ICCAT Plans To Kill 13.5 Tons of Bluefin, Could Be The Last!

Comment

Comment by TokyoTom on December 22, 2009 at 11:11pm

I note that NOAA has just announced national draft policy favoring catch shares in general, though not as a panacea, and noting each case is different & depends on nature of fishery & abilities of fishermen to self-manage.

Rich, are you guys preparing comments?

More here:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/12/21/strange-but-true-iv-noaa-proves-govt-can-learn-and-seeks-to-end-tragedy-of-commons-in-fisheries-by-implementing-quot-catch-share-quot-quasi-property-rights.aspx

Regards,

Tom

Comment by TokyoTom on December 21, 2009 at 1:17am

Rich, are you guys part of the industry-led International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), which apparently focusses on ensuring scientific and sustainable management of tuna that are canned?

http://world-wire.com/news/0903160001.html

Comment by TokyoTom on December 21, 2009 at 12:57am

Rich, I sympathize and think you to some extent make my point - namely, if you had some type of recognized long-term right to fish and to manage the bluefin stock, THEN you wouldn`t have to worry about remote governments (acting for a wide arrange of motives) closing the fishery (or, in the case of E.Atlantic/Med., encouraging a race to catch).

But as it is, you need sympathy and allies, which can translate into incentives for governments to behave in ways that are helpful and responsible.

What are you doing to explain your story to the media and consumer groups? To elicit support from Japanese officials and consumers - who want to keep eating tuna, but in a way that`s sustainable? Being able to distinguish yourselves from Europe and getting officials and consumers here to recognize the difference would provide powerful support, and would also provide a demand-pull type of market incentive/disincentive to fishermen where bluefin is not caught sustainably.

Are you having any of these discussions?

Comment by richard ruais on December 21, 2009 at 12:22am

U.S. BFT fishermen get little sympathy but don't need or want it. A balanced Agenda based on the facts and best science is all we need. We get enviro groups mostly talking out of both sides of their mouth. An example: at a recent Advisory Panel meeting, there were hints from a couple of groups to assisty develp a "super freezer" to help US fishermen under a CITES listing, suggesting a concern about the devastating finacial impact of a CITES listing would have on the Northeast fishermen in particular. Now that these same groups think they have the formal support of the US government for the listing, they have moved to delay implementation of new measures (in the making for 2 years) to increase US bag limits to only allow US fishermen to catch more of our legitmate quota under the established western conservation plan. The important point being they have no intention of allowing harvest of a species once they have an "endangered" label attached to it.

In terms of the government, it depends on which Agency or Congressional staffer you want to look at. We have some die hard, fall on the sword supporters and then we have some really bad folks in very important positions of authority very capable of wrongly hurting US fishermen and the coastal dependent economy and forestalling effective, efficient and equitable BFT sustainablity. It would not be prudent to name names.

But the leadership of the main groups representing US pelagic fishermen can distinguish between to the two. Eventually, overzealous actions betray true colors.

Comment by TokyoTom on December 20, 2009 at 5:48pm

Rich, I`m an American living in Tokyo, and have no tie to the fishing business or to BFT in particuklar, other than as a concerned consumer who doesn`t want to see responsible fishermen keep bearing the burden of very irresonsible fishing elsewhere.

It`s easy enough to see that fishing in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean is a tragedy of the commons that has been more difficult to bring under control because of the multiplicity of countries involved in licensing and regulating the fishermen, which has meant that overall there has been a destructive race to catch the bluefin )as opposedd to the US EEZ, where there is just one regulator - and the fishermen all speak the same language, and can more easily agree on what`s fair).

I have no particular axe to grind about how a particular fishery is managed, as long as it is done sustainably. I just note that the government has screwed up any number of fisheries, by keeping decisions out of the hands of the fishermen and incentivizing races to catch (bigger, faster boats to catch during steadily shrinking seasons) rather than responsible long-term management. The West Coast salmon stocks continue to crash, and the Canadians just trashed the cod fishery in this way, and even the environmental groups are recognizing that fishermen often do a better job of resource management and conflict resolution than government does - leading them to support catch shares.

