Its unfortunate that a number of Japanese industries are recently being scrutinized. Japanese car maker Toyota has had a number of problems in recent months which have involved large recalls of their vehicles. At the same time, images of slaughtering of Dolphins were splashed across the worlds TVs when the film makers won Academy awards for best documentary of their depictions of the yearly hunt at Taiji. Then there is the issue of whaling in the Southern Ocean which has come to a peak in world attention this year with the help of anti-whaling organisations. Another major issue for Japan and the environment concerns the mass harvesting of Blue Fin Tuna.
The past few weeks, the international meeting of CITIES has been held to consider action on the worlds threatened species. Blue Fin Tuna, a large fish and part of a million dollar fishing industry, is a major topic of discussion. Due to increase in demand, largely due to its popularity in Japan as Sashimi, the species numbers have dramatically reduced to 80 percent of previous stocks. Reductions on catches have been enforced in the past few years but have proved to make little difference.
Bluefin Tuna was once only fished commercially by rod in a traditional method called Ipponzuri, literally meaning rod fishing. According to Justin Norrie from an article from Australian paper, The Age, the practice saw fishermen catch between 3 and 5 fish a year. These large fish could fetch high prices then, so the fish didn’t need to be harvested in large numbers to be profitable. However the industry changed when large fishing trawlers developed the ability to capture large numbers of these fish in one session. This practice of fishing, is what has lead to the overfishing for this species. The World for Wildlife recent wrote a report that claims that this fish could be extinct by 2012 in worst case scenario.
A move to ban the fishing for the species angers money hungry industries that have already reaped massive profits from this over exploited resource. Since Japan consumes 80 percent of the fish at Sushi restaurants, much of the criticism for a ban is coming from major companies that have vested interests rather than speaking on cultural arguments.
In Justin Norrie’s article from The Age newspaper, comments some of the criticism against the overfishing is actually coming from within Japan from small ipponzuri fishermen that still survive by fishing with their rods.
”The government lets the trawlers come through and take everything – the adults and the juvenile fish together,” said Teruaki Yabuta, head of Nikko Fisheries at Omaezaki, in Shizuoka Prefecture. ”The trawlers are plundering our seas. It’s not sustainable. If the government won’t regulate it, then the local guys won’t survive.”
While a ban on the species would be very beneficial to the species and is the preferred option for environmental groups, some countries such as Australia suggest that much harsher limits of captures should be enforced instead. Perhaps a complete ban on fishing methods that prove most detrimental to the population should be banned, allowing for a small trickle of ipponzuri supply the market.
Yesterday, key countries struggled to get support for the proposed ban, arguing that tighter regulations will be agreed on to support the fish’s survival. It will be interesting to see what steps the industry will take to secure the health of these populations considering that some environmentally groups such as WWF expect the species to go extinct within 3 years.
Sources -
Will,
So, I read a couple of articles from your blog and I was surprised. I had no idea that these were your concerns.
I salute your engagement on this issue. I love the “outdoors” too and (for a modern 1st-world person) I have only a minimal interest in seeing it exploited; but, for some reason, I shy from earnestness on the subject. I would much rather argue about something that matters less. So, it’s good that there are people like you to make it more difficult for the other side. – And now I feel that I understand better why you are so frustrated by Chris’s arguments: it really does seem like a great effort of political disputation in the service of cynicism. (Though, the cynics always buoy themselves up with the thought that they are “realists” before the depression of believing there’s nothing good in the world really hits them. Isn’t it so?)
As to your article, I think the following: 1) You should have made more play of your point in the 4th paragraph. Cultural arguments may be advanced against restrictions on this form of fishing, but the political opposition comes from massive commercial interests (often foreign?)—which makes nonsense of these arguments. I feel that, rhetorically, you just don’t properly exploit this point. (And isn’t this intersection of argument—between culture and self-interest—nearly always the most interesting in today’s climate of opinion? –As with our debate last weekend, too.) 2) You ought to mention that there is (of course) an intergovernmental regulatory body charged with managing the bluefin, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), but that it has utterly failed to do its job. This week’s Economist reports: “In one recent year the scientific advice was to catch at most 15,000 tonnes of [bluefin] tuna. ICCAT imposed a limit of 30,000 tonnes. The actual catch was 60,000 tonnnes.” If there is need enough to agree to a regulatory body, why are their limits not enforced? (You say that, “Reductions on catches have been enforced in the past few years.” –Perhaps reductions have been achieved, but the limits have not been enforced.)
But do you know what my foremost impression was as I read your article? –Your spelling/grammar is atrocious. You have: “images…was”; “films makers”; “their is” (!); “species numbers have reduced” (either they have dropped, or they have been reduced—no?); “didnt not need”; “critism…comming”; “invested interests” (either they are vested interests, or they are investments, or they are just plain interests); “the health these populations”; “environmentally groups”; and many problems with commas and apostrophes. –You will never be taken seriously until this is fixed.
(Now, I can hear you saying to yourself, “Oh that guy Philip really is a prick!” –But please, Will, don’t think that. First of all, there are just far too many people in the world who already think that. You’ll be waiting in a long line; and the point is overdone. Second? Well, think of the cultural arguments, as against the economic ones: it really is an inefficient use of my time to bring this to your attention (I mean, thoroughly, thoroughly uneconomic), and yet I do it because I love things which are fine. So, don’t kick me in the head when I see you on Saturday. OK?)
P
First of all thanks for having a browse on my blog and having a read through the other pieces I have written. I welcome your criticism.
For your first point, you are correct that I didn’t put enough thought into the cultural arguments. I chose to write this article with a cultural twist but unfortunately I didn’t have the time or the will to write a long winded piece. I preferred to just give a short overview and deliver a few points of interest. Because of my busy schedule, I am just happy to update my blog with an article recently.
As for picking on my grammar, it`s true, I do make errors, and I will have to remember to proof read more thoroughly. I’m happy enough your reading my blog and judging from a professional viewpoint.
Quote from english group the other night while talking about Bluefin Ban. Me, “They’re endangered.” Male student, “But they’re delicious and it’s our culture.” Me, “But, they’re endangered!” Male student, “But they’re delicious!” Me, “What!?!”
The end. Good stuff. I hope you’re enjoying Melbourne and all of Australia. Later!
Hola, Ya he visto algunos hay …
Gracias
Dougles