 |
| tuna fish size |
here are the species of tuna fish. i can't tell you this is the fish target, since tuna fish are endangered species, but it is recommended to do "catch and release" method if you insist.
mk
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
|
Your biggest catch, Tuna, chicken of the sea
Tuna is a salt water fish from the family Scombridae, mostly in the genus Thunnus. Tuna are fast swimmers, and some species are capable of speeds of 70 km/h (43 mph). Unlike most fish, which have white flesh, the muscle tissue of tuna ranges from pink to dark red. The red coloration derives from myoglobin, an oxygen-binding molecule, which tuna express in quantities far higher than most other fish. Some larger tuna species, such as bluefin tuna, display some warm-blooded adaptations, and can raise their body temperatures above water temperatures by means of muscular activity. This enables them to survive in cooler waters and to inhabit a wider range of ocean environments than other types of fish.
here are the species of tuna fish. i can't tell you this is the fish target, since tuna fish are endangered species, but it is recommended to do "catch and release" method if you insist.
mk
here are the species of tuna fish. i can't tell you this is the fish target, since tuna fish are endangered species, but it is recommended to do "catch and release" method if you insist.
mk
critically endangered tuna
 |
| bluefin tuna |
The fishing quota for prized southern bluefin tuna has been lifted from its all-time low, in what fishers say is proof the severely depleted species is recovering.
The gourmet sashimi fish found mainly off southern Australia slumped to around 5 per cent of its original stock size under international longlining pressure over 50 years.
Southern bluefin is on conservation groups' fish-eating advisory black lists, particularly after it was found to have been devastated by a hidden 20-year Japanese overcatch.
 |
| panda endangered bluefin tuna |
But recent stock assessments show a dramatic increase in the number of juvenile fish, and sustained strength in the population of older fish, according to the Australian Southern Bluefin Tuna Association.
''We are celebrating the recovery of the stock," the association's chief executive, Brian Jeffriess, said yesterday.
Next year, fishers based at Port Lincoln, South Australia, will be able to take 4528 tonnes of bluefin, up around 500 tonnes on this year, and the quota will slowly rise over the following two years.
 |
| gorilla endangered bluefin tuna |
The six-nation Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna met in Bali this week for what the Australian delegation said was the most important meeting in its history.
The commission agreed a total quota rise of one third in the $1 billion fishery over the three-year period, from the current 9449 tonnes to 12,449 tonnes.
Crucially for Australia, the commission also agreed to impose a sophisticated fishery management scheme to keep a regular check on the sustainability of the catch - a world first for any tuna fishery.
The Fisheries Minister, Joe Ludwig, said agreement on the scheme was a vital step towards rebuilding the stock.
The fish's ''critically endangered'' status was recently reaffirmed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and supported by scientific advice to the federal Environment Department.
But a departmental advisory committee said that given the highly migratory nature of SBT stock, the best chance of maximising recovery remained with globally co-ordinated management, and it rejected a trade ban.
TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, said the commission's outcome was a good first step. ''But it's as if the patient was still in the emergency department - it's not out of danger yet,'' said marine programme leader, Glenn Sant.
 |
| rhino endangerd bluefin tuna |
Humane Society International said a zero quota was still the best way to protect the fish, and it was time to turn attention to greater protection of seabirds, sharks and turtles caught in longlines by the fishery.
The Coalition spokesman for Fisheries, Senator Richard Colbeck, said the increase was a testament to industry discipline, in the face of conservationist doomsday predictions.
The quota remains a far cry from the peak of bluefin tuna fishing, when up to 80,000 tonnes a year was taken in the 1960s.
Driftnets threatens ocean wildlife
Driftnets sound relatively harmless as a fishing method. But as any marine biologist will tell you, this gear threatens ocean wildlife. At its November meeting, however, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) could take steps to enforce current international prohibitions on the usage of this damaging practice.
Held on the sea’s surface or just below with floating devices, driftnets can be miles long. Depending on the size of the mesh, they can entangle anything that happens to swim nearby, including sea turtles, whales, swordfish and tuna.
Banned But Still in Use
Most countries recognized that driftnets harm too many marine species (PDF) to remain an acceptable form of fishing. The United Nations banned them on the high seas in 1993, and the European Union followed suit in 2002. In 2003, ICCAT prohibited the use of driftnets to catch tuna and swordfish. Yet an active, illegal driftnet fishery still exists in the Mediterranean, with Italy having one of the largest fleets.
This illegal operation still exists because the European Union didn’t ask Italy and others to halt driftnets outright. Once the ban took effect, rather than being sanctioned for their illegal driftnet activities, these countries received large sums of money from national and EU funds to convert to other fishing methods. Italian boat owners, captains, and crew members received more than €100 million (US$136 million), and that’s when things got complicated.
Italian law accounts for two types of driftnets. Spadare are high-seas driftnets that have been banned by all international bodies active in the Mediterranean, the EU, and, theoretically, Italy. Ferrettare were originally designed as small-scale nets to catch nearshore species along the Italian coast. In recent years, the mesh size has increased, enabling smaller fish to pass through unharmed while conveniently—and illegally—catching valuable Atlantic bluefin tuna and swordfish.
Various legal changes in Italy have also allowed ferrettare to be used far beyond the coast. This facilitates the continued use of driftnets to catch threatened species, despite numerous bans and the condemnation of the international community.
For years, conservation groups documented the Italian fleet’s use of driftnets to catch bluefin tuna, swordfish and other vulnerable marine species. From 2005 to the beginning of this year, more than 317 vessels were identified as fishing illegally. Of these, 89 received funds from the EU and the Italian government to convert to other fishing methods. Sanctions imposed by the Italian government on these vessels have been described as “derisory” and inadequate. They have had little or no effect on illegal activities and are seen by vessel owners merely as an additional operating cost.