I see certification as a tool that can be helpful and am aware of MSC, but suppose there are others out there, and that the government might even do a good enough job by itself. The point was just that it might help you with export markets and public opinion (which influences politicians/goverment/ICCAT/CITES) if you were able to demonstrate that your own catch - taking into account legal and IUU elsewhere- was NOT imperilling the bluefin. Sucha group might be useful on the other side of the Atlantic in bringing the countries and different fishermen together.

Are you getting any sympathy from the US envtl groups? From the US government? From any reporters?

Thanks for your response and further information.

Comment by richard ruais on December 20, 2009 at 9:56am

Tom: First, are you really from Japan? If so why, what or where does your involvement/concern stem from with BFT, should you care to share? The organizations I work for represent a significant portion of the US fishery for most fishing gears from Maine to Texas for BFT. Yes, the cause of the biological problem is the east and Mediteranean not following the scientific advice all these years (i.e. since 1974). But, there lack of action and compliance in the east has greatly undermined the conservation plan/measures in the west and hurt availability of BFT for US fishermen especially since 1996.

CITES does have an option called a "split listing" but they do not like to employ it. It is obviously difficult to enforce because it's the same fish. The CITES threat or "club" has been effective in moving the European Community to action finally in 2009. It now needs to be put back on the shelf. There is no turning back from the comittments made in Brazil last month to follow the science. For one thing, the Med. farms have been spoiled with a billion dollar industry that takes over 50,000 mt in yield to produce. 50K is the estimated maximum sustainable yield assuming the East abides by the minimum size and a fully rebuilt eastern spawning biomass. But even the farms now realize the only way back to catches and production levels of this magnitude is through a painful economic rebuilding plan requiring several years of mothballing a significant number of farms and purse seiners to keep catches down to below 8,000 mt.

Ownership of the resource is not the only path to long term conservation. Effective implementation of quotas, size limits and spawning area protection will work. For some fisheries, ownership is entirely wrong and harmful economically and socially. We have a Gneral category here in the US that currently has about 9,000 permit holders and allows all of these citizens (and more for the price of an easily available permit @ $27.00) an opportunity to try and catch a giant BFT until the conservative quota is caught. There is tremendous societal and economic benefit from the unsuccessful and successful fishing effort, much more so than the value would be to divide up the resource among a limited number of "priviliged individuals".

I am not a believer or supporter of MSC or any other private entitiy claiming competence to certify sustainability. This is a government responsibility, should not be available for a price and should not be influenced by radical environmental groups, as most private groups currently are. For example, the Canadian pelagic longline fleet is trying to purchase MSC blessing and they do not, unlike the US PLL fleet, use mandatory circle hooks or provide the turtle protection, billfish protection and overall ecosystem approach to fishing that the US fleet does. I support NOAA's Fish Watch program and competence and objectivity to determine "sustainability" and would hope other governments will get in the certification arena as well. If for no other reason than to protect the consumer from bias and provide the widest range of sustainable seafood available for healthy diets.

Comment by TokyoTom on December 20, 2009 at 1:13am

John, here`s the comment I sent by email; I`ll post it on your new thread too:

While I am very concerned about the bluefin, isn`t the problem overfishing in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, and aren`t the US and US fisherman now responsibly managing/catching bluefin in the western Atlantic and Caribbean?

I do not see that a CITES App. I listing would be needed or fair if it applies to western stocks fished by US fishermen. Is there any likelihood of such a distinction being made? It does not seem apparent in the rhetoric of the envtl groups, but maybe I`ve missed it. For the heavily over-fished stocks, I support CITES as a club, but the real answer lies in ending the tragedy of the commons by giving fishermen ownership rights in the resource - percentage of allocated take - so they have secure rights and incentives to invest in long-term sustainability rathter than in a short-term ruinous race. There are legitimate concerns that a CITES listing would lead to greater IUU lawlessness by fishers from nations that make reservations to CITES.

