JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Do you support same-sex marriages?
( 57 )
-
Do you enjoy watching movies in 3D?
( 24 )
-
Do you support torture as an interrogation method if the objective is to prevent a terrorist attack or capture criminals?
( 73 )
-
Would you like to see all U.S. military forces removed from Okinawa?
( 95 )
-
Should Japan be pledging funds to the IMF, Mekong and for other causes overseas?
( 11 )
-
1
Hosono visits Fukushima No. 4 reactor amid concern over fuel pool
-
2
Oceanographer says beachcombers on West Coast may find bones in tsunami debris
-
3
Lady Gaga's Indonesia concert canceled after threats
-
4
New Jersey town's monument to Korean sex slaves upsetting Japanese officials
-
5
241 civil servants file suit over salary cuts
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
31 Comments
Login to comment
0
jinjapan
i'm not sure if it's the most effective, but it sure would help. there has to be something attached to the ban. like huge fines, jail time or something of that sort. also a ban on serving it in restaurants followed with fines as well.
0
rajakumar
Yes there should be bans until fish species like blue tuna increase in population high enough.
The fish species like blue tuna,need to breed more via bans,so that more fish food(blue tuna) is there in sea.
0
OssanAmerica
No. The most effective way is a combination of banning trade together with banning the taking of the species on a global scale for set periods of time which should be based on periodic monitoring.
0
parforthecourse
LOL. Why do people who vote "I don't know" or "I have no opinion" even vote?
Spineless twits.
0
Wakarimasen
Banning things almost never works - drugs, prohibition, underage sex etc. As long as something is tradeable, people will always get round a ban and make lots of money doing so.
0
xpidf1
Blame the United States because of that. Our marine ecosystem is almost nonexistant because of world potences such as Japan, China, Russia, and Spain.
The downside: Japan's crustacean export is represents 38% of it's exports, and once it's banned, another self economic crisis might kick in since 1998. And the sushi, as we know it on a cultural scale, "PA' FUERA!"
0
PepinGalarga
It wont do any good, even with fines, etc. Japan could start fishing bluefin tuna for "research" purposes.
0
PepinGalarga
xpidf1, are you from PR?? yo tambien! cool
0
Heda_Madness
There clearly needs to be far better management of our endangered species - not just Bluefin tuna, but North Sea Cod etc. A total fishing ban until the species have recovered enough to allow sustainable fishing is possibly the best way to go.
The problem with this, is when the ban is lifted, the loonies from sea shepherd will then start ramming the fishing boats.
0
davidattokyo
The most effective way is to not permit fishermen to over-exploit resources, and enforce this properly.
Banning trade is seemingly an artifact of the anti-globalization crowd trying to abuse this problem to push their own agenda.
0
davidattokyo
PepinGalarga,
Much data on fisheries resources comes from catch data. Various nations do conduct experimental fisheries programmes to obtain data that is independent of commercial catch data.
0
illsayit
Isnt there a lot of countries that put such a tight conrtrol on their local fishing industry, that by making this ban-a international one-, would also need to involve less restrictions on local fisherman?
0
OssanAmerica
Nice attempt at humor, but Japan together with Australia are the only nations that have succeeded in raising Bluefin Tuna in captivity from eggs. Japan is already light years ahead of other nations when it comes to aquafarming.
0
JenniferKim
If people are allowed to trade in species such as bluefin tuna, then there is a financial incentive to make sure the species doesn't die out.
Take a look at the list of animals that are owned by humans -- such as cows, chickens, sheep, and so on. Ever wonder why none of these animals is, or ever will be, on the endangered-species list?
0
dontpanic
"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.
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.
0
OssanAmerica
"Japan together with Australia are the only nations that have succeeded in raising Bluefin Tuna in captivity from eggs"
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.
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.
0
Taka313
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
0
timorborder
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).
0
Xeno23
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...
0
davidattokyo
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.
0
sf2k
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.
0
sf2k
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
0
davidattokyo
... 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.
The resources can recover if over-exploitation ends. Exploitation is not the problem. Over-exploitation is.
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.
0
Taka313
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
0
tclh
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.
0
sf2k
@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.
0
sf2k
@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)
0
tclh
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.
0
sf2k
sounds good
0
Badsey
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.
Back to top