http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62H52R20100318
http://news.discovery.com/animals/un-wildlife-proposals-polar-bears-bluefin-tuna-rejected.html

THE GIST:

* Bluefin tuna is prized in sushi; polar bear skins are a huge trading commodity for Canada.
* The proposals their trade were shot down over concerns they would hurt indigenous economies.
* The European Union asked that implementation of the bluefin proposal be delayed until May 2011.



A proposal to ban the export of Atlantic bluefin tuna prized in sushi has been rejected by a U.N. wildlife meeting.

Thursday's decision occurred after Japan, Canada and scores of poor nations opposed the measure on the grounds that it 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 are necessary because the stocks have fallen by 75 percent and current managing agencies have done nothing to rebuild the stocks.

...A pox on both your houses.

Yeah, shame on us for not wanting to completely eradicate some of our communities who rely on fishing in order to survive.

How dare we.

How's the weather up there on your high horse?

Oh no the fishies!!!!!!

Were so evil!!!!!

What will Lady Gaga walk around in if they can't skin polar bears any more?

Bunker wrote:

How's the weather up there on your high horse?

Considerably better than the air in your moral vacuum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadowbrand wrote:Oh no the fishies!!!!!!

Were so evil!!!!!

I'm glad you find the extinction of a keystone species a serious matter.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I'm glad you find the extinction of a keystone species a serious matter.

I find it considerably less serious than the forced poverty of entire communities just because someone who isn't affected by it at all decided his "morals" were more important than people being able to sustain a living.

Are you a member of PETA by any chance?

Modquisition on. Play nice now boys and girls.

So by the same token, banning heroin is forced poverty because it puts honest, hard-working dealers out of business?

Are we comparing Inuit to heroin dealers now?

No, I am simply stating it is a bit blunt to state that banning trade in Tuna suddenly enforces poverty on whole communities.

filbert wrote:No, I am simply stating it is a bit blunt to state that banning trade in Tuna suddenly enforces poverty on whole communities.

Except, you know, Tuna fishing is completely legal.

Don't compare apples and bowling balls.

You might also want to check on how many small Canadian (and I'm sure, Japanese) communities rely on fishing as their sole means of income. You know, do some actual research before you compare honest, hardworking people to criminals?

Thats a more polite argument. But it doesn't have anough wiener dog in it. Once again i must take up the slack of you tossers. Its a thankless burden I bear.

Bunker wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I'm glad you find the extinction of a keystone species a serious matter.

I find it considerably less serious than the forced poverty of entire communities just because someone who isn't affected by it at all decided his "morals" were more important than people being able to sustain a living.

Are you a member of PETA by any chance?

I find the ramifications for all the communities that rely on the tuna and the current ecology of the pacific to be pretty serious. I find the maintaining of a species to have a higher priority than some folks getting to pay for expensive sushi who eat it for the pure reason that it is becoming rarer and rarer.

Who the hell is in forced poverty in Canada? What the hell is the GNP of that country? Forced Poverty? Are you trying to be insulting to the people living in real 3rd world nations or is the administration of your country so utterly bereft of capability that it would allow part of it's population to endure poverty due to not being able to hunt bears.

Here's a kicker, just what the hell are they going to do when there aren't any more left, you'll still be in the same mire, are you seriously telling me it's better to just 'delay it a bit whilst we make some species extinct after which we'll be right back at the same problem'...

Pure gold. So your answer is:


We demand to be able to hunt these creatures so we aren't forced into poverty, we will hunt them until they are extinct, at which point, we will be forced into poverty.

There will be no sustained living if this is not halted now, no 'cultural future'.

Bunker wrote:

filbert wrote:No, I am simply stating it is a bit blunt to state that banning trade in Tuna suddenly enforces poverty on whole communities.

Except, you know, Tuna fishing is completely legal.

Don't compare apples and bowling balls.

You might also want to check on how many small Canadian (and I'm sure, Japanese) communities rely on fishing as their sole means of income. You know, do some actual research before you compare honest, hardworking people to criminals?

I didn't compare Inuit to dealers at all - I merely said that by your logic we would never ban anything that someone could derive an income from.

Would ceasing the polar bear fur trade really hurt any communities? I'm sure a few taxidermists would be damaged, but are they worth risking the entire species?

On the tuna issue, I'd prolly side with Canada on that one. If stopping the farming of those would seriously endanger the livelihoods of entire communities, it isn't really fair for us to sit back and tell those peeps "tough luck."

MeanGreenStompa wrote:



Who the hell is in forced poverty in Canada? What the hell is the GNP of that country?

A LOT of the Native communities further up North are barely holding on, and rely heavily on fishing, hunting and farming to give their communities a chance. Banning tuna fishing would in essence be cutting out one of their major sources of income. Do some research before you condemn an entire country of people because you don't understand that not all of them live the same way. Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal =/= Canada.


Nice try with the "insulting to people in real 3rd world nations" bit. You stay classy.

You still haven't answered: Are you a member of PETA?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Here's a kicker, just what the hell are they going to do when there aren't any more left, you'll still be in the same mire, are you seriously telling me it's better to just 'delay it a bit whilst we make some species extinct after which we'll be right back at the same problem'...

+1

Sadly it's always the "tree-huggers" vs. "honest hardworking people" and it doesn't have to be. My feeling is that if the fishing is made illegal, people in most cases can find some other way to earn a living. While if we fish the tuna into extinction, well, curtains tuna.

RustyKnight wrote: it isn't really fair for us to sit back and tell those peeps "tough luck."

Of course it is, but only to those with the moral high ground

Lad's let's cool it in here. MGS, this post was flame bait pure and simple. Do NOT attack an entire country for the actions of it's government, or a small part of it's government. It's dumb, and it makes the people you're talking to defensive, and that's perfectly reasonable.

Tone it down, and maybe we can have a discussion about a very really, very pressing issue without everyone getting pissy at each other.
Bunker, I understand you're annoyed, but what would MGS membership of an (admittedly dumb) organisation like PETA have to do with the logic of his arguments? Argue against his points, don't demonise him as a person (though I acknowledge his original post was inflammatory in the extreme).

Lastly, to the issues: Well, fact is if you don't preserve species they are gonna die out. Fishing without proper regulation isn't sustainable. The sad fact is that these communities are not given enough help by the government, and therefore they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. It's easier to allow the inuit (or whoever) to keep fishing than face up to the uncomfortable truth. They need to pay these guys benefits, or help them train in other skills, while the populations recover. Otherwise, they're gonna be screwed anyway, AND the ecosystem will be devastated. This isn't tree hugging hippy stuff, I don't go in for that. This is ecology and economics. It's not the fault of the locals that they have no options, and it does mean hard choices and possibly higher taxes, but that's what it takes to have sustainable aquaculture.

