On my opinion fish tuna is a commercial species which has a really high market value: there are too many economic interests in avoiding its protection. On the other side there are cetaceans, for which (at least in the Mediterranean culture) there is not a particular economic interest: Mediterranean countries have scarcely depended in the past upon dolphin meat and its consumption is not part of our culture. If you add the fact that in the common view dolphins are perceived as jolly, cute animals, while tunas are mostly seen as canned sort of cheap meat or simply "fish", the results is that EU protects dolphins and not tuna.

In addition with Elena's comment the "cuteness" of marine mammals, this is a really recent view. In the end of XIX century, fishermen and French Navy were given order to destroy dolphins, which were considered at that time pests as they compete with fisheries. They were killed by dynamite, harpoon or devices perforating the digestive system of mammals (see the doc at this address, in slides 24 et 25 unfortunately its in French : http://www.com.univ-mrs.fr/~boudouresque/Master_Oceanographie_Biologie_Ecologie_Marine/UE_227_FLUC_cours_Boudouresque_2011_6.pdf)

And finally, check one of the latest campaign of Greenpeace to protect bluefin tuna (http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2011/would-you-care-more-for-blue-fin-tuna/). As Elena said, this clearly demonstrate that people consider tuna only as a sushi but not as a species to protect.

Pierre is right concerning the past view of dolphins. Here is a paper prepared by Tethys for Accobams in 2002 (Notarbartolo di Sciara G., Bearzi G. 2002. Cetacean direct killing and live capture in the Mediterranean Sea, at http://www.disciara.net/documents/NotarbartolodiSciara_2002f.pdf) that summons pretty well the extent of the Mediterranean countries' attitude towards dolphins until few decades ago.

There is an economic aspect of this, but I think the different conservation status or value between tunas and dolphins to much greater extent reflects the difference in how we, and possibly especially western "urban" cultures, have come to put an intrinsic value on marine mammalian species, dolphins in particular. Why we put marine mammals on such a pedestal can have many explanations, not so much biological, but more on the philosophical side. The expansion of human societies and the way we have exploited and often depleted marine (and other) resources, consequently, and perhaps also naturally, leads to counter movements in human cultures, and then it is logical that what is perceived as our "peers" in the ocean increase their symbolic, and thus also conservation, value.

Olá João, isto está claramente relacionado aos aspectos sociais causados pela megafauna carismática. Enquanto que um albatroz, um golfinho ou um mero são "belos" para a maioria das pessoas, um atum é apenas mais um peixe, tubarões são "maus" e o peixe-sapo (rape) é feio então não há grupos se formando em defesa desses grupos animais e consequentemente eles sofrem maior pressão pesqueira. Isto sem relacionar o aspecto econômico envolvido nisso tudo.

Olá João, If we were to name some iconic species of our Oceans, it would no doubt be the dolphins and whales, the archetypal "charismatic megafauna" of the sea. It is true that some species of cetaceans were intensively killed and hunted during last century for their blubber, meat, etc. or during culling activites as a result of the interaction with fisheries. However during the last decades dolphins and whales are used as flagship and umbrella species. As Elena said dolphins are very cute, they come to the water surface to breath and many species have coastal and cosmopolitan distribution. In my opinion It is easier to consider as a flagship species an animal that we can spot on a daily basis from the beach or during a boat trip.

However, Tuna and other marine top predators are invisible for most of the people except when they go to the fishery or to the supermarket. Moreover as comented is the other posts, Tuna is one of the most commercially valuable fish in the world and precisely for this, there are too many economic interests in avoiding its protection.

Regards,

I really don't think that the charismatic megafauna has anything to do with the case of overfished tuna. Bluefin tuna is an amazing animal, huge and beautiful. They may be considered the "tigers of the sea" (someone else said that). Unfortunately it tastes very good and there is people willing to pay a fortune to eat bluefin sushi. Stocks are collapsing, price is rising but still, people pay the price to have some slices of raw bluefin meat on the table.

The problem is in these order:

1) japanese predator fishing metods

2) economic value of the species (1000 kg for good tunafish in principal japanese market in Tokio)

3) the fashion style to eat sushi in all the world for exemple.

Is cultural but essentially in a economic vision.

Dear all

Many thanks indeed for your very sharp and important contributions. This is a quite difficult situation and, in my oppinion, we researchers and scientists, still have a lot to do in this matter.

On e of the main problems is very well pointed by many of you and, of course, does lead us to anthropogenic/anthropomorphic issues that are very difficult to debate.

Many thanks once again.

Best regards,

JP

Dear Joao, it seems to me, looking at the various answers, that despite the economic value of the tuna fish, what it comes out is that we, as scientists and conservationists, failed in some extent to raise the most appropriate public awareness concerning other marine species than cetaceans. Still lot has been done in these last years, also thanks to the campaigns of Greenpeace and WWF. The difficulty in this sense is to bring people understanding that tuna, shrimps, cods and other edible species matters when talking about ecosystems conservation. This is obviously difficult, as people rely on these species and others for their daily feeding.

