United Nations Rejects Ban

UN rejects export ban on Atlantic bluefin tuna





DOHA, Qatar – A U.S.-backed proposal to ban the export of Atlantic bluefin tuna prized in sushi was rejected Thursday by a U.N. wildlife meeting, with scores of developing nations joining Japan in opposing a measure they feared would devastate fishing economies.



Monaco introduced the proposal at the 175-nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES. It argued that extreme measures for the iconic, migratory fish were necessary because the stocks have fallen by 75 percent due to widespread overfishing.



But as debate opened, it became clear that the proposal had little support. Only the United States, Norway and Kenya supported the proposal outright. The European Union asked that implementation be delayed until May 2011 to give authorities time to respond to concerns about overfishing.



Japan, which imports 80 percent of Atlantic bluefin and has led the opposition to the ban, reiterated its arguments that CITES should have no role in regulating tuna and other marine species. It expressed willingness to accept lower quotas for bluefin tuna but wanted those to come from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, or ICCAT, which currently regulates the trade.



"Japan is very much concerned about the status of Atlantic bluefin tuna and Japan has been working so hard for many years to ensure recovery," Masanori Miyahara, chief counselor of the Fisheries Agency of Japan, told delegates. "But our position is very simple. Let us do this job in ICCAT, not in CITES. This position is shared by majority of Asian nations."



Monaco tried to sway the delegates by reminding them that ICCAT has for years failed to maintain sustainable quotas that were supported by its own scientists. It also unsuccessfully tried to dispel fears that a CITES listing would last forever — even including language allowing Atlantic bluefin to be delisted once the stock recovers.



"This exploitation is no longer exploitation by traditional fishing people to meet regional needs," Monaco's Patrick Van Klaveren told delegates. "Industrial fishing of species is having a severe effect on numbers of this species and its capacity to recover. We are facing a real ecosystem collapse."



The tuna defeat came hours after delegates rejected a U.S. proposal to ban the international sale of polar bear skins and parts, showing that economic interest at this meeting appeared to be trumping conservation. It also raised the prospect that a CITES meeting that was packed with several dozen promising proposals could end next week in failure for environmentalists.



The Americans argued that the sale of polar bears skins is compounding the loss of the animals' sea ice habitat due to climate change. There are projections that the bear's numbers, which are estimated at 20,000 to 25,000, could decline by two-thirds due by 2050 due to habitat loss in the Arctic.



But Canada, Greenland and several indigenous communities argued the trade had little impact on the white bears population and would adversely effect their economies

Email received from Nils Stolpe dated Feb. 28th 2010


Wednesday, February 24, 2010 was the day that US fishermen* found their
collective voice, and that voice was a roar. And that roar echoed in the
halls of Congress. It was the day that two dozen US legislators heard
that roar loudly and clearly, and responded unequivocally that they were
committed to the cause that brought us all to Washington - to Fix
Magnuson Now.

The day was a complete success from the fishermen’s perspective, and I
can’t imagine it turning out any better than it did. Upwards of 5,000
fishermen were there, on the very steps of the Capitol, to express their
dissatisfaction with the anti-fishing weapon that federal fisheries
management has been turned into; a weapon based on the Big Lie that
fish-ermen shouldn’t be involved in managing their own fisheries. Some
fishermen expressed it with religious fervor and some expressed it with
humor, but they all expressed it with passion, with pride, with
integrity and with conviction. Anyone who was there and was listening
couldn’t have missed that.

But there was a downside.

South Carolina Says NO

The people in the state of Florida need to do what the people in the State of South Carolina have done and push our state government to pass like legistration.



RFA-SC Members Lobby For Resolution
February 3, 2010 - In a concurrent resolution, the South Carolina legislature is working to oppose any fishing area closures off the coast of South Carolina associated with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (SAFMC) proposed amendments to the fishery management plan for the grouper/snapper fishery. Two bills currently in play are H 4497 and S 1095 and call upon the SAFMC to not adopt any version of Amendment 17A that includes the closure of areas off the coast of South Carolina to fishing activities.