As to polar bears, I'll be very sad when they die out but I feel it's less of an issue than fish populations. They're a charismatic macrofauna, and yeah, people want to save them. Be nice if we could, but if I had to pick one, I'll pick the fish, for economic reasons.

This issue is pretty close to me, as I'm from a fishing family myself, and I've seen the industry go down and the fishermen become unemployed. Worse up in the North of Canada no doubt, but I imagine the pressures and lack of action from government are similar.

I hope we can all take a step back from this, take a few breaths, and debate it with logic and without attacking each other. Marine ecology is an international issue, and there's a lot to it, and no real easy answers.

I imagine the fish the tuna eat would be ok with that though.

I eat tuna, from these guys:
http://www.fish-4-ever.com/

You can eat tuna, just the Blue finned giant tuna is the one that has been most heavily targeted and they need to stop fishing it for a while to let stocks recover. Or, there will be none left and the people demanding they be allowed to fish it now won't get to fish it at all in about 10 years.

As for polar bears, well, they're screwed it seems, so whilst their habitat becomes less and less stable, why not bag a few before they're all gone... yeah...

Just as long as we don't upset 'native cultures' eh. Cos the fishing of tuna in both countries is certainly not industrialised is it...

Oh and killing polar bears financially holds up communities? Really? Is there actually any reason for the continued hunting of this rare animal, other than distasteful carpets for the rich and soulless?

Frazzled wrote:I imagine the fish the tuna eat would be ok with that though.

Seriously. I'm surprised you don't see more of them protesting in favor of this.

Lads, you do know marine ecology is more complex than that, right?

Da Boss wrote:Lads, you do know marine ecology is more complex than that, right?

Pfft, whatever. Little fish are eaten by bigger fish, who are in turn eaten by bigger fish, who are in turn eaten by us.

Shows how much you know

Complex than what?

One species driving another to extinction is the process our world works with. It has happened before humans, it will happen after. Humanity is one species imp0acting another, it happens. Globally the world will survive, things will be impacted and things will change sure, but the world will still spin.

Humans are still animals. No one calls an animal that eats another to extinction immoral. That is all we are doing really. The idea that we should save another species seems misguided.

Yeah except the extinction of an economically important species is bad for the people who rely on it. I mean, the long view is nice and all, but it's pretty useless when it comes down to it. Woo! Sher the sun'll burn out eventually, what's the point of any sort of policy.
Frazzled: I had my serious hat on, and took a joke post seriously. Carry on.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I eat tuna, from these guys:
http://www.fish-4-ever.com/

You can eat tuna, just the Blue finned giant tuna is the one that has been most heavily targeted and they need to stop fishing it for a while to let stocks recover. Or, there will be none left and the people demanding they be allowed to fish it now won't get to fish it at all in about 10 years.

As for polar bears, well, they're screwed it seems, so whilst their habitat becomes less and less stable, why not bag a few before they're all gone... yeah...

Just as long as we don't upset 'native cultures' eh. Cos the fishing of tuna in both countries is certainly not industrialised is it...

Oh and killing polar bears financially holds up communities? Really? Is there actually any reason for the continued hunting of this rare animal, other than distasteful carpets for the rich and soulless?

I am all about finding other more efficiant ways to exploit natural resources. The Govt. could easily subsidise the cost to target other large local game fish. As far as polar bears I am pretty sure information has been released showing the population is stable and rapidly growing. Global warming nut jobs seem to have the loudest voice. Just because you screem louder does not make it right.

Species goes extinct = fishing economies go bust
Species is considered "endagered" and fishing is restricted = fishing economies damaged.

Dunno, it's a no brainer, long term, to me.

Melchiour, you seem to be equating human behaviour to a 'natural' process (as much as that can be said). You would agree it is not particularly natural for me to take my automatic rifle and rid the world of rhino, no?

What do tuna eat? They aren't that picky-lobsters, crabs, shrimps, and barnacles. clams, snails, oysters and mussels, and even each other.
Read more at Suite101: Sea Creatures 101: The Life of Your Seafood: Tuna http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/aquatic_animals/106468#ixzz0ielGwx6A


Man those tuna are mean, picking on those poor hapless shrimp, oysters, and snails. Butchers!
Save our snails! Eat a tuna!*

*Brought to you by the Save our Snails Alliance, a political action committee founded by the Escargo Alliance, The EA, protecting the rights of those who eat icky things for 175 years.

Polar Bears are cool though, and man they love coca cola!

The instrument you use makes no impact on what you do. Does a monkey that uses a tool to pry ants out of a anthill become morally corrupt because he used a tool. Would it be better if humans killed a rhino with a sharp stick? The tool doesn't matter. Humans killing another species is just that, its not good, its not bad, its the way things work out.

It's not about good and evil. Moral judgements don't really come into it. It's about sound, logical decision versus poor illigical decision. The problem lies in determining which is the right decision. I'm in favour of preserving food fish species. I've yet to hear a particularly good argument against it.

So killing on an industrial and mechanical scale is the same as hunting with a spear because the tool doesn't matter? There is a big difference between hunting for need to provide for yourself and family's immediate needs and mass trawler fishing for profit.

Of course if they stop tuna fishing, I'll miss out on some delicious sushi.....otoro sashimi...... *drool*.... what's with the double posting?

on a lighter note,

Is there? Explain how, exactly.
What do you think this "profit" goes towards, if not, in the end, sustaining people.

Da Boss - I take the point but it's a somewhat laboured point. If I fish every day, catching a fish a day to feed myself then that is quite different to trawling for fish once a week and selling them for profit, The volumes are different for a start.

filbert wrote:So killing on an industrial and mechanical scale is the same as hunting with a spear because the tool doesn't matter? There is a big difference between hunting for need to provide for yourself and family's immediate needs and mass trawler fishing for profit.

Killing is killing.

If I kill someone with a gun or my hands, I did the same deed. Reasons are irrelevant. People are trying to add moral ideas, which is an abstract thing, to a natural process of species. IMO.


As a side note. I am not saying I agree with fishing to extinction. I am only saying making a judgement on human nature doesn't work. I would be rather happy if all the species staid plentiful, but I am not going to judge someone else in a situation I can not comprehend, nor on a trait I deem to be part of human nature.

People are screwed up animals, but we are animals.