Coming back to the tuna, for instance, I see that the big problem is not only the red tuna eaten in sushi restaurants and sold on the Japanese market (for which the GP and WWF campaigns did a lot, convincing many restaurants to avoid the red tuna in their menus), rather the millions of tuna cans that are daily sold in worldwide supermarkets and which still is a low-budget source of protein if compared to other items. This means not only a constant decrease of the stocks of other not endangered tuna species (like the yellowfin), but a disaster in terms of by-catch due to the fishing methods applied.

On my opinion, the future for protecting tuna fish should foresee a major contribution to conservation and public awareness campaigns, a strict monitoring of the fishing methods in order to avoid any destructive catching procedure, coupled with a proper economic value to the sold final product that includes the environmental costs as well.

Dear Elena

I totally agree with you. Many thanks for your contribution.

Best regards,

JP

Dear Mr Barreiros,

The protection of marine mammals in th EU is a political choice with a lack of biological substantation. The EU treats for example many marine mammals differently putting them in the most protected category (A) whilst the international CITES protection is class 2. The protection of Tuna is hindered by the lobbying of Japan which has convinced several third countries to vote against extra protection in the last CITES meeting. The biological arguments for protecting the tuna appear much stronger then for many top class protected marine mammals. But the protection of marine mammals is not independent of the protection of Tuna. There is a group of killer whales (you are surely aware) that feeds on migrating Tuna around the straits of Gibraltar.

Dear Van Elk

Many thanks for your concise and relevant comment on this matter. I totally agree with you. I am aware of the situtaion you refer for the Strait and probably you also know that tuna fishing in the Azores is big business but they are obliged to fish with no circle nets in order to avoid dolphin bycatch and be entitled to sell tuna with the stamp "dolphin free" or "Dolphin friend fishery". In fact, political choices do dominate most fields that should be dealt primarily by science.

Thank you once again.

Best regards,

JP

Dear Joao, ASCOBANS and ACCOBAMS are both cetacean species protection organizations. Both embraces not only EU watres but whole Mediterranean, Black Sea and Atlantic coast. ICCAT dealing with management of tuna species and they should also answer to this question.Best, VR

Dear Violin. Thanks for your important commenty and input. There is a vast lack of data still to work with.

Cheers,

JP

Yes, i agree! The problem in the Black Sea is even bigger as regards Sarda sarda, we still don't know the spawning habitats and migration routes of this species.Soon i will be back with some more info about the cetaceans and adverse effect of fisheries in the Black Sea. The result from DG MARE funded recent research.I am sure it will be in favour answering many questions.Cheers, VR

Once again sincere thanks Violin. Any contribution is very much wellcome especially those from your área since tha Black is indeed a very special case study.

Cheers,

JP

I think to fully answer this question one would need to analyse why most western people would give marine mammals higher ethical importance than fish like tuna. Such socio-cultural construction is surely very complex. Who would eat "flipper" or his bigger brothers and sisters, the whales. To search for economic explanations is important, but it finds it limitations as whale meat is also costly, not necessarily in Europe, but Japan for example.

In the Solomon Islands every year thousands of dolphins are killed, which causes much outcries, but such outcry would never happen, when the same fate would meet fishes……, no matter how threatened….. The example of the Solomon Islands might suggest that the difference between fish and mammal is not only a European aspect.

The socio-cultural construction of what should be consumed from the ocean and what not has become the basis of strong protection efforts (e.g. Greenpeace, consumer societies which introduced the dolphin friendly tuna label). In some cases, e.g. the protection of most of the whales from getting extinct, has ecological reasons, but do we condole the extinction of the dinosaurs for example. While I speak in favour of protecting bio-diversity it is still worth reflecting, what ethical principles are behind such calls and how these ethical principles are socially constructed and if it makes differences what animal right are concerned.

It is not very easy to give the right answer but i think we should used social imagination to think beyond and gave the right answer.Since the population is a big concern in some of the pacific islands countries Solomon as an example so they still need to survive therefore no-matter the EU waters is strictly prohibited but people will still continue doing fishing to earn little income to help the livelihood of the people.

Thanks!!

I have to agree with Eberhard Weber that it is mostly related to the ethical importance placed on mammals vs. fish. However, the difference between these animals is not merely a matter of "cuteness" but involves important differences in cognition, social complexity, level of sentience, etc. This is not to say that fish aren't sentient, but they probably have a lower capacity for pain than mammals due to having less C-fibers. So from an ethical perspective, killing fish is less objectionable than killing mammals. This is only part of the answer, though, and of course economics plays a big part. On the positive side, Bluefin tuna seems to be recovering somewhat, so that is good news.