national

Japan seeks to boost catch limits of prized bluefin tuna

32 Comments
By ELAINE KURTENBACH

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.


32 Comments
Login to comment

And Japanese are always so proud to say their culture is so in tune with nature.

Further depleting the oceans shows no respect for nature at all - just selfishness towards future generations that will have to deal with a depleted over-polluted world.

19 ( +31 / -12 )

"Japan seeks to boost catch limits of prized bluefin tuna"

Last I checked, Japan already consumes a crazy amount of the entire world's catch...and now they want to boost it. How much longer will it be before the stocks can't recover due to over-fishing?

18 ( +29 / -11 )

Japan seeks to expedite extinction of prized bluefin tuna

7 ( +17 / -10 )

How about 0 as the limit for the next 10 yrs, so the population can come back greatly.

Based on how many fish come back, we can let the science lead the numbers for sustainable fishing.

8 ( +19 / -11 )

And Japanese are always so proud to say their culture is so in tune with nature.

Here, let me fix that...

And Japanese are always so proud to say their culture is so in tuna with nature.

Apparently the ocean is one big tabehodai omise.

3 ( +13 / -10 )

Eat something else for a while and give stocks a chance to recover. The by-catch is edible, too.

8 ( +17 / -9 )

reboot Southpark se13 e11...

2 ( +9 / -7 )

What part of "sustainable fishing" do they not get? This is a tradition which can quickly end itself.

7 ( +15 / -8 )

How much longer will it be before the stocks can't recover due to over-fishing?

As stated in the article, the stock is apparently showing signs of recovering.

See the quote from Pew's representative:

"Just because increasing catch is sustainable does not mean it is always the right thing to do," said Grantly Galland, an officer in Pew's international fisheries team.

There doesn't appear to be an argument that current fishing is unsustainable.

How about 0 as the limit for the next 10 yrs, so the population can come back greatly. Based on how many fish come back, we can let the science lead the numbers for sustainable fishing.

Haha, that's what they said about whaling too in the 1980's, and look where that got Japan's whaling industry.

Conservative catches are the way to go. Moratoriums are a disaster.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

I propose raising catch limits of those who propose increasing catch limits of fish that have not yet even half recovered from over-fishing. Greedy idiots.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Yes please! I will be doing my duty and consuming the catch to ensure the success of the industry. I don't see any greenies weeping and protesting in the streets so I doubt people really care about this lol. More food for the adults!

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

just selfishness towards future generations

(I would put future generations at one, maybe two at the most, not counting moon and Mars colonies.)

20 years ago I could dive with many schools of tuna the size of me. In the last 10 years I have only seen one, in Okinawa, and if tuna have emotions, it certainly looked lonely.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Japan put a space junk net into space, OK didn't work couldn't they try in the ocean? Collect everything and sort it? The fishing Ministry years ago stopped releasing size and weight of Tsuna caught, it was getting embarrassing. Now they want to catch more? That's embarrassing.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

It really makes no sense. Japan has a declining population and wants to increase the amount of an almost depleted fish that it catches to eat. Will the average Japanese need to become obese in order to eat all this extra food? Along with all the wasted whale meat there will be an increase in food waste in Japan and who is paying for all of that? The Japanese consumer is. Stop over fishing and stop so much food wasting and perhaps you can save some money on buying food you never eat.

I wonder just what percentage of Tuna already caught is not consumed on a daily basis. Such a shame on those who want to catch more.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Japan has a declining population and wants to increase the amount of an almost depleted fish

It's not "almost depleted", really.

It has been greatly reduced in abundance due to over-fishing, but now it doesn't seem to be the case that continued fishing will deplete it completely. Indeed the suggestions are that the abundance will probably increase, and there is a debate about whether to increase catches a little now, or not increase them now and (supposedly) consider to increase catches later.

I wonder just what percentage of Tuna already caught is not consumed on a daily basis.

However much your imagination wishes to believe?

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The Japanese population is on the decline, so why do they need to catch more? if you don't need it, just leave it in the sea to grow and expand and get bigger, you don't need to take it just because you can.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

fxgai, please try and justify your indefensible position with something that could be considered logic or researched evidence. Heres and example.

You're arguing semantics. Bluefin tuna are classified as either endangered or vulnerable depending on which sub species you look at. By definition they are "A species considered to be facing a very high or high risk of extinction in the wild" respective of those two classifications. So yes, their numbers are depleted, even if not completely depleted as you’re trying to argue. The species is still endangered. Just because they’re increasing doesn’t mean you can take as many as you like. If you’ve just bounced back from bankruptcy only and idiot would risk that effort by going to the casino.

The entire point about sustainability is to have a breeding stock that can reproduce at a rate equal to or greater than what you can consume. The breeding stock was 69,000 ton in 1995. Its 26,000 ton now. That 26,000 ton is 4.5 percent of what the stocks would be without fishing. The number have increased 0.5 percent in 3 years with this rate of fishing. That’s a 0.17 percent increase per year. Japan caught roughly 5,000 ton of large fish last year. This proposal increases the acceptable catch by roughly 1,000 ton. These are all numbers written above.

Current annual allowed catch: aprox 20 percent of breeding stock.

Breading stock increase: 0.17 percent annually.

Proposed catch increase: 20 percent annually.

Do those number look balanced and measured to you?

0.17 percent annual increase… that’s a very thin ledge to start running on.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

It is well known that Japan cheats on its quota and understates its catch. So they are taking much more tuna than they claim to be. Accordingly, the real tuna catch is much greater than claimed and already severely damaging the recovery of existing stocks. And they are not satisfied with already raping the world's tuna stocks. Now they want to do it legally. I think the idea of a complete moratorium on taking wild tuna for some years would be a great idea. Remember that there has been a technological breakthrough and large tuna can now be bred in captivity. If wild tuna were protected for say 10 years, farmed tuna could replace them instead for that time.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Japan just canNOT fish these creatures out of existence fast enough! And when they're gone people here will suddenly care and you'll have posters even on here saying it was other countries' faults, that Japan has a right to the tuna of the world, etc.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Japan has proposed raising its catch quotas for Pacific bluefin tuna, a fish so highly prized for sushi and sashimi that its population is at less than 5% of historical levels.