Yeah, definitely. But substinence is different from living as we class it in the first world. I think we want to lift people out of substinence. I'm all for controls and quotas on fishing, I don't think we do enough at all currently. I just think it's REALLY important not to demonise the poor sods working in that dangerous, unforgiving industry.
They need help, not judgemental comments.

ounumen wrote:As far as polar bears I am pretty sure information has been released showing the population is stable and rapidly growing. Global warming nut jobs seem to have the loudest voice. Just because you screem louder does not make it right.

You know the recorded sightings increases are due to them being forced south right, as the ice is receding. You do understand that?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090406-sea-ice-younger.html



And no bunker, I don't belong to PETA, I do make charitable contributions to a couple of ecological organisations.

Population figures on something like polar bears are always really dodgey. I think MGS has a viable counter hypothesis there.

I think polar bears are probably screwed. Sad. The one in Dublin Zoo put me off zoos for life as a kid. Animal like that in a victorian style zoo is heartbreaking.

And I apologise for any misunderstanding over the thread title, it has been amended.

This discussion reminds me of a Simpsons' episode where Bart is working for the local mafia guy, Fat Tony. Fat Tony is giving Bart a 'lesson' in morals.

Tony, "Would it be wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your family, if they were hungry?"
Bart, "Well, I guess not."
Tony, "What if your family didn't like bread, but they liked someting like...oh, cigarettes instead. Would it be wrong to steal cigarettes?"
Bart, "Well, I guess not."
Tony, "What if your family didn't want to eat the cigarettes. So, you sold them to buy the bread, would that be wrong?"

People need to eat. People eat meat. Now, there's balance in the world. Eating a species into extinction means there is no more of that yummy-yummy giant blue tuna left. If you hunt it in moderation, you hopefully have an infinite supply of it.

And similarily to the Simpsons,
"Is it wrong to hunt tuna to feed your family?"
"I guess not."
"What if your family likes more than tuna. Would it be wrong to sell some of the tuna to buy bread?"

There's very few people who live in an industrialized country that have to hunt for food. We fish or farm tasty animals (because there's no market for ones that taste bad).

Bunker wrote:Yeah, shame on us for not wanting to completely eradicate some of our communities who rely on fishing in order to survive.

How dare we.

How's the weather up there on your high horse?

How is the Newfoundland fishing community doing?

Bunker wrote:some of our communities who rely on fishing in order to survive.

Which communities are these please and what bearing does this have on any polar bear culling?
just curious and not trying to wind up

Kilkrazy wrote:

Bunker wrote:Yeah, shame on us for not wanting to completely eradicate some of our communities who rely on fishing in order to survive.

How dare we.

How's the weather up there on your high horse?

How is the Newfoundland fishing community doing?

Not so good apparently, it seems they 'over-fished' whatever that means...?

wiki wrote:Cod fishing in Newfoundland was carried out at a subsistence level for centuries, but large scale fishing began shortly after the European discovery of the North American continent in 1492, with the waters being found to be preternaturally plentiful, and ended after intense overfishing with the collapse of the fisheries in the 1990s.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Bunker wrote:Yeah, shame on us for not wanting to completely eradicate some of our communities who rely on fishing in order to survive.

How dare we.

How's the weather up there on your high horse?

How is the Newfoundland fishing community doing?

Not as good as their oil-drilling community, which the Natives up North don't have the luxury of being able to switch to.

Try harder

People have to eat to live, and they need jobs too.

40,000 jobs were lost in the Grand Banks fishing collapse, and there are no more cod there for people to eat.

Is that what people want to happen in tuna or other fisheries?

You're still dodging the point that overfishing a species to extinction not only ends the species, but screws the people economically in the long run.

A possible middle ground would be to avoid an outright ban and instead go for a serious reduction in the amount that can be caught. A reduction in supply drives up prices so its not as devastating as a total ban or even as sever an economic impact as the percentage reduction might suggest.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Bunker wrote:Yeah, shame on us for not wanting to completely eradicate some of our communities who rely on fishing in order to survive.

How dare we.

How's the weather up there on your high horse?

How is the Newfoundland fishing community doing?

Not so good apparently, it seems they 'over-fished' whatever that means...?

wiki wrote:Cod fishing in Newfoundland was carried out at a subsistence level for centuries, but large scale fishing began shortly after the European discovery of the North American continent in 1492, with the waters being found to be preternaturally plentiful, and ended after intense overfishing with the collapse of the fisheries in the 1990s.

Still poor since EU members continue to factory fish the region.

Does that justify overfishing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I asked my wife what she thinks of the failure of the ban and she is pleased because eating tuna is part of Japan's tradition.

Bunker wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Bunker wrote:Yeah, shame on us for not wanting to completely eradicate some of our communities who rely on fishing in order to survive.

How dare we.

How's the weather up there on your high horse?

How is the Newfoundland fishing community doing?

Not as good as their oil-drilling community, which the Natives up North don't have the luxury of being able to switch to.

Try harder

bluefin tuna is fished because of it's high price as a delicacy. If it is continued to be fished at current levels, it will be extinct. fact.

Excluding bluefin, most other forms of tuna are abundant, in some cases even known as "the rat of the sea." Arguing that the cease in fishing bluefin tuna will damage native communities is complete fail.

Melchiour wrote:One species driving another to extinction is the process our world works with. It has happened before humans, it will happen after. Humanity is one species imp0acting another, it happens. Globally the world will survive, things will be impacted and things will change sure, but the world will still spin.

Humans are still animals. No one calls an animal that eats another to extinction immoral. That is all we are doing really. The idea that we should save another species seems misguided.

It's no way near as simple as that. Humans are a more consumptuous species than has ever existed on earth and it's increasing at an exponential rate. "it happens" no, it's never happened before. We only have to expect humantys population to cary on the same way it has done for it's sentient history and at some point it wont be able to support itself. Overfishing a food source to extinciton does not help.

Bunker wrote:Yeah, shame on us for not wanting to completely eradicate some of our communities who rely on fishing in order to survive.

How dare we.

How's the weather up there on your high horse?

This isn't a moral issue, this is about making sure that we can sustain fishing for generations to come. At present rates we will fish tuna into extinction very shortly, so you can decry your opponents as high minded environmentalists all you want, but that'll do stuff all to protect these communities when the fish are gone.


And the argument about the small native guys just getting by is bollocks. A dude in a canoe isn't fishing tuna into extinction, its commercial boats using commercial techniques. The Inuit and their income could be protected by granting licences limiting the haul taken per year. It would on'y be major commercial operations that'd find their hauls cut, the Inuit would earn more money as they'd get a much better price.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melchiour wrote:One species driving another to extinction is the process our world works with. It has happened before humans, it will happen after. Humanity is one species imp0acting another, it happens. Globally the world will survive, things will be impacted and things will change sure, but the world will still spin.