South Carolina members of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) lobbied extensively to garner support of this important issue, and the response from the legislators is being applauded by RFA and its South Carolina Members. "We need these passed immediately," said RFA-SC member Cantey Smith of Charleston. "These bills advocate protection of our economy, jobs, our ability to do what we love and the state of our offshore fishery. Smith stressed that fellow South Carolina anglers should pick up the phone or send a letter to their local legislator asking for support of the resolutions, adding "South Carolina values are at stake here."



In the resolution sponsored by Rep. Thad Viers of Myrtle Beach, Sen. Ray Cleary of Georgetown, Horry and Charleston Counties and Sen. Ronnie Cromer of Lexington, Newberry and Saluda Counties, South Carolina House and Senate members made it very clear that any proposals under consideration for closures by the SAFMC were "unjustifiable and would create severe economic hardship to the state and its coastal counties, including significant job loss at a time when job creation is badly needed and is a priority."


"Between NOAA restrictions on snapper and grouper, and the proposal to shut down the entire coast to bottomfishing, I'm not sure how much our coastal sector can bend," said Charleston charter captain, Mark Brown. "Our local fishing industry is close to broke as it is now."


The concurrent resolution reads that "any closed area to fishing off the coast of South Carolina will result in excessive fishing pressure on the remaining open areas, causing localized depletion of fish species, further, seriously impacting fishermen, employment, and the local economy." Furthermore, the Assembly "strongly urged representatives of South Carolina on the SAMFC to cast votes in opposition to any amendment that will result in any area of the state's coast being closed to fishing of any kind."


Ideally, RFA would like to see other coastal states within the SAFMC domain follow suit before the council reconvenes in March to vote on the area closures. "RFA is thankful to Congressman Henry Brown for contacting members of the House in South Carolina to get this done," said Jim Donofrio, Executive Director of the RFA. "Mr. Brown is primary co-sponsor of HR 1584, the Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act, and a champion for science-based and sustainable fisheries management. We would like to see more of our coastal legislators step up on behalf of their constituents the way these South Carolina representatives have," Donofrio said.

Another Obama Appointment that Lied

At her U.S. Senate confirmation hearing to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, celebrated marine biologist Jane Lubchenco was introduced as "the bionic woman of good science"
Lubchenco said she believed the time had come "to create a new climate of trust."

Science, the medium of her mastery, is her choice for the rapprochement.

What was needed, Lubchenco offered, was "data to believe in."

Lubchenco has been a Pew fellow, a member of the Pew Oceans Commission and the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative that evolved from it.



Lubchenco has been a Pew fellow, a member of the Pew Oceans Commission and the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative that evolved from it. In these endeavors, she was teamed with Leon Panetta, the former chief of staff for President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama's choice to be CIA director.



She also lists herself as a director of the Pew trust-financed SeaWeb, which describes itself as existing to "raise awareness of the world ocean and the life within it," according to Nils E. Stolpe, a columnist for National Fisherman, who has been reporting on the Pew campaign for many years.



"I don't find (Pew-financed science) to be really clean," said Eric Anderson, president of the 75-member New Hampshire Commercial Fishermen's Association. "I have questions about how pure and clean it really is, there's a lack of transparency."



"The Pew jacket on her — that scares me," Gloucester fisherman Russell Sherman said.



Vast in wealth with an endowment in the billions and generous to an arsenal of environmental platforms worldwide, some pre-existing and some created by Pew interests, the descendents of Joseph N. Pew, founder of Sun Oil Co., have created a powerful force that advances along political fronts under many banners.



Only days ago, the Pew Environmental Group, through the "Herring Alliance," activated a federal lawsuit against NMFS, demanding it crack down on the herring fleet, which is allowed to trawl in mid-levels through areas of fish-rich waters that are closed to groundfishing trawlers.

RFA Pushes for Flexibility Bill

RFA pushes for flexibility billAction hoped to aid recreational anglers, those dependent on fishing for livelihoodComment Email Print Share By Robert Montgomery
ESPNOutdoors.com

While some in the fishing industry advocate a more measured and diplomatic approach to a federal management strategy that is closing ocean fisheries to both sports anglers and commercials, the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) is coming out with both guns blazing.