American fishermen could aid their cause by teaming with MSC or another certifying agency to market their catch as sustainable, and thereby capture the best market prices. Likewise, we really need SMART consumer pressure; if there was a way consumers around the world could distinguish from western vs.eastern/Med take, and permitted vs. IUU take, it would really put leverage on eastern fishermen to get their act in order and police themselves.

On the consumer side, I`m a bit surprised that there doesn`t appear to be any organized Japanese consumer movement to distinguish between sustainable, legal and IUU take. Are you aware of anything? I sense a market opportunity to provide information to concerned consumers here ...

Comment by John LoGioco on December 15, 2009 at 1:59pm

Rich thanks for taking the time to provide additional insight into these issues. Getting a glimpse of "tuna politics" from your perspective is fascinating and helpful. I do applaud and support the efforts of Amercian bluefin fishermen and the ABTA to get better data / science on these fish. In the end, this will always be the key to successful management. On behalf of the membership thanks for posting as you will always be welcome here.

Comment by richard ruais on December 14, 2009 at 7:31am

John: Your heart is in the right place and all your efforts to protect bluefin are respected and appreciated by all. Just a few comments here and then I will post the anti-CITES bluefin petition that I hope all your readers will consider.

1. the East has not followed the science, the western fishermen have not only followed it but commercial General, Harpoon and other category fishermen have spent more than a million dollars since I have been involved improving the science so we can someday have effective, efficient and equitable conservation of the mixing metapopulations of Atlantic bluefin prospering in the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. We ponied up monies for the first aerial surveys, the first acoustic migration surveys, the first electronic tags and continuing independent world class scientific independent science on how to incorporate complex mixing patterns into a stock assessment and conservation program. So we should never be lumped into the phrase "ICCAT has not followed the science"

2) This is not always true John in fishery biology or management. I know this will sound counterintuitive to you, but in some fisheries it makes perfect biological and economic sense to fish on spawning aggregations. The conditions generally require that the fish is of a size that it has spawned at least once (minimum size set above size at sexual maturity) and that the number of spawning fish caught is included and specified within a conservation management plan.

3. Yes, I should have said "our fishery" not "our fish". The US bluefin fishery (i.e. 57% of the western conservative yield) collectively is available to the US fishery stakeholders. The bluefin are not in the water simply to admire but to provide protein, economy, recreational activity and we are privileged to catch them and have a responsibility to conserve the same situation for generations to come.

4. I know you mean to say 13,500 mt -- this is the new eastern quota not 13.5. And a new study (see below) indicates that between 33 and 83% of the Angling category fish comprise our catch off Mid-Atlantic shores.

5. the better analogy, is would I go to a casino with 60% odds of winning and this answer is I will probably win. 60% in fisheries management is very acceptable probablity; considered precautionary by many given the limited understanding of the resource with the exception of high fecundity and incredible distribution range.

Your last paragraph is too filled with inappropriate emotion (e.g. "Do the fish deserve it?") for fishery management. This is something PETA would ask through naked Hollywood stars. I am not Japanese, I am not rich and I insist upon having sustainable bluefin sashimi available for me and my families diet, health and longetivity. I am a human being and I deserve to eat healthy, which means a diet heavy in fish including tunas.

Here is the online petition:

CITES Listing for Bluefin Tuna Still Moving Forward

Despite an incredible breakthrough at ICCAT in Brazil last month getting the Mediterranean bluefin fisheries under control and following the scientific advice, the inside word is that the Department of Interior’s US Fish and Wildlife Service continues to move forward with a CITES 1 (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna) listing. A CITES 1 listing will ban all international trade. The push for CITES is largely the result of what Congressman Barney Frank calls “some of the more rigid environmentalists” such as (my identification) PEW Charitable Trusts, World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and Oceanna, all likely and possible with some level of PEW financing.

