Is banning international trade in fish such as bluefin tuna the most effective way to protect marine resources?

Sunday 09th August, 04:00 PM JST

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 30 Total Comments Show All

OssanAmerica at 01:48 AM JST - 12th August

"Japan together with Australia are the only nations that have succeeded in raising Bluefin Tuna in captivity from eggs"

They need to get an awful lot better if they want to maintain supplies. >In light of impendinding bans a good investment.

Japan already has voluntarily reduced the number of days it's tuna boats can harvest. Clearly Japan has the most incentive to ensure that global stocks do not dwindle down to nothing.

Bans are a blunt edged tool but if face of ignored quotas and poor >supervision an enforced ban in trade is likely the only way Bluefin will >get time to recover.

Nonsense. A Ban on the trade (export/import) of Bluefin Tuna is useless without an actual physical ban on taking them. Just imagine what a 10 year ban on the TAKING of Bluefin on a global scale would so to revive the stocks. A ban only on the trade simply means that other countries who either do not agree or are not signatories will do everything they can to make up the difference.
Taka313 at 10:27 AM JST - 12th August

Parforthecourse,

Actually, I voted, "I don't know" and I have a good reason for doing so.
Obviously, a ban of the fishing will work, if everyone agrees and no one cheats (I'm looking at you, Japan). However, in situations like this, not everyone agrees and a lot of people cheat. So, it's effectiveness decreases.

ABC's John Stossel, who I normally don't really care too much for, did a piece not so long ago that did make me rethink my previous beliefs. I don't think his idea of a solution is perfect either, however, it did cause me to question my beliefs on the matter to the point where, "I don't know."

Here is the link:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/AmazingAnimals/Story?id=7529068&page=1

Taka
timorborder at 02:01 PM JST - 12th August

There needs to be better enforcement of the policies that are already in place and no fun-and-games played with statistics. Furthermore, countries (such as Japan) need to be punished for rorting the system. The collapse of Southern Bluefin Tuna comes to mind (and the hocus pokus that Japan engaged in).
Xeno23 at 02:14 PM JST - 12th August

Banning trade + international fishing restrictions + spawning & habitat protected fishing-free zones + international criminalization for illegal fishing + maritime policing with adequate authority & force is the most effective way to protect marine resources. Barring that, we're going to see depletion of the oceans in 50 years.

We're also gonna have to provide some kind of social safety net for people losing their livelihood because we're coming down so hard on fishing. Can't just hand them out to dry, like so much squid on a pole...
davidattokyo at 03:25 PM JST - 12th August

People love to bash Japan over this, whereas the reality is that overfishing and cheating on the rules is rife in the EU and other countries as well.

True, Japanese fishers took more than Japan's SBT quota, but again looking at the full story we see that the Japanese officials subsequently took responsibility for the problem by completely overhauling their regulations for this fishery and accepting an SBT quota cut to help rebuild the stock. (Japan-bashers - take it on board). Haven't heard of any over-fishing by Japan's SBT fleet since then.

1) Have ICCAT and other RMFOs set quotas in accordance with scientific advice, rather than in accordance with political expediency 2) Have the EU and other nations improve their regulations and enforcement

Once we've done that and the over-fishing still hasn't stopped then I'll be all for a trade ban.
sf2k at 03:37 AM JST - 14th August

Nobody has learned from the overfishing experiences from other countries and therefore "saving" the tuna will fail because of that. No quota will be taken seriously nor a ban. Someone will always take advantage of it and claim it is their "right".

Only when there are no more tuna available on a commercial scale will then people stop because their actions will be useless. At that point of course it will be too late and only fish farming will remain. Fish farming doesn't scale to the market demands, so the majority will not have fish to eat.

With the prediction that fish will end by 2048, within one lifetime Japan will be forced to stop eating fish along with the rest of us. There may be fish around, but we will not eat it at the same rate or the same amounts. This can only go down.

The solution is to stop fishing now, allow the stocks to replenish, but that won't happen now, and it will be too late later.
sf2k at 03:47 AM JST - 14th August

Tuna is a mercury laden fish and isn't recommended for pregnant women. Pollution isn't going down. Ergo, tuna will increase its mercury content. As well, there are fewer tuna so more pollution for fewer tuna means more toxicity.

I don't trust my own government to warn us or do proper testing. How about you?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2007/02/19/tuna-testing.html
davidattokyo at 05:48 PM JST - 14th August

the prediction that fish will end by 2048

... is not actually a prediction. It was a conclusion that "if we continue to do exactly what we are doing now, making no changes inspite of all the warning signs, there will be no fish left by 2048". Realistically, in view of the situation, few would seriously think that RMFOs will continue to sit on their thumbs for the next 4 decades, making no changes for the better at all.

There may be fish around, but we will not eat it at the same rate or the same amounts. This can only go down.

The resources can recover if over-exploitation ends. Exploitation is not the problem. Over-exploitation is.

The solution is to stop fishing now, allow the stocks to replenish,

No. The solution is to stop over-fishing now, and allow the stocks to replenish. That is the best way. One only has to look at the whaling fiasco to realise that blanket bans are counterproductive.
Taka313 at 04:16 AM JST - 15th August

David,

Instead of "allowing the stocks to replenish," which is a passive response, I believe fish farming, which is a more active response, may be a better answer.

Taka
tclh at 05:21 AM JST - 15th August

Nothing will motivate human like profit! When you want to have more to consume ,just grow more...if that method places too much pressure on the environment ,then consume less. It is a cycle. Banning trade is not the answer, consume adequate amount and farm more is better answer.
sf2k at 08:28 AM JST - 15th August

@davidintokyo.

as the Newfoundland fisheries found out in hindsight, in the 80's/90's there was no such thing as a little bit over-fishing. The Atlantic Cod fishery has yet to recover due to outer limit catch by EU countries. After the collapse, even a blanket moratorium has not worked and the cod have not returned, as is proven by this example. So if a partial reduction as you suggest, and a stronger ban as I suggest both are failures, what then?

I take your meaning and would also generally agree with your comment, but unfortunately events like the Nfld fishery collapse are proof that we will face this again with tuna before any change, either mild or major, will occur.

I'm afraid that Subtraction is not something we do well, if at all.
sf2k at 08:32 AM JST - 15th August

@tcih

The problem is really over-population, so how about couples receiving a non-baby bonus instead? Receiving money for not having children. That would put the problems into perspective. (Yes I know it wouldn't sell, but that is the "profit" in it)
tclh at 11:37 AM JST - 15th August

Food and over-population: this can perhaps be solved by consuming more plants and less animal-as-food direction. No children is not the answer because children is human future (reasonable restriction on numbers is ofcourse recommended ). If we, as human race, start to seriously take the direction that profit does not necessarily mean ONLY printed paper/plastic/metal which we call money but also means human well being, health, happiness and so on... this earth will be much more pleasant place to live.
sf2k at 02:09 PM JST - 15th August

sounds good
Badsey at 06:35 AM JST - 16th August

The most effective way of protecting marine resources is to not consume them at all. =The great Japanese fishing fleets should be slowly reduced (no new ships built) and a focus placed on aquaponics. The fish you need for food can be grown locally with plants. This will drastically save on costs and the product will be fresh.

Japan should shoot for 100% domestic food production. =I believe the sun has enough energy and Japan enough land mass/water to do it.