Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.