Humans are still animals. No one calls an animal that eats another to extinction immoral. That is all we are doing really. The idea that we should save another species seems misguided.

We like eating tuna. If we fish them into extinction there won't be any more tuna to eat. This isn't morality, this is enlightened self interest. Do you understand?

I lived amongst the inuit for several years to better understand the struggle of man vs. nature. It would be a shame to see them hurt by this.

whatwhat wrote:Humans are a more populous species than has ever existed on earth and it's increasing at an exponential rate.

Not really. Some species of insects have us beat by several orders of magnitude. I'd have to do some more digging but so do some rodents as well and I'm pretty sure some species of fish.

Tyyr wrote:Not really. Some species of insects have us beat by several orders of magnitude. I'd have to do some more digging but so do some rodents as well and I'm pretty sure some species of fish.

Yes you're right, of course.

whatwhat wrote:Humans are a more consumptuous species than has ever existed on earth and it's increasing at an exponential rate.

Fixed, point intact.

Tyyr wrote:Not really. Some species of insects have us beat by several orders of magnitude. I'd have to do some more digging but so do some rodents as well and I'm pretty sure some species of fish.

The bio-mass of creatures at the bottom of the food chain needs to outweigh the top by several magnitudes for the whole thing to work. You need a hell of a lot more cows and chickens than people to keep us all fed, for instance.

The issue isn't total population, and never will be. The issues are resource consumption and preservation. To the extent that we overfish tuna so that there are no tuna for future generations is the extent of the problem. Right now it is a big problem.

Bunker wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:



Who the hell is in forced poverty in Canada? What the hell is the GNP of that country?

A LOT of the Native communities further up North are barely holding on, and rely heavily on fishing, hunting and farming to give their communities a chance. Banning tuna fishing would in essence be cutting out one of their major sources of income. Do some research before you condemn an entire country of people because you don't understand that not all of them live the same way. Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal =/= Canada.


Nice try with the "insulting to people in real 3rd world nations" bit. You stay classy.

You still haven't answered: Are you a member of PETA?

Edit just read through the posts some more, Sebster got it.

A note I feel important to make: this ban concerns only Bluefin tuna, right? well, there's more than one type of tuna, and most types are not endangered (albeit some [like the albecore] are data deficient). why aren't yellowfin and albacore good enough to catch? surely targeting them rather than Bluefin would allow those stocks to recover. (AHHH WIKIPEDIA IT'S TOTALLY INACCURATE --> wikipedia isn't so bad for scientific stuff, so sayeth my crazy awesome solar system prof guy) --> ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albacore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowfin_tuna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_bluefin_tuna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_bluefin_tuna

sebster wrote:The bio-mass of creatures at the bottom of the food chain needs to outweigh the top by several magnitudes for the whole thing to work. You need a hell of a lot more cows and chickens than people to keep us all fed, for instance.

Yes, of course you do. That's biology 101. I was not trying to support or disprove anything of the sort, only correcting a very wrong statement, that humans are the most populous species on the planet.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I asked my wife what she thinks of the failure of the ban and she is pleased because eating tuna is part of Japan's tradition.

What will she think when there are no tuna to eat? What becomes of this tradition then? Why do they not get that this fish will become extinct?

I cannot wrap my brain around the Japanese outlook when it comes to ecological issues or issues of animal welfare. It's like there is a total disconnect between what I see as the ineffable truth and what they say is a traditional right.

I love many things about the Japanese, in terms of their culture and then it comes to whaling, deforestation, dolphin eating and the insistence on finding the rarest things on earth so as to extract some small parts of them to eat for incredible sums of money.

Just don't get it and it leaves me seething.

CaptainCommunsism wrote:A note I feel important to make: this ban concerns only Bluefin tuna, right? well, there's more than one type of tuna, and most types are not endangered (albeit some [like the albecore] are data deficient). why aren't yellowfin and albacore good enough to catch? surely targeting them rather than Bluefin would allow those stocks to recover. (AHHH WIKIPEDIA IT'S TOTALLY INACCURATE --> wikipedia isn't so bad for scientific stuff, so sayeth my crazy awesome solar system prof guy) --> ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albacore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowfin_tuna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_bluefin_tuna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_bluefin_tuna

I made the same point earlier, and I think you want...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skipjack_tuna which make up the bulk of what we call tuna, and aren't endangered/overfished.

The main problem with this is that its the small communities, who have fished/hunted without a major impact, that will be affected, while it is the giant corporations that messed everything up with over fishing.

talking about a goverments gross income or a country's status as a first or third world status, as both japan and canada have very very poor communities, just like the US has areas that are 3rd world, goverments don't like to support the poor by taxing the rich seeing as pissing off the rich (including the middle class) leads to less re-electability.

I do believe that systems have to put in place to protect the species from exstinction, while still allowing their harvesting. removing a top predator (in this case polar bears or blue fin tuna) would adversly effect the ecosystems they inhabit

If only we had called them Sea Kittens! None of this would be happening.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
I asked my wife what she thinks of the failure of the ban and she is pleased because eating tuna is part of Japan's tradition.

What will she think when there are no tuna to eat? What becomes of this tradition then? Why do they not get that this fish will become extinct?

I cannot wrap my brain around the Japanese outlook when it comes to ecological issues or issues of animal welfare. It's like there is a total disconnect between what I see as the ineffable truth and what they say is a traditional right.

I love many things about the Japanese, in terms of their culture and then it comes to whaling, deforestation, dolphin eating and the insistence on finding the rarest things on earth so as to extract some small parts of them to eat for incredible sums of money.

Just don't get it and it leaves me seething.

MGS old chap, you're married to a foreigner.

At some time you are going to find a point of difference with her about something that really matters to her and you find silly, and you are going to have to keep your peace to stop the cutlery from taking off.

Instead of banning the fishing of the special tuna, why don't they charge the people fishing the tuna a fee for having reduced the number of tuna for everyone else. Then they can reduce the number caught and raise some money to buy the poor people new whatevers. The rich people will have to pay more for their tuna too, which should make them happy, since rich people love paying too much for food.

Instead of banning the fishing of the special tuna, why don't they charge the people fishing the tuna a fee for having reduced the number of tuna for everyone else

Because it doesn't work. If you raise the price people simply start fishing illegally, the Portugese have been fishing illegally in Canadian waters for decades, they fish fish which are protected by Canadian and in some cases international law, yet because they can still find a market for the fish they will keep coming back.

