An email response from the Center for Biological Diversity on the ESA petition

[LurkerCharters]

Here is what they had to say about the petition, I can post my email to them, I think I made some good points.

You actually are the only fisherman that’s contacted us – I appreciate it.

We’re a small group, but I’ll forward your email (and you should forward it to your local paper if you want to be heard). There’s only one other person that works on oceans in our organization, and she’s working almost entirely on suing the government over the oil spill (and I’m working on that too, so any tuna work at this point is borrowed time). This leads to your question of why we sent the petition. Contrary to popular belief, it’s not to anger New England fishermen (who are angry enough already) or even to anger almost all other ocean environmental groups - who would rather focus exclusively on change at the international meetings. We filed it because we’re frustrated that the U.S. government isn’t doing enough to protect bluefin tuna here and overseas. If they’re listed as endangered or threatened, then we can stop federal actions (oil and gas activities, as one example) if there’s evidence it will have an adverse effect on bluefin tuna critical habitat or jeopardize the survival of the species.

NMFS will probably list bluefin only if they think they have no other option, i.e. they think the science is very clear. If there’s any wiggle room they will probably not list it, because it makes them look bad to admit that a species they have a mission to manage sustainably has become endangered. So from that perspective, if NMFS does list bluefin tuna, then they really are facing extinction. If that’s the case, do New England fishermen want to continue to fish for them?

That’s what I don’t understand about the opposition to the petition. Even if the decline is because of other countries, someone is catching the last fish if they’re headed to extinction. If you oppose the science review or oppose the listing because the science supports the fact that they’re going extinct, then basically you’re saying “no, I want to fish this species to extinction instead of letting some French guy do it.” I can’t believe anyone thinks that, especially not people who have seen this fish in the water. So I think the opposition is based on fear and misunderstanding of the process. The process of setting bluefin tuna quotas has been a game for so long that fishermen think this is just another set of rules. But the ESA is different because it’s really a last resort.

The main thing I read fishermen saying is “there are tons of fish out there.” My response is “that’s great, in which case the agency will find they’re not endangered.” But on the chance the fishermen are overestimating populations and this species is on its way out, don’t you want to know now rather than later?

[MACSON]

Most atypical/uncoventional response. Cetainly not the canned/formal/scriped response one would expect from such an organization.

small group....
only one other person works on oceans....
If they’re listed as endangered or threatened, then we can stop federal actions (oil and gas activities, as one example) if there’s

Interesting.

Good work Lurker.

[LurkerCharters]

here is more of what they said in response

It’s true that other countries need to reduce fishing too. The ESA will help in several ways, legal and political (this isn’t everything):
Trade will be banned. The U.S. imports about $12 M and exports about $4 M of bluefin tuna. So that’s $8 M in other countries’ bluefin the U.S. won’t be buying.
An ESA listing will increase research funding. It also authorizes NMFS to work with other governments to conserve foreign species.
It will raise public awareness (we launched an international boycott for this purpose too – people in 99 countries have signed: www.bluefinboycott.org). With fish selling for $396,000 each, it’s tough to bring other countries under control without loud public support.
If bluefin are listed as endangered, it will unite every U.S. industry group against all other countries that are illegally harvesting tuna. The oil industry does not want to stop drilling during tuna spawning season, so will be bothering Congress to stop other countries’ catch of this species so that there are enough tuna that they can get a permit to drill. The ABTA and the RFA might lobby Congress to go to ICCAT to shut down the Mediterranean fisheries during bluefin spawning or take other protective measures (essentially, conserve the resource). Right now, ABTA’s priority is to increase U.S. quota each year at ICCAT. To increase U.S. quota requires wheeling and dealing with everyone else – letting the other countries have their way. If ABTA wants to fish more U.S. fish, every other country wants to fish more too.

I agree other countries need to stop fishing, but ICCAT has been in existence for 40 years and bluefin tuna have been in decline the whole time except for some blips here and there. There is no political will to stop fishing, but the ESA can change that dynamic.

[LurkerCharters]

Here is what I sent them

I am writing this email to let you know that you have a fight on hands regarding your petition to list bluefin tuna as an endangered species. Your organization has obviously got other motives because stopping the US fleet from catching, selling, or keeping bluefin will do nothing to help the condition of the stock. We (tuna fishermen of New England) are not the reason the stock is in decline. If you had done your research you would know that the US accounts for 5% of the total annual global bluefin landings, and our fishery has size limits and quotas. Why don't you go after Spain? Their fleet fishes unregulated and has the largest and most efficient boats in the world. They deliberately fish waters where there is nobody to watch what they are doing. If you were really interested in saving the bluefin you wouldn't be going after the US fleet, we fish responsibly and follow the rules. The best thing that could happen to save the tunas would be to ban purse seining world wide. What about France? They banned pelagic drift nets but you can watch videos on youtube of French boats using them in the Mediteranean and trying to attack the activist vessel that was filming them. I question your motives because what you are trying to do will only hurt the economy of New England and barely make a dent in the amount of tuna being harvested. I know many fisherman who depend on Bluefin to make a living, which they have been doing for generations. It wasn't until this new fleet of mega sized purse seiners came into existence that the stocks went into decline. Catching Bluefin with a rod and reel is the most ecologically friendly way to harvest and I think it should be the only method allowed.

