell them is retarded. Sure there needs to be drastic changes in the regulations and management of Bluefin (and other species) but we shouldn&#8217;t shirk our responsibility for the fish we kill in our pursuit of excitement or worse egotistical glory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug Amorello</title>
		<link>http://www.reel-time.com/articles/for-bluefin-tuna-we-need-strong-leadership/#comment-258</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug Amorello</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:44:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reel-time.com/?p=10623#comment-258</guid>
		<description>You guys are nuts to think that it is ok to kill thousands of small fish, yet a CITES listing is a good thing...Obviously John you show your ignorance when you think that NMFS will not use a CITES listing as a managemnt tool...they will most certainly take away your small fish fishery as well as the giant fishery...thanks for screwing the American fisherman...i guess you also think Obama is doing a good job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You guys are nuts to think that it is ok to kill thousands of small fish, yet a CITES listing is a good thing&#8230;Obviously John you show your ignorance when you think that NMFS will not use a CITES listing as a managemnt tool&#8230;they will most certainly take away your small fish fishery as well as the giant fishery&#8230;thanks for screwing the American fisherman&#8230;i guess you also think Obama is doing a good job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Capt. Steve Byrne</title>
		<link>http://www.reel-time.com/articles/for-bluefin-tuna-we-need-strong-leadership/#comment-257</link>
		<dc:creator>Capt. Steve Byrne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:33:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reel-time.com/?p=10623#comment-257</guid>
		<description>Excellent piece John. In my August 31 letter to the US F&amp;WS I made it clear that the 1,000 - plus members of the Fishermen&#039;s Conservation Association, support an Appendix 1 listing for bft. After reading your article, I think that reminding F&amp;WS of FCA&#039;s position might be a good idea.

It is disappointing to see the misinformation spread by some well-known organizations that claim to represent the interests of recreational anglers. A CITES listing will not ban bft fishing - period. To claim otherwise is disingenuous at best; closer to the truth, it&#039;s just plain old selfish greed. I would walk away - quickly - from any organization that claims a CITES listing will end fishing for bft.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent piece John. In my August 31 letter to the US F&amp;WS I made it clear that the 1,000 &#8211; plus members of the Fishermen&#8217;s Conservation Association, support an Appendix 1 listing for bft. After reading your article, I think that reminding F&amp;WS of FCA&#8217;s position might be a good idea.</p>
<p>It is disappointing to see the misinformation spread by some well-known organizations that claim to represent the interests of recreational anglers. A CITES listing will not ban bft fishing &#8211; period. To claim otherwise is disingenuous at best; closer to the truth, it&#8217;s just plain old selfish greed. I would walk away &#8211; quickly &#8211; from any organization that claims a CITES listing will end fishing for bft.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joe jancewicz</title>
		<link>http://www.reel-time.com/articles/for-bluefin-tuna-we-need-strong-leadership/#comment-255</link>
		<dc:creator>joe jancewicz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:54:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reel-time.com/?p=10623#comment-255</guid>
		<description>Cites or no Cites if member nations take &quot;reservation&quot; to a listing international trade will still go on.  If Japan takes a reservation it will be business as usual with everyone except the U.S. and Canada.  The only two countries who have abided by the rules will be left out in the cold.  But then again what&#039;s new.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cites or no Cites if member nations take &#8220;reservation&#8221; to a listing international trade will still go on.  If Japan takes a reservation it will be business as usual with everyone except the U.S. and Canada.  The only two countries who have abided by the rules will be left out in the cold.  But then again what&#8217;s new.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SaveTheBluefin</title>
		<link>http://www.reel-time.com/articles/for-bluefin-tuna-we-need-strong-leadership/#comment-246</link>
		<dc:creator>SaveTheBluefin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:45:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reel-time.com/?p=10623#comment-246</guid>