As for the Polar Bear hunt, a single polar bear can bring 20000 dollars, thats incredibly significant to a community where they average earning without that polar bear quota is either equal to or slightly over that sum.

When it comes to native communities fishing, in Canada they can already exploit resources that would be illegal for non natives to exploit because it falls under traditional way of living. There are fishing bans in some areas of BC that the Natives are allowed to ignore and do so. They fish with the exact same equipment that regular fishermen use, they sustenance fishing anymore than a regular fisherman with a 500 000 dollar boat is.

Ratbarf wrote:

Instead of banning the fishing of the special tuna, why don't they charge the people fishing the tuna a fee for having reduced the number of tuna for everyone else

Because it doesn't work. If you raise the price people simply start fishing illegally, the Portugese have been fishing illegally in Canadian waters for decades, they fish fish which are protected by Canadian and in some cases international law, yet because they can still find a market for the fish they will keep coming back.

But this is as much a problem with a prohibition on fishing them, isn't it?

How is this all going to effect the Tuna Helper, and other fish related boxed dinners, industry, or Tuna Box Industrial Complex?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
I asked my wife what she thinks of the failure of the ban and she is pleased because eating tuna is part of Japan's tradition.

What will she think when there are no tuna to eat? What becomes of this tradition then? Why do they not get that this fish will become extinct?

I cannot wrap my brain around the Japanese outlook when it comes to ecological issues or issues of animal welfare. It's like there is a total disconnect between what I see as the ineffable truth and what they say is a traditional right.

I love many things about the Japanese, in terms of their culture and then it comes to whaling, deforestation, dolphin eating and the insistence on finding the rarest things on earth so as to extract some small parts of them to eat for incredible sums of money.

Just don't get it and it leaves me seething.

QFT.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Bunker wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I'm glad you find the extinction of a keystone species a serious matter.

I find it considerably less serious than the forced poverty of entire communities just because someone who isn't affected by it at all decided his "morals" were more important than people being able to sustain a living.

Are you a member of PETA by any chance?

I find the ramifications for all the communities that rely on the tuna and the current ecology of the pacific to be pretty serious. I find the maintaining of a species to have a higher priority than some folks getting to pay for expensive sushi who eat it for the pure reason that it is becoming rarer and rarer.

Who the hell is in forced poverty in Canada? What the hell is the GNP of that country? Forced Poverty? Are you trying to be insulting to the people living in real 3rd world nations or is the administration of your country so utterly bereft of capability that it would allow part of it's population to endure poverty due to not being able to hunt bears.

Here's a kicker, just what the hell are they going to do when there aren't any more left, you'll still be in the same mire, are you seriously telling me it's better to just 'delay it a bit whilst we make some species extinct after which we'll be right back at the same problem'...

Pure gold. So your answer is:


We demand to be able to hunt these creatures so we aren't forced into poverty, we will hunt them until they are extinct, at which point, we will be forced into poverty.

There will be no sustained living if this is not halted now, no 'cultural future'.

MGS: unfortunately you hae fallen for one o them Media one sided stories. argue all you like, with what ever facts you like, but your just blowing hot air out your Arse on this, No, really you are no matter how you slice or dice it......
*YOU ARE ONLY PARTIALY INFORMED*
You dont know squat about fur harvesting in canada, and what it means to the people that have to do it, nor are you apperently aware of the fishing situation and its regulation in canada, nor who is really to blame for a huge number of speices ending up on the endangerd lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ratbarf wrote:

Instead of banning the fishing of the special tuna, why don't they charge the people fishing the tuna a fee for having reduced the number of tuna for everyone else

Because it doesn't work. If you raise the price people simply start fishing illegally, the Portugese have been fishing illegally in Canadian waters for decades, they fish fish which are protected by Canadian and in some cases international law, yet because they can still find a market for the fish they will keep coming back.

As for the Polar Bear hunt, a single polar bear can bring 20000 dollars, thats incredibly significant to a community where they average earning without that polar bear quota is either equal to or slightly over that sum.

When it comes to native communities fishing, in Canada they can already exploit resources that would be illegal for non natives to exploit because it falls under traditional way of living. There are fishing bans in some areas of BC that the Natives are allowed to ignore and do so. They fish with the exact same equipment that regular fishermen use, they sustenance fishing anymore than a regular fisherman with a 500 000 dollar boat is.

Agreed. though it is worth of note that the First nations people dont abuse the privlage. i have never heard of abuse even one millionth as bad as that of illigal trawlers from alot of european and asian countries. most canadians remember fish like Flounder, cod, turbit, bluefish, that were almost whiped out in part mainly due to illigal foreign fishing.

Hawkins wrote:
MGS: unfortunately you hae fallen for one o them Media one sided stories. argue all you like, with what ever facts you like, but your just blowing hot air out your Arse on this, No, really you are no matter how you slice or dice it......
*YOU ARE ONLY PARTIALY INFORMED*
You dont know squat about fur harvesting in canada, and what it means to the people that have to do it, nor are you apperently aware of the fishing situation and its regulation in canada, nor who is really to blame for a huge number of speices ending up on the endangerd lists.

So your point is... 'You don't know, you're only citing reuters and the discovery channel news, so your talkin out your arse'...

And your contrary information is? Nowhere.

I am well aware two species are facing imminent extinction and your telling me I only know half the story. WHERE IS THE OTHER HALF OF THE STORY THAT TELLS ME THESE SPECIES ARE NOT GOING EXTINCT? (see that, I used caps too!)

As to who's to blame, yep, that's important to understand and deal with, however my concern is the same as the rest of the world's should be, the prevention of the extinction of species.

Hawkins wrote:"You dont know squat about fur harvesting in canada, and what it means to the people that have to do it, nor are you apperently aware of the fishing situation"

I know those communities will be royally fethed when there aren't any left... So what's your point?

Don't scream at me I don't know and then fail to provide me with this hidden truth you know about and I don't. Enlighten me so I no longer talk out of my arse about things I've read about in internationally recognised media and that actually took place.

'Hey they have the right to hunt these things!' - Great, until there aren't any left, then what? What fething use is their 'right' to hunt then? What is their 'right', who ordained it, cos in my book, no culture should be allowed the right to arbitrarily exterminate a species.

But you dont understand. its that simple. id suggest you take a long walk off the short goggle pier MGS. if your wanting sustansiation evidence . it wont be hard to find.

You for lack of better words, dont know [MOD Edit - Please do NOT try and get around the swear filter.] about the canadian harvests and the regs concering them.
Complain and whine all you like on this topic, but dont exspect me to treat it as anything but contemptual. inform yourselfand then come back swinging, till then your words or arguements are useless.
the canadian govt has been facing problems like this for more than 80 years, and for the most part i dont think you really understand the complicaions behind decisions to oppose the ban.