I wish you would go after the mid water pair trawlers that are currently emptying our coastal waters of herring, a vital food source for tuna and other predatory fish species. Please watch the youtbe video"declining herring", it will open your eyes to an impending collapse of the herring stocks in the western atlantic. If you took up that fight you would have every fisherman on the east coats in your corner because it is effeecting all of us.

I know you are trying to help but everything I have said here is true and the Bluefin ESA petition is not going to be an effective way to save the stock, the fact that you are even trying to do this makes your organization look like you haven't done proper research to back your claim, and I know you haven't. The waters I fish are teaming with tuna, and spotter pilots I talk to see hundreds of thousands of tuna every time they go up.

If you want to make a difference in the biological diversity of our oceans ban purse seining, pelagic drift nets and pair trawling. These industrial scale fishing methods are the real cause of our declining fish stocks, not the small privately owned rod and reel boats that make our region great and provide an equal distrbution of wealth.

Thank You,
Captain David Kraus

[twofinbluna]

Wow they are delusional. They obviously are ignoring the fact that the rest of the world did come into compliance and that there is not a shred of science that shows anything close to these fish going extinct.

But, they did make one slip up- which is that made it clear again that stopping oil drilling is one of their main reasons for doing this.

Scary to see into the minds of these people. They think that this is just a tool to achieve other goals. They are no good and have done severe damage to our fishery even if the listing never happens.

[LurkerCharters]

More of what I said to CBD

I don't understand why the petition was filed. The only way it could do any good is if many countries stopped fishing. By stopping the US fisherman only you are essentially leaving 5% more fish for the other countries to catch. If you get what you want and bluefin become ES than the countries doing the most damage to the stock will benefit. This is why your organization is becoming the enemy of every tuna fisherman in America. Your petition is pointless, all it will do is kill a lifestyle and fishery that goes back generations in New England, simutaneously paving the way for countries that don't care about sustainable fishing methods to reap the benefits. You can't deny the facts here, I have a solid argument.

I Remember when I was a kid on Cape Cod and the striped bass stocks were in collapse. It was caused by seining operations that would run down south in the winter. They banned seining and the stock rapidly came back to its present state which is very good but could always be better. I cannot stress how dangerous seining methods are. I am sure you have seen the videos on youtube of the Spanish mega seiners, its sickening. There are US purse seiners that operate in our waters as well. One of them came into Cape Cod Bay years ago and completely wiped out a population of giant bluefin in one week. The rod and reel guys were crushed, they have been fishing there sustainably for decades. Rod and reel is the only way to sustainably harvest tuna, one hook, one fish, its diffcult to get them to bite(trust me I know haha), easy to release under sized fish. Only allowing a rod and reel tuna fishery would be a great compromise in my opinion.
As for the herring, and don't forget mackerel, they are crucial to the health of the tuna population. If those stocks continue to decline then the tuna will not come to the east coast to feed, which could give the impression that the tuna stocks are also in decline, when in fact the reduced numbers of tuna are caused by the absence of forage. Industrial fishing methods are the sole reason why the stocks are in trouble. Canada banned pair trawling 30 years ago because they saw how devastating this method could be. These boats came into existence with the help of the us government. NMFS encouraged the development of this fleet and the fed put up the money to build some of the boats. This whole fishery just stinks of a conflict of interest. Its fair to say that the science that is allowing this fishery to continue is flawed by monetary motivations.

[MACSON]

Save the emails-oringal form with author's email address, signature, etc, especially their repsonse.

Send to ABFTA, others fighting the petition.

[MACSON]

BTW, they made more than one slip up.

[LurkerCharters]

Roger Mac, I have them, would be glad to share with any one who would be interested. feel free to post links that I can email their replies to.

[storm petrel]

Lurker,
GREAT job, I love the letter you sent. I knew the U.S. had stricter fishing regs, but did not know we supplied only five per cent of global bluefin production.

One thing that needs to be stopped is the idea that tuna sells for almost four hundred thousand bucks. I wonder how best we can get out the knowledge to the public that the average price is a tiny fraction of what the one fish sold for.

BTW, what IS the average price per pound in Japan?