Getting Serious
The EU, though, seems finally to have had enough of this noncompliance. In Ponza, Italy, EU inspectors found driftnets on numerous fishing vessels, all appearing significantly longer than the allowed length of ferrettare. Local authorities told the inspectors that they had not conducted any onboard investigations since the start of the driftnet season, even though the vessels—with the illegal nets in plain sight—are moored approximately 100 yards from the Italian coast guard’s offices.
In July, Italian media reported on a widespread, well-established operation to falsify and avoid bluefin catch documents, which are meant to accompany legally caught bluefin tuna through the market. Violations with potential fines worth up to €3.6 million ($5 million) have been identified, and 70 wholesale and retail operators are under investigation. Authorities suspect that much of the tuna found through this operation was caught by driftnets.
Several steps must be taken to solve this issue. Loopholes in the Italian law must be closed, and ferrettare must be prohibited. On September 21, because of pressure from the EU, Italy revised its regulations for ferrettare, limiting their use to three miles from shore and reducing the mesh size to four inches, but keeping the permitted length at 1.5 miles. This is the latest attempt by the Italian ministry to avoid heavy sanctions that the EU is threatening to apply. Given Italy’s record on enforcement, a more straightforward solution would be to ban ferrettare outright.
On September 29, the EU announced it is beginning legal proceedings against Italy for its continued use of illegal driftnets. This is encouraging, but the EU should closely monitor Italy on this issue and take necessary action if no adequate progress is made.
ICCAT must also take action. Member countries should put Italian operators who have violated driftnet regulations on its illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing vessel list. Identifying these operations, in addition to the ferrettare ban, is a step in the right direction.
Given the significant threats to marine life, this action is long overdue.
 |
| tuna fishing areas |
Held on the sea’s surface or just below with floating devices, driftnets can be miles long. Depending on the size of the mesh, they can entangle anything that happens to swim nearby, including sea turtles, whales, swordfish and tuna.
Banned But Still in Use
Most countries recognized that driftnets harm too many marine species (PDF) to remain an acceptable form of fishing. The United Nations banned them on the high seas in 1993, and the European Union followed suit in 2002. In 2003, ICCAT prohibited the use of driftnets to catch tuna and swordfish. Yet an active, illegal driftnet fishery still exists in the Mediterranean, with Italy having one of the largest fleets.
 |
| tuna runscape |
This illegal operation still exists because the European Union didn’t ask Italy and others to halt driftnets outright. Once the ban took effect, rather than being sanctioned for their illegal driftnet activities, these countries received large sums of money from national and EU funds to convert to other fishing methods. Italian boat owners, captains, and crew members received more than €100 million (US$136 million), and that’s when things got complicated.
Italian law accounts for two types of driftnets. Spadare are high-seas driftnets that have been banned by all international bodies active in the Mediterranean, the EU, and, theoretically, Italy. Ferrettare were originally designed as small-scale nets to catch nearshore species along the Italian coast. In recent years, the mesh size has increased, enabling smaller fish to pass through unharmed while conveniently—and illegally—catching valuable Atlantic bluefin tuna and swordfish.
Various legal changes in Italy have also allowed ferrettare to be used far beyond the coast. This facilitates the continued use of driftnets to catch threatened species, despite numerous bans and the condemnation of the international community.
For years, conservation groups documented the Italian fleet’s use of driftnets to catch bluefin tuna, swordfish and other vulnerable marine species. From 2005 to the beginning of this year, more than 317 vessels were identified as fishing illegally. Of these, 89 received funds from the EU and the Italian government to convert to other fishing methods. Sanctions imposed by the Italian government on these vessels have been described as “derisory” and inadequate. They have had little or no effect on illegal activities and are seen by vessel owners merely as an additional operating cost.
 |
| yellowfin tuna and big eye tuna |
Getting Serious
The EU, though, seems finally to have had enough of this noncompliance. In Ponza, Italy, EU inspectors found driftnets on numerous fishing vessels, all appearing significantly longer than the allowed length of ferrettare. Local authorities told the inspectors that they had not conducted any onboard investigations since the start of the driftnet season, even though the vessels—with the illegal nets in plain sight—are moored approximately 100 yards from the Italian coast guard’s offices.
In July, Italian media reported on a widespread, well-established operation to falsify and avoid bluefin catch documents, which are meant to accompany legally caught bluefin tuna through the market. Violations with potential fines worth up to €3.6 million ($5 million) have been identified, and 70 wholesale and retail operators are under investigation. Authorities suspect that much of the tuna found through this operation was caught by driftnets.
Several steps must be taken to solve this issue. Loopholes in the Italian law must be closed, and ferrettare must be prohibited. On September 21, because of pressure from the EU, Italy revised its regulations for ferrettare, limiting their use to three miles from shore and reducing the mesh size to four inches, but keeping the permitted length at 1.5 miles. This is the latest attempt by the Italian ministry to avoid heavy sanctions that the EU is threatening to apply. Given Italy’s record on enforcement, a more straightforward solution would be to ban ferrettare outright.
 |
| bluefin tuna |
On September 29, the EU announced it is beginning legal proceedings against Italy for its continued use of illegal driftnets. This is encouraging, but the EU should closely monitor Italy on this issue and take necessary action if no adequate progress is made.
ICCAT must also take action. Member countries should put Italian operators who have violated driftnet regulations on its illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing vessel list. Identifying these operations, in addition to the ferrettare ban, is a step in the right direction.
Given the significant threats to marine life, this action is long overdue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)