”Only after Japan has eaten the last bluefin tuna will they realize they can’t eat money!”

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Really miss the Tsukiji jonai days.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Kiwikid,

please try and justify your indefensible position with something that could be considered logic or researched evidence.

Hey, I simply read the article:

A slight improvement in the spawning population for the fish has raised confidence that it can recover from decades of overfishing.

"Just because increasing catch is sustainable does not mean ... "

So increasing catch is sustainable, even according to Pew. Hmm, tell me then what is illogical about the mere suggestion that catches might be increased a little bit? It seems like a feasible option.

You're arguing semantics. Bluefin tuna are classified as either endangered or vulnerable depending on

Classifications of them being "endangered" or "vulnerable" is semantics.

What matters is whether the level of fishing is sustainable - that is not semantics, it's the whole point of conservation.

A generic "endangered" classification that is applied across all types of species is not logical as a means of decision making about how much fish to actually catch. Those decisions should be made based on evidence of the status of the fish, and as the article says (don't shoot the messenger) the spawning population has "improved".

Just because they’re increasing doesn’t mean you can take as many as you like.

No one said that.

The suggestion is only for a possible increase in quota. No doubt the fisheries industry would love to be able to catch more, but that decision is not realistic. Catches must be sustainable.

But it seems clear that catching some more - by some definition of "some" - would be sustainable. Say an extra half a tonne of fish more! That's an increase, but barely an increase.

Within the bounds of sustainability, these decisions can be made. There is a trade-off between catching more now and being able to catch more later. This is a valid discussion to be had, and I do not see anything indefensible about it, and it's entirely logical.

The entire point about sustainability is to have a breeding stock that can reproduce at a rate equal to or greater than what you can consume.

Well, you want to optimize how much you can catch - how many to catch should be determined based on what is sustainable, and the trade-off mentioned above in the case of a recovering fishery - not in terms of how much can be consumed. I've little doubt that Japan could consume as much Tuna as could be fished, but this would likely be unsustainable. So forget about how much can be consumed. Focus on sustainability.

Do those number look balanced and measured to you?

Without studying the numbers in detail, the 20% increase looks on the high side to me - but now we are talking about by how much to increase the catch by again anyway. Which is my point.

My basic view is that bottom line, fishing must be sustainable. Within sustainability bounds, how much to catch is a decision that needs to take into account other factors, such as the livelihoods of people in the fisheries industry now and longer-term objectives.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Here is a depleted resource going be depleted further- another case of Japanese not following logic....

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Increasing the catch is shortsighted stupidity driven by myopic greed.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I raised the topic of the potential future extinction of bluefin tuna with my wife once, and her view was basically, "well it would be sad, but it is hardly the end of the world". Assuming that her way of thinking on this topic is broadly representative of many (but not all) Japanese, I think it shows that the Japanese mindset towards preserving threatened species is just rather different to Westerners.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

ifd66Today  07:08 am JST

And Japanese are always so proud to say their culture is so in tune with nature.

Further depleting the oceans shows no respect for nature at all - just selfishness towards future generations that will have to deal with a depleted over-polluted world.

Hate to have to bring you up to date but Japan is not the world leader in either fish consumption or pollution.

"China is the world's top seafood consumer, followed by Japan and the United States, a trio leading an "unsustainable" assault on global fish stocks, according to a new study which measures the impact of fishing practices."

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/china-japan-us-top-list-of-world-seafood-consumers-study-2087368.html

"China (30%)

The world’s most populated country has an enormous export market, which has seen its industry grow to become a serious danger to the planet. In just five provinces, which that host most of these industries ,more dioxide is emitted than in any other country in the world. As a consequence, Beijing has experienced, in recent years, constant red alerts for environmental pollution."

https://www.activesustainability.com/environment/top-5-most-polluting-countries/

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan needs to wake up to the Dangers of eating Raw fish.

In Today's World, the seas are full of Pollutants, and the Fish within those Seas are clearly impacted. So consuming said Fish, is likely to have an impact upon the Consumer.

I came across a sad case of a young Woman recently, who is facing Death through NF. The only cause her Doctors can come up with, is the consumption of Sushi...

I have also recently seen other cases where people having eaten raw Fish, have soon afterwards suffered skin rashes, etc - you only need to do you own research upon the matter to understand what causes this.

Do you own research, and look it up. Then make your own minds up.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I am doing my part in restoring the tuna to former levels by eschewing tuna sashimi in favor of Atlantic salmon which I find to be quite tasty. I also make a very passable substitute for unagi kabayaki using catfish. Let's not deplete our oceans and streams to a nonrecoverable level.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@50yearoldnovicegymman

I am a soon to be 80 year old Japanophile who has enjoyed sushi and sashimi for 60 years with no ill effects. Most Japanese eat raw fish yet are remarkably healthy and enjoy one of the longest life spans on the planet.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Japan better get used to sweet potatoes as all the fish go extinct

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

As I am a Cynic, I would ask, who in "power" stands to personally gain from an increased catch?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Quotas are nearly impossible to enforce. There are liars in the entire delivery chain for "managed" fish. A ban is easier to enforce.

If any blue fin tuna is imported, fine the captain and company who owns the ship.

Either we want to have these tasty fish to eat for the next 500 yrs or a selected few with lots of money get to eat them until they are all gone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites