Tuna ban rejected

peter fitzgerald

Sep 22nd 2009, 21:00

A 100 million euro industry yet where is all this money going, not to the government as the deficit is always growing. what do the fish farm owners contribute to compensate for damage they create to our shores and fishstocks. A few donations to their favorite political charities during christmas i may presume.

Robert Scullion

Sep 22nd 2009, 14:45

The Government should have had to guts to vote for a ban.

However the fishermen seemed to have won again ... so much for conservation

adrian aquilina

Sep 22nd 2009, 14:10

this is sad and a case of capitalism and greed on the part of the countries that voted against a ban...we just continue to kill this planet we share

Victor Laiviera

Sep 22nd 2009, 12:42

@Mr Ramon Casha

There is NO difference between "wild" tuna and tuna fattened in fish farms, because tuna cannot be bred in captivity.

ALL tuna is caught in the wild and simply fattened in fish farms.

Mario Borg

Sep 22nd 2009, 12:42

@ J Farrugia
Rejuvinating itself???

You mean rebooting itself. By pushing the eco system to the brink of collapse, and that's exactly what we are doing, then we're just pushing our own species towards extinction.

Like other species we push the resources around us until nature balances out our population. The problem is that through technology we are able to push resources beyond breaking point. For humanity, sustainability means keeping our greed for money and our stomachs overfed regardless of the consequences. That's very short sighted.

B Zammit

Sep 22nd 2009, 12:36

Don't think we're the 'makku' in this case.....

"As a result of the obstruction, led by Spain and Malta, the officials were unable to reach the necessary majority to adopt the commission's recommendation." - EU Observer - http://euobserver.com/9/28699

Joe Cassar

Sep 22nd 2009, 12:29

Mr J Farrugia probably also believe in Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

Ramon Casha

Sep 22nd 2009, 12:27

1. Maybe if Monaco had looked deeper into the matter and distinguished between fish farms and wild tuna, Malta would have agreed to support a ban on the trade of wild bluefin tuna.

2. Monaco is not a member of the EU, so what is it doing making proposals here?

George Swindells

Sep 22nd 2009, 12:22

Dont ban fishing but change the method. Ban purse seiners and allow line fishing as used by the Maltese. If it's fishing they want, let them fish NOT capture.

Henry M.

Sep 22nd 2009, 12:13

Why should we always go to extremes? A plausible action would be to limit Tuna catches by a sensible figure. That way we safeguard jobs,industry and future catches.
A shorter supply will inflate tuna meat price and let Japan the main consumer pay up.

Emile Cassar

Sep 22nd 2009, 11:43

What am I to do as a citizen with a conscience? If I vote Joseph Muscat, he is against the tuna trade ban because he wants fishermen's votes, if I vote Gonzi, he is against the tuna trade ban because he wants fishermen's vote.

Tal-biza.

Dion Borg

Sep 22nd 2009, 11:03

Who is assuming personal responsibility for unilaterally deciding that "Malta" should vote against the ban.

I am sick of decisions or indecisions being taken by the "authorities" and/or their appointees without any shred of owning up and acceptance of personal liability - when the actions/inactions have such long term implications and when they are dictated by Political rather than true National interest.

J Farrugia

Sep 22nd 2009, 10:25

To all the prophets of doom, dont you know that nature has a habit of rejuvinating itself ALONE and without THE AID OF THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS? The thing is that it is these pseudo-environmentalists who are causing all this ruin throughout the world by their illogical actions.

Andrew Bonnici

Sep 22nd 2009, 10:14

next are chickens, then cows, then pigs, then i don't know what...if it's such a wonderful species and people want the ban, why do people like you and me still eat it? the fish is really good to eat and when it finishes, m'hemx xtghamel ux...eat chicken instead :p

E. Grech

Sep 22nd 2009, 09:52

Come on guys we don't need legally-binding bans to take action. We can just stop buying/eating blue-fin tuna anyway and thus give our two-pence worth of effort towards protecting this beautiful species.

Galea. L

Sep 22nd 2009, 09:08

The tuna is not being depleted by Maltese fishermen but by Spanish and other fishermen who use purse seiners and also other fishermen from non-eu member countries who do not care a hoot about what happens but want to take their share of the gravy as long as it lasts. If tuna is banned for Maltese fishermen it will be as they say, cutting your nose to spite your face. I would have given the Maltese version but I am sure that it will be censored by the Editor.

L.Xerri

Sep 22nd 2009, 09:05

Well said. The current local excuse is that we need 'further scientific evidence'. A sentence that closes every argument and issue!!!

Victor Laiviera

Sep 22nd 2009, 09:02

How shortsighted.

Goodbye to another species.

nevil debattista

Sep 22nd 2009, 09:00

@ Nigel Lawrence. I fully agree with you Nigel. ' Thodt minajr ma trodd sa swar thodt ' . If you keep nibbling and gobbling without ever giving anything back then one fine day you will find out that the cake has gone.

R. Azzopardi

Sep 22nd 2009, 08:49

"Only after the last tree has been cut down.
Only after the last river has been poisoned.
Only after the last fish has been caught.
Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten."

WHEN WILL WE LEARN????

Nigel Lawrence

Sep 22nd 2009, 08:32

The next round of complaints, about "livelyhood, etc", will roll in when there are no tuna left to catch.