Comments for en-gb 30 Fri 25 Jul 2014 17:21:56 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at neolionel the International Conspiracy to Catch All Tunas lives up to it moniker once again! Wed 26 Nov 2008 23:26:11 GMT+1 Jonathan Day marcpalmer makes an excellent point about not eating tuna, but I would point out one tiny flaw in the plan. The fishermen don't sell to customers directly. The chain between the guys on the trawlers and the guys at the table is a long one. Supermarkets pack tins of tuna well in advance, for example. There are also all the other chains, including supplements, pet food and so on. In order to be effective, a consumer boycott must not only last long enough to seriously impact stores, but also cover all of the major profitable end products. I think it's possible, but I don't think it's realistic. Wed 26 Nov 2008 20:40:52 GMT+1 Maurizio Morabito Wait a minute...a major environmental issue in which it's the Bush administration that is on the "good" side? Talk about "man bites dog" situations...Shouldn't we hear more about it? Wed 26 Nov 2008 12:00:05 GMT+1 marcpalmer This is very depressing. Not because of the bizarre decision they've made.Because everybody who I see complaining about this is missing a fundamental point.The fish are killed to eat.STOP EATING TUNA if you care about them. It's very, very simple. The market will dry up and the fishermen will still lose their jobs, the point is the decision is in the public hands. Wed 26 Nov 2008 11:13:53 GMT+1 DoctorMattPrescott It's not very friendly to allow fishermen to drive blue fin tuna and their own livelihoods to extinction. Wed 26 Nov 2008 09:48:10 GMT+1 paul scarf Like you, Richard, I thought the Med (mad?) fishermen and authorities governing them had discovered their brain only to find it was in fact a walnut left over from a Reagan spitting image gag.It beggars belief to see people whose future is maintaining stocks pass proposals which clearly indicate the opposite will occur.We, who still hope for an outburst of intelligence from ocean and inland sea fishing groups have been seriously let down again.It makes you wonder why this persistent short term damage is being perpetrated. Does the immediate offer of profits really supersede that of long term gain ? Answers on a rock and send to Ugg, care of Iccat.What is clear though is that consuming fish does absolutely nothing for the brain after all. Tue 25 Nov 2008 22:07:09 GMT+1 RoosterCoqburn This post has been Removed Tue 25 Nov 2008 21:13:57 GMT+1 Joao Coelho Here is the thing. Sure the politicians are friends of the fishermen, but when the fish is gone, they will be looking for other friends and the fishermen will have no fish and there won't be any fishermen either. I propose that we keep a database of what politicians say and do. We keep a score card of it in the database:0 means the politician can try to run for office again, 5 means the politician will become a slave and will only be able to work as a janitor, 10 death. I think this way, we will have a shot at real leadership. Tue 25 Nov 2008 20:29:49 GMT+1 DorkingRob A sad reminder of the strength of the fishing lobby. The Spanish in particular have a reputation for ignoring quotas, and as you point out, they hardly live in fear of any meaningful repercussions. The absolute number of people employed in the fishing industry is pretty small and it amazes me how much strength the lobby has. They will always argue that there is no problem of course, until it is too late. The temptation of just one more year's income now will always win out over the long term argument. Until and unless they are subsidised NOT to fish (hey, we have done that with farming for years) we will witness the increasingly rapidly decline of stocks. I'm especially sad at the EU. They have totally failed here. I wonder if they are kidding themselves as well as the rest of us? Tue 25 Nov 2008 18:18:04 GMT+1