No! THIS is a F'n big deal

The last thing I want, is to talk politics... but to quote VP Joe Biden, "THIS is a F'n big deal," guys!

Our President and Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces has endorsed a Ban on Blue Fin Tuna trade.
Now if this International Ban is approved, it means no more Blue Fin Tuna for any of us because it's virtually impossible to sustain regional demand without international fishing.

Without spewing too much of my personal views, please read the link I've attached below.
And make up your own minds.

Editorial

A Chance for the Bluefin

There finally may be a reprieve for the bluefin tuna of the Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic, which are spiraling rapidly downward toward commercial extinction. On Wednesday, the Obama administration endorsed a ban on international trade in these fish. It must use all of its influence to get the European Union and others to follow.

Delegates from 175 nations will soon meet in Doha to determine whether to restrict trade in bluefin tuna. It would take a vote of two-thirds of the members to impose a ban, and much depends on whether other major fishing nations sign on. The European Union, whose members account for much of the tuna harvest in those waters, has yet to take a formal position.

Under the international rules governing endangered species, individual nations can opt out of any agreement. Japan has already said it would ignore a ban and leave its markets open to continued imports — even if the tuna are granted endangered species status. That means that for a ban to succeed, the big exporting countries will have to ensure that their fleets abide by the rules and don’t sell to Japan, which consumes four-fifths of Atlantic bluefin, and other countries that keep their markets open.

There is no doubt that the species is in desperate trouble. Stocks of Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin declined by more than 70 percent between 1957 and 2007, and by more than 60 percent in the last decade alone. Stocks in the Western Atlantic, including the United States, have stabilized but at a very low level. The decline has been driven by a growing global appetite for tuna, and by the rapid mechanization of industrial fishing, chiefly purse-seining operations that allow for the capture of entire schools of tuna at once.

Even with a ban, countries would still be allowed to fish for their own domestic consumption. In the case of the United States, a net importer of tuna, the ban is likely to lead to a rise in price. A ban can be lifted when the fish recover; while it is in effect, the fishing industry will inevitably suffer. But that’s far better than waking up one day and discovering that there are no tuna left to fish.

Banning international trade in any species is a big step. The United States came to it reluctantly and only after other international bodies had failed to stop the decline. Now it has to persuade others — and fashion a winning vote in Doha.