I understand clearly that both the Canadian and Japanese administrations have opted for the short term placation of their electorate over the long term implementation of measures that will safeguard those same communities livelihoods.

Why do I need to obtain the 'evidence' of what you're saying? You made the claim now back it up!
I've already cited my evidence of the failures of your government to do anything but just take the path of least resistance.

@Hawkins: That's the saddest excuse for a counter argument I've ever seen.

If you object to MGS' position, you should posit a situation in which extinction due to overfishing is a desirable thing.

I would suggest you check the CBC for the polar bear parts only, you may think it would be partisan but they hate the current leading party and they hate them right back so its pretty balanced.

Tyyr wrote:Yes, of course you do. That's biology 101. I was not trying to support or disprove anything of the sort, only correcting a very wrong statement, that humans are the most populous species on the planet.

Cool, I wasn't trying to correct, just expand on your point. It's good that we agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:If only we had called them Sea Kittens! None of this would be happening.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ratbarf wrote:

Instead of banning the fishing of the special tuna, why don't they charge the people fishing the tuna a fee for having reduced the number of tuna for everyone else

Because it doesn't work. If you raise the price people simply start fishing illegally, the Portugese have been fishing illegally in Canadian waters for decades, they fish fish which are protected by Canadian and in some cases international law, yet because they can still find a market for the fish they will keep coming back.

People still murder despite it being illegal. The answer to the issue isn't to let everyone murder, but to put more resources into preventing and punishing murder, and increasing the penalty for breach.

sebster wrote:People still murder despite it being illegal. The answer to the issue isn't to let everyone murder, but to put more resources into preventing and punishing murder, and increasing the penalty for breach.

And this will work because we have unlimited resources.

@Hawkins. It's not so much a question of what the medias been feeding us here. It's not even a question of morals. The established fact here is:-

-This kind of tuna is being overfished. In a short period of time there will be none left.

From that one fact, we can extrapolate another one using logic:-

-If there are none of that kind of tuna left, the fishermen will be left in exactly the same position as if they were stopped from fishing that kind of tuna tomorrow.

Ergo:-

-The fishermen are screwed, whether they stop fishing the tuna now, or when the tuna eventually do go extinct.

The only difference is that if they are allowed to keep fishing tuna, the fishermen have a short period of time before they are screwed. However, the trade off for this is the extinction of a species.

So what do you think is more important? The temporary economic stability of a few Canadian fishermen before they're screwed, or the extinction of an entire species?

To quote those old Fighting Fantasy books:-

You Decide!

ketara; lets leave off the fishing question and look at the bear issue first, i'll put together the fish thing later.

firstly though id like to say its not my job to educate people that are too lazy to inform themselves. in the future ya can burn, i wont be playing the 'i have an artical, so i have an 'informed opinion'' game again.

Moving on

here is the organization:

http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/how.shtml
Please read the parts concerning artical 1 protection and artical 2 protection.
Do note that its the american proposal that is pushing for the Raise of artical 2 to artical 1 on polarbears. its suspecious that hunting that claims less than 300 bears anually, is under fire when the REAL problem is global climate change, the US knows this and its widely belived that the CITES proposal is an attempt to shift focus away from this fact. (Really? you ask, are you joking? no im not the US has a proud history of clouding the facts, mudding the waters, and passing the buck. And then using liberal media to back up the shananagans) ECO crisis, and not hunting is the number one cause for the polarbears plight. a fact the US proposal failed to mention.
If climate change continues, by 2050 2/3rds of the polorbear habitat will be gone. no matter if they are hunted or not, soon after the bears will only exist in zoos.


Next:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/10/26/nu-cites-pbear.html#socialcomments



http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/03/18/tech-cites-polar-bear-ban.html?ref=rss

Both of these articals name actual harvest numbers, and informed individuals that understand the polarbear problem. though they are CBC reports and partial to the canadian standpoint, still looking offers a more factual view of the subject.



http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html

this is the Athority on polarbears, no other organization has as much knowlage or on site information as these people.




lastly....
http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/policy/conventions/cites/cites_cops/15th_meeting/

Wait WTF?!?, WWF opposes the proposal for the bears?.
this should be suficent data for most of you, but a few points to add are:
1. the Artical 1 status does not not mean that the bears are not hunted. regardless those bears will be harvested.
2. regardless of this propals pass or fail the first nations people by right have the legal atthority to hunt these animals. and if Canada were to recind that right.... well those of you living in canada might remember the OKA crisis, and the deaths that resulted in it. the canadian govt. is right not to open that can of worms again.
3. Lets say it again. Harvesting bears isnt an issue as to weather this species will survive or not. harvest numbers against B&DR, are sustainable. the proposal has done just what it was ment to do, deflect critic away from the real problem. which is 'CLIMATE CHANGE' (oh look me and my caps again)
4. the Cites proposal is regarded by many of the people invloved withthe bears to be misinforming and lacking in factualy information.
5. canada has a very long history of protecting ALL its wildlife species, and has had mesures in place to protect ALL of our species. do you really think we wouldnt stop the hunting if it actualy was harmful? come on, wake up. Canada has been monitoring and protecting the bears for well over 50 years. those measures are not static, they change, cope, evolve to fit.

Claim backed.

Edited for stupidity.

I hear polar bears are having trouble with starvation. In that case, I wouldn't think hunting would be making things any worse for them, as long as you're not hurting their food supply.

Melchiour wrote:One species driving another to extinction is the process our world works with. It has happened before humans, it will happen after. Humanity is one species imp0acting another, it happens. Globally the world will survive, things will be impacted and things will change sure, but the world will still spin.

Humans are still animals. No one calls an animal that eats another to extinction immoral. That is all we are doing really. The idea that we should save another species seems misguided.

This. This is what I believe in. He is right. Animal extinction is a natural part of life. They are dying for a simple reason. They cannot adapt. And I know what a lot of people are saying. Extinction has to happen by natural means, where their habitat is destroyed or killed by a predator. But what they aren't realizing is that we are the reason they are dying. We are the top predator. To progress and multiply, we have to kill others. Kill or be killed. Trying to save a creature who has a high chance of extinction already is a waste of resources, time and effort. We shouldn't try to save all these animals just because we like the pretty little birds and fishies. These animals have lost the evolutionary arms race. It is unfortunate, but this is the way things are.

We shouldn't try to save all these animals just because we like the pretty little birds and fishies.

Why not? It's of less real benefit to us to wip them out than to sustain their existence. If we sustain them, we can eat this kind of fish for many centuries to come.

