Chasing Down The Muse: Last of the bluefin

It’s been a tough week for tuna.

Despite the fact that bluefin stocks are on the verge of collapse, 72 out of the 129 member nations of CITES, the UN’s Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora being in Doho, Quatar, voted against a proposed ban on bluefin exports. The United States voted in favor. Japan was the lead voice in the opposition.

You have to start to wonder what’s with the world, when science is ignored and greed is given free reign.

The bluefin is an awe-inspiring creature. It is a warm-blooded fish capable of swimming at highway speeds, crossing oceans, and reaching more than a thousand pounds. Their bodies are torpedo-shaped, built for speed and endurance. They can retract their dorsal and pectoral fins into slots to reduce drag. They are metallic blue on top with shimmering silver-white bellies.

Once plentiful, a spike in prices in the mid-1970s fueled a surge in the fishing industry, and their numbers began to plummet. All bluefin tuna populations are being caught faster than they can reproduce. The high demand — primarily for sushi — has taken its toll. The fish is slow to mature, and as stocks have dwindled, young tuna that haven’t yet had a chance to reproduce, are being pulled from the sea. Estimates are that stocks have been reduced by 70% since the 1970s.

When I sat down at 0 Sushi this week, the chef whispered with glee, “We have bluefin.” My heart sank and my appetite waned.

There had been high hopes in the environmental community that CITES members would add the bluefin to the umbrella of sanctions that protect against trade in endangered species, thus adding another level of muscle to prevent their extinction.

The first CITES contract was signed in Washington, D.C., in March 1973. The Contracting States (countries) agreed on the following organizing principles:

 Recognizing that wild fauna and flora in their many beautiful and varied forms are an irreplaceable part of the natural systems of the Earth which must be protected for this and the generations to come;

 Conscious of the ever-growing value of wild fauna and flora from aesthetic, scientific, cultural, recreational and economic points of view;

 Recognizing that peoples and states are and should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora;

 Recognizing, in addition, that international co-operation is essential for the protection of certain species of wild fauna and flora against over-exploitation through international trade;

 Convinced of the urgency of taking appropriate measures to this end.

Sanctions have been adopted since that first meeting that protect against the illegal trade in elephant ivory, precious timber, caviar, rare plants, rhinoceros horn, and tiger skins and bones.

Without a CITES ban, the only hope would be a dramatic change in the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, ICCAT, which is an organization of fishing countries that has proven itself a failure at protecting the bluefin.

Environmental group Greenpeace warned that the CITES vote “sets the species on a pathway to extinction” although it is unclear exactly how long the worldwide bluefin population has left at current consumption rates.

In the face of the CITES meeting, ICCAT lowered the quotas on bluefin by one-third to 13,500 tones in 2010. But some experts view that as too little too late, and question the group’s ability or will to enforce the limits.

Bluefin tuna fishing is driven by prices in Japan. Individual fish have been sold wholesale for at much as $175,000. Japan consumes three-quarters of all bluefin caught, mainly as sushi and sashimi. A piece of otoro, or fatty underbelly, costs 2,000 yen ($22) at high-end Tokyo restaurants.

Praise for the CITES decision was heard throughout the marketplace in Tokyo. And why not? Profits have become God-like. Has it become dollars over life?

When the tuna are gone, what will those in the fishing industry do? We’ve already witnessed the collapse of the U.S. cod industry.

Yet two bigger issues lie beneath the tuna question. The first has to do with what I’ll call a marine column. The top down chain of big predatory fish reaching to the small reef residing residents. Each one has a value, each one plays a part in the health of our ocean ecosystem.

The second issue emanates from a lecture that Jane Goodall gave in Laguna Beach. She spoke about the planetary ecosystem in terms of a jigsaw puzzle. It remains intact only with all the parts. When one piece is lost, the integrity of the entire system is in jeopardy.

Which brings the burden back to us. We — along with the tuna — may have lost an opportunity in Doho for added protections. What we can do is be conscious of our food choices. We can educate ourselves about which fish are actually endangered and choose not to eat them. We can say no in the sushi bar to species on the verge of extinction. We can demand that our grocery stores post notices about endangered fish — and sell only those fish certified as sustainable by the standards set by the Marine Stewardship Council.

I imagine that the oceanic teletype was madly passing the CITES message fish to fish, tuna to tuna. I would add to their message, “Run deep, run far.” But I fear that without our conscious efforts to instill change in our awareness and eating habits, the bluefin don’t stand much of a chance.

CATHARINE COOPER is learning more everyday about the consequences of her food choices. She can be reached at [email protected]