		<description>Bill, you are right that ICCAT did make progress this year, mostly because they were threatened with the prospect of being stripped their power.  Ultimately I agree that an international body like ICCAT needs to manage pelagics, but in this case ICCAT is taking a big gamble with our fish.  I am the founder of www.savethebluefin.com and have the task of explaining to everyday people about this situation.  And I have to tell you, the arguments for why we are still killing these fish are tough to make.  Overall, I am now of the opinion that our bluefin tuna do not deserve this continued onslaught just to be packed and sent to Japan to feed rich people.  I can tell you young people that know about this issue are disgusted with that basic premise. There is nothing any one of us can say to millions of college students that justifies the killing rates.  Then if you dig deeper into the recent ICCAT items, another point that is impossible to explain, is why we continue to kill these fish when they are spawning.  Every day that a commercial boat can kill a spawning bluefin is the wrong policy.  But the giant monster in the room is the illegal fishing part of this situation.  In ~150 days the commercial fleets will be out again killing these fish.  This opens the door wide open to the illegals as it always has been.  The rules in place address the fish that have already been killed.  So in short the illegals will have another shot at these fish in a few months.  This is where the failure rate of 40%, that ICCAT pegs their own program, is of most concern.  Now I realize the US bluefin fisherman have obeyed the rules and have led the way here.  I know folks like Ralph Pratt and Rich Ruais have toiled on behalf of the bluefin and don&#039;t want to see the fishery closed.  I agree with them on most points however I am not willing to accept this high of a gamble.  The Med needs to be shut down in terms of international trading, and most everyone in tuna politics knows this.  The rub is that other nations like the US are not willing to go along with a ban for fear of disrupting their own fishery and future fisheries if the ban happens to be effective.  While I sympathize with these feelings, it points to how broken the system really is, and why an overhaul is needed badly.  If you step back from the fight over specific species, we all should be raising hell over the acidification problem.  If the acid levels rise a touch more off Cape Cod, the huge crop of sand eels that made the bluefin fishery this year will be in jeopardy.  Then what?  We have an eco-system problem in the oceans, the bluefin is the tip of the spear for how reckless we can be, but many more problems are here and escalating.  

If by chance you don&#039;t agree here, I suggest you take the historical decline of the bluefin population since 1970, and the recent ICCAT decisions down to your local university for a sanity check.  If you love bluefin tuna like me, you will be embarrassed as I have at the reaction and questions asked.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bill, you are right that ICCAT did make progress this year, mostly because they were threatened with the prospect of being stripped their power.  Ultimately I agree that an international body like ICCAT needs to manage pelagics, but in this case ICCAT is taking a big gamble with our fish.  I am the founder of <a href="http://www.savethebluefin.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.savethebluefin.com</a> and have the task of explaining to everyday people about this situation.  And I have to tell you, the arguments for why we are still killing these fish are tough to make.  Overall, I am now of the opinion that our bluefin tuna do not deserve this continued onslaught just to be packed and sent to Japan to feed rich people.  I can tell you young people that know about this issue are disgusted with that basic premise. There is nothing any one of us can say to millions of college students that justifies the killing rates.  Then if you dig deeper into the recent ICCAT items, another point that is impossible to explain, is why we continue to kill these fish when they are spawning.  Every day that a commercial boat can kill a spawning bluefin is the wrong policy.  But the giant monster in the room is the illegal fishing part of this situation.  In ~150 days the commercial fleets will be out again killing these fish.  This opens the door wide open to the illegals as it always has been.  The rules in place address the fish that have already been killed.  So in short the illegals will have another shot at these fish in a few months.  This is where the failure rate of 40%, that ICCAT pegs their own program, is of most concern.  Now I realize the US bluefin fisherman have obeyed the rules and have led the way here.  I know folks like Ralph Pratt and Rich Ruais have toiled on behalf of the bluefin and don&#8217;t want to see the fishery closed.  I agree with them on most points however I am not willing to accept this high of a gamble.  The Med needs to be shut down in terms of international trading, and most everyone in tuna politics knows this.  The rub is that other nations like the US are not willing to go along with a ban for fear of disrupting their own fishery and future fisheries if the ban happens to be effective.  While I sympathize with these feelings, it points to how broken the system really is, and why an overhaul is needed badly.  If you step back from the fight over specific species, we all should be raising hell over the acidification problem.  If the acid levels rise a touch more off Cape Cod, the huge crop of sand eels that made the bluefin fishery this year will be in jeopardy.  Then what?  We have an eco-system problem in the oceans, the bluefin is the tip of the spear for how reckless we can be, but many more problems are here and escalating.  </p>
