Tuesday, 3rd November 2009
Tuna scientific analyses are uncertain
Since I attended the recent ICCAT meeting and have closely followed the work of the Scientific Committee for Research I wish to make some comments about the report Scientists Agree On Tuna Ban (October 30).
A similar report was put on the BBC website the previous day after being submitted by the NGOs who were present at the meeting. I immediately e-mailed the BBC to put matters in a more balanced perspective.
It is unfortunate that The Times' reporter did not bother to check all the facts. I can assure him that the scientists never agreed on anything of that kind.
It is unfortunate, though predictable, that the representatives of the environmental groups have chosen to highlight only certain aspects related to the discussions that took place and which were not presented in the article. The undeniable truth is that there is such a high level of uncertainty in the scientific analyses carried out, that the results are highly susceptible to manipulations to suit one's pre-conceived objectives. To cite one example, the estimates of Eastern virgin (no fishing) spawning stock biomass ranged from 825,000 to 2,810,000,000 metric tonnes! Even when the most plausible scenarios were selected, estimated virgin spawning stock biomass ranged from 1,000,000 to 11,700,000 metric tonnes!
On the other hand, maximum historical population size estimated from the 2008 stock assessment was about 300,000 metric tonnes!
Any interpretation of probabilities of population decrease is very highly dependent on which of the above is chosen, and not as suggested in the article.
In addition, the article also fails to point out that the scientific analyses carried out in these meetings indicated that there would be a high probability of an increase in spawning stock biomass if certain levels of catch are adhered to.
Nor does it mention the positive fisheries indicators seen in the stock since the recent drastic changes implemented by ICCAT and which leaves no room for abuse. The stakeholders realise the need for such strict measures and are strictly adhering to them in search of a sustainable way forward.
All considered, the biased and excessively emotional approach taken by these parties is certainly not the way forward and if Mr Camilleri is based in Brussels from where he can exert considerable influence, he should take a truly balanced approach.
The following is an e-mail circulated by ICCAT in Madrid which proves my point: "ICCAT Scientists met in Madrid on October 21-23, 2009 to develop scientific advice for the ICCAT Commissioners on the condition of Atlantic bluefin tuna with respect to the biological criteria applied for listing commercially-exploited aquatic species under CITES Appendices.
"It has come to our attention that several organisations are disseminating partial interpretations of the report of the scientific meeting. We highly recommend that persons interested in a complete understanding of the scientific advice developed during the meeting view the entire report."
RSS
Comments
So your contribution to our quality of life and heritage is more significant and effective than that of DLH, GreenPeace and the rest.
Is your immediate income or an egoistic "hobby" bearing on the way you evaluate issues?
It wasn't the environmental lobby, let alone DLH, who warned of the drastic decline of tuna, but a large Japanese importer. There must be something to this, to have so many countries calling for a total ban.
In the past I have had the pleasure to blog on your comments and indicate the place from where you should take a flying leap - It always makes me feel much better afterwards!
So here goes again - Spare us your partisan, narrow minded, doom-laden comments on environemental issues!! Grow up and open your mind to the real facts - listen and understand what others are saying - don't be so gullible as to just believe whatever the biased and hardcore environmental lobby dishes out .
Has DLH read the whole report before coming out with its press release? Can it please explain why it has decided to discard data that does not tally with what it professes? Why do these organisations always dissiminate information that supports their beliefs and hide the rest?
That is why the credibility of the environmental lobby is slowly being lost and there will be no excuse to hide behind when the truth about these matters comes out in the open.
Turtle doves and Quails being endangered was one of their main reasons for objecting to spring hunting being possible. The European Court judgement exposed this claim as being nothing but a fallacy.
Scientific analysis is being manipulated by those who would rather eliminate any form of capture be it bird or fish. Idiotically those that do not have first hand knowledge of the species in question gullibly believe anything.
It is not very complicated to identify where the truth lies.....whether with the tuna farming sponsored "experts" or the scientists who strive to save the tuna and the "fodder" fish it is overfed with, from extiction.