Northern Atlantic bluefin tuna is not remotely in danger or threatened with extinction. The latest 2008 stock assessment for the East and West suggest 5.2 million fish are prospering in the Atlantic Ocean; more than a million of these of spawning age. This population constitutes enormous reproduction potential and can rebuild the entire Atlantic very rapidly as occurred with swordfish 3 years ahead of schedule.

Please consider signing the bluefin anti-CITES listing petition found at:

http://www.petitiononline.com/tuna09/petition.html

Here are the major reasons why a CITES listing is wrong and potentially counterproductive to the long term health of the resource and the fishery.

• First, as noted above, northern Atlantic bluefin tuna are not remotely close to being endangered with extinction; nor could fishermen chase down the last several hundred pairs of a highly fecund tuna (millions of eggs), widely distributed from Argentina to Norway. The latest 2008 ICCAT SCRS stock assessment provides no evidence or suggestion of a threat of the northern Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) going biologically extinct. I have not seen any suggestion by any mainstream, credible bluefin tuna scientists to the effect that there is any significant level of capability of a fishery or mankind to fish to extinction a species with the reproductive strategy of a highly migratory, highly fecund, widely distributed tuna species such as the Atlantic bluefin tuna.
• Catch rates would be uneconomic for fishermen to undertake the pursuit of the last several hundred or several thousand pairs of mature BFT.
• The latest ICCAT stock assessment estimates that in the east Atlantic alone there are now about 5 million bluefin prospering and mixing in the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. 1 million of these are spawners (meaning 4 years old and above in the East). Just to give you an idea our total catch is usually under 15,000 fish from all US fisheries with the population estimated at about 170,000 fish. Many of the fish we catch are eastern origin as demonstrated by a new scientific paper (based on microconstituent PCB variation between east and west fish) establishing that between 33 and 83% of our Mid-Atlantic catch of Angling category size fish are of Mediterranean origin.
• Judging by the Canadian fishery performance the last several years we have plenty of western spawners with rapid quota achievement with 700 to 1,100 lb fish prior to the main body of fish making the journey to the Gulf of Mexico to spawn and replenish the western metapopulation. Many scientists now seem to prefer describing BFT as “metapopulations” or “contingent hypothesis” group theories with one of the implications being survival of the species even if one or more of the sub-populations is under extreme stress and fishing pressure(such as the eastern Atlantic). Stock assessments repeatedly indicate that the western contingent has been stable for about 30 years at a lower than historical level i.e 1960’s and 70’s levels.
• The view described above would be the proper context to view the potential eastern “fishery collapse” of a contingent or assemblage i.e. there is no threat of extinction to the stock. In the west we have already noticed the drop in Eastern catches to about 19,000 mt (from a potential high catch in excess of 61,000 mt) confirmed by SCRS with increased abundance of juveniles supporting exceptional and valuable recreational fishing here, many of which are released.
• Table 4 of the latest stock assessment suggests the capacity of the eastern Atlantic spawning stock to compensate. In the last 10 years the average spawning stock biomass has dropped almost in half but the average recruitment has increased by a quarter of million fish. A stock recruitment relationship cannot be the justification for an argument of extinction or CITES listing.
• Even though the historic BFT fisheries collapsed in the Norwegian Sea, North Sea and Brazil, landings have since been reported. The collapse of the Nordic fisheries some 51 years ago still yielded catches over 100 tons in the 1990’s. And, the Brazilian fishery reported 13 tons in 1999 after the collapse in the 1960’s. Clearly an uneconomic fishery situation, but no doubt some evidence that collapsed fisheries cannot be interpreted as being based on extinction of the populations once supporting strong fisheries reported to ICCAT.
• In 1989 the Southern Bluefin tuna stock collapse was accepted by the participating fishing nations when the total catch dropped to the 10,000 to 15,000 mt level. 20 years later the Total Allowable Catch for the “collapsed” fishery is now set by the CCCSBT (one of the ICCATs of the Pacific) at 11,810 mt. Another example to demonstrate that with a highly migratory, highly fecund tuna species -- collapse of the fishery is not an indication of a threat of extinction of the species.
• The U.S. Delegation struggled for nearly 20 years to get the east and Mediterranean under control. In 2009 the convergence of a world “spotlight” being shined on the continuing Mediterranean bluefin abuse and high U.S. government level participation and involvement in the ICCAT Brazil meeting produced an irreversible change of course down a conservative path for eastern bluefin. The CITES threat worked and all the ENGO’s contributing have our thanks for contributing to finally forcing the European Community to get matters under control.