<p>If by chance you don&#8217;t agree here, I suggest you take the historical decline of the bluefin population since 1970, and the recent ICCAT decisions down to your local university for a sanity check.  If you love bluefin tuna like me, you will be embarrassed as I have at the reaction and questions asked.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Capt. John McMurray</title>
		<link>http://www.reel-time.com/articles/for-bluefin-tuna-we-need-strong-leadership/#comment-245</link>
		<dc:creator>Capt. John McMurray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:51:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reel-time.com/?p=10623#comment-245</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the comments Bill.  In my opinion ICCAT did not make “tremendous strides”…   They did the minimal amount they thought necessary to avoid a CITES listing in March.  Their vote for 13500 metric tons did not “back science”.  The SCS recommended 8500 metric tons if bluefin were to have a reasonable chance of recovering.  The EU as well as other fishing nations under ICCAT have historically demonstrated that they have no control over illegal fisheries that exist and thrive in the Med.   Any crackdown will be short-lived and any results will be temporary as long as there is an international demand for the fish.  I will eat my hat if ICCAT ever voluntarily closes the Med…  And even if they did, such pirate fisheries would continue to exist, and most estimates of illegal harvest put it equal to or greater than the 22,000 metric ton quota legal fisheries were allowed to catch just last yerar.  CITES will not cripple the US nearly as much as it will the Med fishery, particularly the farming/ranching operations.   US fishermen will be able to serve a greater demand in the US domestic market, much of which is currently filled by the Med tuna farms.  Granted they won’t be getting the high prices that have essentially pushed the western stock to around 15% of its historical levels, but frankly, I’m more concerned about whether or not my kids are going to be able to participate in a partially recovered fishery rather than whether or not some guys are able to maximize profit from a public resource that is already severally overfished.    I fail to see how that’s “wrong” as you put it.  As long as there is an extraordinary price on the bluefin’s head there will forever be extraordinary pressure on the species.  As I said in the blog “If we don’t get a CITES listing for bluefin, prices will continue to rise as the stock shrinks and the bluefin continues to decline, until they reach a point of no return. “</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the comments Bill.  In my opinion ICCAT did not make “tremendous strides”…   They did the minimal amount they thought necessary to avoid a CITES listing in March.  Their vote for 13500 metric tons did not “back science”.  The SCS recommended 8500 metric tons if bluefin were to have a reasonable chance of recovering.  The EU as well as other fishing nations under ICCAT have historically demonstrated that they have no control over illegal fisheries that exist and thrive in the Med.   Any crackdown will be short-lived and any results will be temporary as long as there is an international demand for the fish.  I will eat my hat if ICCAT ever voluntarily closes the Med…  And even if they did, such pirate fisheries would continue to exist, and most estimates of illegal harvest put it equal to or greater than the 22,000 metric ton quota legal fisheries were allowed to catch just last yerar.  CITES will not cripple the US nearly as much as it will the Med fishery, particularly the farming/ranching operations.   US fishermen will be able to serve a greater demand in the US domestic market, much of which is currently filled by the Med tuna farms.  Granted they won’t be getting the high prices that have essentially pushed the western stock to around 15% of its historical levels, but frankly, I’m more concerned about whether or not my kids are going to be able to participate in a partially recovered fishery rather than whether or not some guys are able to maximize profit from a public resource that is already severally overfished.    I fail to see how that’s “wrong” as you put it.  As long as there is an extraordinary price on the bluefin’s head there will forever be extraordinary pressure on the species.  As I said in the blog “If we don’t get a CITES listing for bluefin, prices will continue to rise as the stock shrinks and the bluefin continues to decline, until they reach a point of no return. “</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

