Talk:Pacific bluefin tuna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fishes (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can register your interest for the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Crab[edit]

Can anyone verify the point in the article about they eat "pelagic red crab"? Cullenfluffyjennings 04:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Or how Japan can be both the largest importer of bluefin tuna and at the same time of of the largest exporters? Why would it be such a large exporter if the domestic demand was so great? Lime in the Coconut 15:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Stylistic changes.[edit]

In the Environmental Issues section I made two small style modifications. I modified how the "ICCAT" abbreviation was sequenced under the second bullet point and instead of "The ICCAT" it is changed to "ICCAT". The second style modification was to make the bullet point titles bold.

I added hyperlinks for CITES and ICCAT.

This section doesn't have many citations so I marked some spots where citations would be good. For example, a citation should be given when saying the Tuna population has dropped by 75% to 97%. Citations should also be given when saying "conservation groups say...." This information should be available for someone to look up. XXVII (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The article says the population is not threatened, but then immediately claims it is overfished. Wouldn't the definition of "overfished" be threatening the population? 173.85.37.96 (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well it could be better explained, but overfished means it has been fished to a point where it is no longer replacing itself at an optimum rate. It is possible to overfish a species indefinitely, in a sustainable way. It doesn't follow at all from this that it is a threatened species, which is to say that it's very existence is endangered. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this 'not threatened' comment, since to my knowledge the Pacific Bluefin is the most endangered of all tuna species. For example, PEW Trust's latest 2013 figures put the population down 96% from the historic high. http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/fact-sheets/the-story-of-pacific-bluefin-tuna-85899470355

Yes, for some time there have been conflicting and concerning reports, even suggestions of threats to members of the tuna commission. It would good to address this issue somewhere. The definitive assessment authority is the IUCN. Their current (2011) assessment of Pacific bluefins is that they are of "least concern", that is, not threatened. By contrast, they have assessed the Atlantic bluefin tuna as endangered and the southern bluefin as critically endangered. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Recommendation to merge some sections with Tuna[edit]

There is a lot of overlap between the Thermoregulation, Conservation Status, Environmental Issues, and Farming sections for the Pacific bluefin tuna, Northern bluefin tuna, and Southern bluefin tuna. Some of this information is also repeated on the Tuna page. Since most of the information is general and not specifically related to the individual species I propose that this information should be discussed at the genus level (i.e. merge with the Tuna page). An alternate proposal might be to create new pages geared to the specific topics like Thermoregulation in Tuna and Conservation Status, Environmental Issues, and Farming of Bluefin Tuna.

Note: I have copied and pasted this talking point on each of the pages listed above. XXVII (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There is some merit in rationalizing the various subtopics, but Pacific, Northern and Southern bluefin tuna also need their own articles, with much expanded sections on their industrial fishing. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Clarification: The proposal is to rationalize the various subtopics, and merge repeat information in a logical manner. The Pacific, Northern, and Southern bluefin tuna need their own articles, and these articles should be expanded.XXVII (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you should remove these subtopics (eg. Thermoregulation, et al) from each of these individual separate Tuna species pages, as they are intrinsic to the species genus page they are on; i.e. their biology is a major factor in what they are as an individual species, and should be there in as much detail as possible per species page, hopefully along with more info that I think is missing (though can't add as I have not enough knowledge nor time to research).
However, that was a very good idea in suggesting the creation of those extra pages you suggested (Thermoregulation in Tuna and Conservation Status, Environmental Issues, and Farming of Bluefin Tuna), as they are separate topic areas of importance in their own right, outside of the specific species pages which are important as part of an encyclopaedia in their own right. So please feel free to go for it in that respect, remembering to add links to the new pages on each separate species page similar section, eg. See also: Thermoregulation in Tuna. (I have removed the merge header, which is therefore not relevent, as you can create the extra pages in addition to these ones) Jimthing (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)