Besides I don't buy the whole evolutionary argument. Why? Because if we are to regard ourselves as better than animals, then we have to see ourselves as being capable of stepping outside of the boundaries that nature created for us. We may still be animals at the end of the day, but the point I'm making here is that we don't have to act like them! Otherwise I might as well just rape every women I like the look of, and kill anyone who I don't like the look of.

Ketara wrote:Because if we are to regard ourselves as better than animals.

Who says we are? You are free to go Raping and Pillaging as much as you want, just don't be surprised when the other monkeys come and lock you away in a monkey cage.

I never meant that we were better than animals. What I meant was that no animal(except other humans) kills humans in large numbers. But, as humans, we kill large amounts of animal spacies for food and other resources. I don't know about you, but that sounds like a top predator to me.

I usually see the evolutionary argument as a counter to the claim that we must preserve nature because it is intrinsically important ("deep ecology"). The counter being that as every species will gladly cause any amount of harm to other species or ecosystems to multiply and take over, then an imperative to preserve nature when this inconveniences us us unnatural, and if nature is intrinsically valuable we are obliged to destroy its current, ever-changing incarnation if this is in accordance with unchanging natural law.

It is a good argument, I think, against the "deep ecology" mode of thought, and one of the main reasons I don't see any merit to it. It does not, however, justify any environmental destruction which is harmful to humanity. Waste isn't advantageous.

Frazzled wrote:What do tuna eat? They aren't that picky-lobsters, crabs, shrimps, and barnacles. clams, snails, oysters and mussels, and even each other.
Read more at Suite101: Sea Creatures 101: The Life of Your Seafood: Tuna http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/aquatic_animals/106468#ixzz0ielGwx6A


Man those tuna are mean, picking on those poor hapless shrimp, oysters, and snails. Butchers!
Save our snails! Eat a tuna!*

*Brought to you by the Save our Snails Alliance, a political action committee founded by the Escargo Alliance, The EA, protecting the rights of those who eat icky things for 175 years.

Polar Bears are cool though, and man they love coca cola!

Not only Coke, but Rum as well. BUNDABERG FOR THE WIN!

CaptainCommunsism wrote:A note I feel important to make: this ban concerns only Bluefin tuna, right? well, there's more than one type of tuna, and most types are not endangered (albeit some [like the albecore] are data deficient). why aren't yellowfin and albacore good enough to catch? surely targeting them rather than Bluefin would allow those stocks to recover. (AHHH WIKIPEDIA IT'S TOTALLY INACCURATE --> wikipedia isn't so bad for scientific stuff, so sayeth my crazy awesome solar system prof guy) --> ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albacore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowfin_tuna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_bluefin_tuna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_bluefin_tuna

I agree with this. Most of the Bluefins cought I'm thinking will end up in cans. And canned tuna tastes like arse. FACT.

Besides. Albacore and Yellowfin are considered fantastic eating fish.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
I asked my wife what she thinks of the failure of the ban and she is pleased because eating tuna is part of Japan's tradition.

What will she think when there are no tuna to eat? What becomes of this tradition then? Why do they not get that this fish will become extinct?

I cannot wrap my brain around the Japanese outlook when it comes to ecological issues or issues of animal welfare. It's like there is a total disconnect between what I see as the ineffable truth and what they say is a traditional right.

I love many things about the Japanese, in terms of their culture and then it comes to whaling, deforestation, dolphin eating and the insistence on finding the rarest things on earth so as to extract some small parts of them to eat for incredible sums of money.

Just don't get it and it leaves me seething.

Again, MGS has proven to be awesome.

whatwhat wrote:

CaptainCommunsism wrote:A note I feel important to make: this ban concerns only Bluefin tuna, right? well, there's more than one type of tuna, and most types are not endangered (albeit some [like the albecore] are data deficient). why aren't yellowfin and albacore good enough to catch? surely targeting them rather than Bluefin would allow those stocks to recover. (AHHH WIKIPEDIA IT'S TOTALLY INACCURATE --> wikipedia isn't so bad for scientific stuff, so sayeth my crazy awesome solar system prof guy) --> ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albacore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowfin_tuna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_bluefin_tuna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_bluefin_tuna

I made the same point earlier, and I think you want...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skipjack_tuna which make up the bulk of what we call tuna, and aren't endangered/overfished.

Striped Tuna (Skipjack in some places) is a baitfish here. Most people wouldn't be caught dead eating the smelly, horrible, oily excuse for a fish. Good bait for decent fish but...

My vote? I say restrict the fishing of a very important marine predator.

It's almost the oppostie of what I feel about Kangaroo culling.

Ahtman wrote:And this will work because we have unlimited resources.

To the extent that my argument stated 'and you put in absolutely every resource available to insure that there is never a murder or tunafish harvested anywhere in the world' then that'd be a problem.

To the extent that you recognise a cost benefit approach, and apply resource up to the point of best possible return considering other priorities, it isn't much of anything.

Don't forget to look at all of the facts.

1) Canada opposed a total ban on Blue-fin Tuna fishing. However, the Canadians support actually enforcing the current laws about fishing of Bluefin Tuna.
Fishermen in Atlantic Canada have strict maximum quotas on their bluefin tuna catch, which they follow and keep underneath. Also, Canadians fish for bluefin tuna (even commercially) using a boat with fishing rods hanging off of the sides. How Canadians catch tuna. In addition to not being a dangerous form of overfishing, this method generally catches older fish that have already spawned and are nearing the end of their life cycle (hence why we catch such big fish)
Fishermen in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean catch tuna by trawling. This means dragging giant nets behind a boat and scooping up absolutely everything. How Blufin Tuna are fished in the Eastern Atlantic. This includes young fish, old fish, and pregnant fish. The Eastern atlantic also has much higher quotas of what they can catch. And guess what, they consistently overfish. These quotas are greatly exceeded each and every single season. In 2007, 61,100 tons of bluefin tuna were caught—twice the quota set by ICCAT. Canada matched their quota in 2007.

So, all of that considered, is it reasonable for Canada to want to keep their Atlantic communities who rely on fishing afloat? Eastern Canada is impoverished compared to the rest of the country, and many of the fishing communities are just struggling by. However, even in these economic straits, Canada obeys the fishing quotas and uses ecologically sound methods of catching tuna.

Canada opposed the bluefin tuna ban because we want other nations to act as responsibly as we are.


On to Polar Bears.