• The key issue controlling the future health of BFT is what just happened in Brazil at ICCAT in November 2009; even though the NOAA/FWS objective of immediately getting the East down to below 8,000 mt was not the outcome, the new quota of 13,500 is remarkable, it is consistent with the SCRS advice of a quota between 8- to 15,000 and the extended spawning closure (i.e. elimination of weather days and an 11 month purse seine closure) is incredible protection down from catches of 50,000 mt and higher
• The plan adopted by ICCAT this year requires an eastern TAC and bluefin rebuilding plan beginning in FY 2011 that has a 60% probability of achieving a biomass that allows Maximum Sustainable Yield (i.e. Bmsy) by 2023. While the precise TAC will be based on the 2010 stock assessment yet to occur, the current stock assessment would strongly suggest that this requirement will result in a TAC of less than 8000 mt beginning in FY2011 --perhaps substantially so.
• Also keep in mind this reduction in fishing mortality in the east has a double benefit for the future health of the western stock. It will substantially reduce the fishing mortality rate on western origin fish when they have migrated east and are subject to eastern fisheries. It will also increase the contribution of eastern origin fish that migrate west and enter our western fishery and, thereby, reduce the proportion of western orgin fish caught in the western fishery--ie. this reduces the fishing mortality rate on western origin fish.
• We also point out the Chairman of ICCAT in Recife Brazil Dr. Fabio Hazin proclaimed the “days of funny numbers are over at ICCAT”. This is further evidence the course change is irreversible.
• NOAA Chief of Staff Margret Spring, Dr. Rebecca Lent and Dr. Chris Rogers (Compliance Committee Chair) have provided an unprecedented breakthrough of enormous proportions in Brazil. The support of Senator Olympia Snowe, Senator Kerry and many colleagues was huge including passing a major Senate Resolution demanding eastern conservation. All of the major objectives set forth in the Senate Resolution were achieved at ICCAT.
• The breakthrough in Brazil for BFT Atlantic wide is irreversible just as it has been for swordfish. The swordfish biomass is now larger than necessary to produce MSY (being at 1.05 BMSY). In fact, in 2009 the swordfish quota was reduced by 300 tons just as a precaution to make sure the stoc k remains over rebuilt. From the European Community to North African producers, the message has been received to fix the problem and it is being fixed expeditiously.
• With the eyes of the World upon them the EC has finally spent the money to develop monitoring and control mechanisms to keep the catches within the scientific advice. The farms also accept the necessary change. It should not go unnoticed that 3 farms and 1 trap, under government mandates, released fish in captivity at considerable expense once the monitoring indicated the countries had met their 2009 quota.
• A CITES listing at this point could and likely will damage and undermine this progress. It would likely force countries to take formal “RESERVATIONS” which could spread like a western wildfire. Japan has objected 7 times to any CITES listing of any marine species. It is likely that Japanese markets will remain open to BFT if CITES 1 is obtained. Libya, Turkey, Algeria, Taiwan, Philippines, etc. would seek windfall profits to supply shortages from countries likely to abide by the CITES decision. A CITES listing will likely encourage Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing, which ICCAT has been seriously fighting and reducing for years. Meanwhile American fishermen will pay the price for abiding by the law, the science and conserving. We have been doing more, with larger minimum sizes in particular, than any other country to conserve bluefin tuna.
• A CITES listing will not produce zero catches. Even under a moratorium, the stock assessment is fishery dependent requiring some level of catches to know the status and level of improvement of the stocks in response to the rebuilding measures.
• A CITES listing would be insulting to the US ICCAT Delegation, NOAA/NMFS, etc., all who worked hard to produce this monumental change. A CITES listing would hurt the most compliant BFT fishermen in the world: the US fishermen. Just what kind of message does that send? American fishermen are not the cause of current CITES momentum and have always followed bluefin scientific advice and abided by international quotas.
• Even though the U.S. is a net importer of bluefin tuna, our markets cannot absorb our legitimate domestic production in the limited time the fish are available for production (the bulk of catch coming in 5 months June through October). Prices would likely crash and economically cripple the fishery injuring commercial tuna fishermen. The stigma of a CITES listing is exploited by radical ENGO’s with consumers and demand is permanently damaged, as has been the case with the “Give Swordfish a Break” campaign.
• A CITES listing is not the remedy for the Eastern/Mediterranean past failure to conserve. Nor does it take the place of proper fishery management or create the political will to empower ICCAT to do the right job.
Please take one more minute to sign the anti-CITES Petition and pass the link on to all who care about long term bluefin tuna Atlantic wide conservation.
http://www.petitiononline.com/tuna09/petition.html
Rich Ruais
American Bluefin Tuna Association
Blue Water Fishermen’s Asociation

