Is CITES biting off more than it can chew with Bluefin and Shark bans?
There are other programmes such as trafficking in endangered and exotic pets that are very near regional ratification and are more along the lines of trade monitoring and restrictions that make sense when people realize that some of these animals are not properly maintained and cared for but trying to affect businesses that actually feed people for it is a misnomer that sharks are fished just for their fins or that the answer to blue fin is banning when intellectually we know that there needs to be certain controls to prohibit overfishing and certain provisions made to protect restocking and reproduction of species. Being so extreme in measures does not encourage participation but just retaliatory extreme measures and talks at Doha need to be concentrating on furthering legal trade and protections instead of making more wishlists of what may be considered illegal trade by CITES.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_un_saving_species
Hey Mac – I agree with you and so do many people but the regulatory agency was what was in question and the UN seems to agree that the agency should not be CITES.
CHECK DRAFTS NOW VLADIMIR
Bluefin Tuna needs to be protected. There is such a high demand and plenty of money to be made with Bluefin, alson Yellowfin, Big Eye and other Tunas if we don’t protect them they will be fished out. As far as sharks, it’s widely sold in Asia markets not in the states or in Europe so it’s up to Asia, namely Japan, to police its oceans.