The hunting of Polar Bears has been a part of Inuit culture for as long as there has been an inuit culture. Numbers of inuits are, understandably, still quite low. This, combined with their use of traditional methods and the care they take with the polar bear population mean that in Northern Canada, polar bear numbers are on the rise. Hunters in the north have been reporting increased numbers of polar bear sightings, and no 'official' census of their numbers have been done by scientists since the early 2000s.

I think it's wise to oppose the ban of an activity which is part of the Inuit culture, and has not been shown to be detrimental to the numbers of these animals.

Munch Munch! wrote:This. This is what I believe in. He is right. Animal extinction is a natural part of life. They are dying for a simple reason. They cannot adapt. And I know what a lot of people are saying. Extinction has to happen by natural means, where their habitat is destroyed or killed by a predator. But what they aren't realizing is that we are the reason they are dying. We are the top predator. To progress and multiply, we have to kill others. Kill or be killed. Trying to save a creature who has a high chance of extinction already is a waste of resources, time and effort. We shouldn't try to save all these animals just because we like the pretty little birds and fishies. These animals have lost the evolutionary arms race. It is unfortunate, but this is the way things are.

Evolution is a basic force, much like entropy. In time buildings will come apart, just as naturally as species will die out. But if we want to keep that building we repair it, because its in our best interests. Similarly, if it is in our best interest to maintain a fish so that future generations can eat it as well, then we should control present fishing levels.

Orkestra wrote:Don't forget to look at all of the facts.

1) Canada opposed a total ban on Blue-fin Tuna fishing. However, the Canadians support actually enforcing the current laws about fishing of Bluefin Tuna.
Fishermen in Atlantic Canada have strict maximum quotas on their bluefin tuna catch, which they follow and keep underneath. Also, Canadians fish for bluefin tuna (even commercially) using a boat with fishing rods hanging off of the sides. How Canadians catch tuna. In addition to not being a dangerous form of overfishing, this method generally catches older fish that have already spawned and are nearing the end of their life cycle (hence why we catch such big fish)
Fishermen in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean catch tuna by trawling. This means dragging giant nets behind a boat and scooping up absolutely everything. How Blufin Tuna are fished in the Eastern Atlantic. This includes young fish, old fish, and pregnant fish. The Eastern atlantic also has much higher quotas of what they can catch. And guess what, they consistently overfish. These quotas are greatly exceeded each and every single season. In 2007, 61,100 tons of bluefin tuna were caught—twice the quota set by ICCAT. Canada matched their quota in 2007.

So, all of that considered, is it reasonable for Canada to want to keep their Atlantic communities who rely on fishing afloat? Eastern Canada is impoverished compared to the rest of the country, and many of the fishing communities are just struggling by. However, even in these economic straits, Canada obeys the fishing quotas and uses ecologically sound methods of catching tuna.

Canada opposed the bluefin tuna ban because we want other nations to act as responsibly as we are.


On to Polar Bears.

The hunting of Polar Bears has been a part of Inuit culture for as long as there has been an inuit culture. Numbers of inuits are, understandably, still quite low. This, combined with their use of traditional methods and the care they take with the polar bear population mean that in Northern Canada, polar bear numbers are on the rise. Hunters in the north have been reporting increased numbers of polar bear sightings, and no 'official' census of their numbers have been done by scientists since the early 2000s.

I think it's wise to oppose the ban of an activity which is part of the Inuit culture, and has not been shown to be detrimental to the numbers of these animals.

Actually the Census for 2010 in some parts was completed for the bears. if your talking about a full censuse then your correct. And thanks for writing up the fish explaination, it saved me the trouble. thugh you left out a few points of intrest.

Orcasaurus: your correct, the bears are starving. a few facts are that bears need the pack ice for fishing and hunting, that packice is dwindling.
Its a sad fact that the bears live in a ecosystem that isnt exactly abundant in food. this isnt a new problem, canada has been aware of it for over 50 years, there are measures in place to supliment the bears food supply, but its extreamly costly and because of the bears natures as solitary creatures, you cant impliment a wide feeding regeim. were talking 10s of thousands of square kilomiters. so some bears do get taken care of, but its no were near effective.
bears eats everything, and i mean everything, they are one of the few animals that lists humans as a food sorce. if its edible they will consume it , they live a place where food is scarse and getting food has become pretty much as hard a battle as you can think of becasue of the climate change reduicng the pack ice.

As I have already said, there is a strong argument that the numbers of polar bears being reported and recorded is due to them being forced further south and towards human habitation due to being unable to find food on the ice as it melts and becomes fragile.
You've both said they are starving, so they are desperate to find food, ergo we see and record more of them. You actually agree that the pack ice is dwindling, that the bears environment is being destroyed, so you actually think therefore we should be allowing the hunting of an animal that is undergoing this sort of pressure? An apex predator that has always existed in relatively small numbers and is now actually really endangered. Polar bears don't eat anything and everything. There is footage of them starving to death next to a river full of salmon because they have no idea how to hunt them. There are increasing numbers of polar bears washing up on the shores or being seen from ships drowned as they swam trying to find food and died of exhaustion.

As for the Bluefin, it's going extinct, reduced catch methods by countries who are using a modicum of ethical reasoning in their hunting methods does not change the fact there are those who flout those ethical methods and catch them on an industrialised scale. There simply aren't enough left for people to catch any. Dress it up any way you like it, unless a total ban takes place, there will be no more of this animal. This is really straightforward, there will be no more. We have already seen the increased and geographically shifting populations of humbolt squid due to the reduction of the sharks and other large game fish that would have usually hunted them, the squid are decimating small fish shoals and are virtually alien in many of the waters they are now being seen in. You can't take a species out of the equation and not have ramifications, potentially rendering the North Pacific an oceanic desert.

Polar bears don't eat anything and everything. There is footage of them starving to death next to a river full of salmon because they have no idea how to hunt them.

False, if the bear could get at the fish it would eat the fish, just because this perticular bear couldnt, doesnt mean it wont eat fish. the Polarbear is the only bear that will eat humanswhen hungry, were on the menu just like the seal and anything else it can get its hands on. the polar bear will eat anthing because it knows that it must, instictively or not.


There are increasing numbers of polar bears washing up on the shores or being seen from ships drowned as they swam trying to find food and died of exhaustion.

again: because of climate change, and not because of hunting. your whole arguement is that the bears are indangered because of hunting. that simply isnt the case, smarter and less gulible persons than you have said just this, hell, WWF came out and said they 'oppose' the CITES based on this fact. but i guess there isnt any more reason to discuss this, you have demonstrated nothing but an unwillingness see the real issue, and harp on about something akin to a scratch while ignoring the sucking chest wound that represents global climate change.

I think this thread has pretty much run its course now, sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.