Comment by John LoGioco on December 13, 2009 at 2:02pm

Thanks Rich for joining the network and adding value to the conversation. I know you, Ralph Pratt and others have spent years inside "tuna politics" and at the end of the day want to see more bluefin swimming in the oceans. Your input is always welcome here. For the sake of the membership, please take a moment to consider a different viewpoint from someone who also cares about the future of the bluefin but does not have a detailed history like yourself. I am in this position as are the 700+ people tied to this site and the many millons of others who now know about this issue. In short here are the simple principles that are making people upset;

1.) ICCAT has not followed the advice of scientists. The choices of the organization have always opted to kill more fish than recommended, including this latest round in Brazil.

2.) Any day that a commercial boat can kill a spawning bluefin, during spawning season, is not acceptable given the goals of trying to re-build the stocks.

3.) The notion that these tuna are "your" fish, or somehow the property of the harvester community is not correct. The business of harvesting is absoultely yours, but the fish themselves are the right of the people. And to date the people, to their discredit have not taken proper care of this position or the procedure in managing the resource.

4.) The best decison if we are looking out for the fish that swim off our coasts, is a closure in the Med. I know you know how many fish swam off our coast this summer. I was up in Ralph's plane and saw them for myself. Why should we not protect these fish as best we can? Is a closure in the Med. not the best move we can make here? I spoke with many bluefin diehards, who are on the water everyday, and they say as much as 30% of the smaller fish swimming off our coasts originate from the Med. Are we protecting our fish the best we can with the latest 13.5 metric ton quota?

5.) Closing the bluefin fishery to international trade will set a precedant for future closures. I would be more concerned of rampant future closures if the bluefin stocks collpase under ICCAT's recent plans. A 60% chance of success (read 40% of failure) is a huge gamble. Would you set sail on a fishing trip if you had a 40% chance of sinking?

So, I might be "off the mark" as you say from the international harvester point of view, but not for the millions of other people looking at this issue. As I have publicly stated I am a supporter of the US commercial harpoon & rod/reel fleets. However I am not a supporter of the seine fishieries given the status of the stocks. I used to work on a salmon seiner and know the power that such a method employs.

I know you are fighting to keep the US fisherman fishing, and trying to uphold a price that makes it all worth it. But I do ask, that you try and step back and ask yourself, why are we pounding these fish so hard? Do they deserve it? Why are we bringing these fish down to levels that are sparking such international argument? The answer is we're pounding the bluefin for the enjoyment of rich people, mostly in Japan, simply to eat a luxury item. It's not like we're curing some exotic disease here. This is the single most important point that young people cannot grasp. Even young people from Japan. As I have said before, try bringing the declining population graph for the last 30 years and the most recent ICCAT decisions to your local University for a sanity check. It just doesn't make common sense, and all the rules and management details become noise in the aftermath of such decison making.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page