Well democracy is supposed to be citizens participating directly in the political process. What we have is a very watered down version of democracy - we elect officials every few years, but don't really participate in law making or ratification.
That much is obvious, I'm just saying that there's no absolutely no reason to believe that the Brits are or ever were any better. The comment I replied to seemed to suggest that if the Brits are doing this, then just imagine what the Americans are doing, because it must be worse. The Germans, too, have used similar tactics recently against environmental groups.
Many tuna species do need help, but that's a really hyperbolic comparison:
A) Every single species of tiger is at least IUCN Endangered, and many are Critically Endangered, or Extinct. 
B) Whereas tuna species have a spectrum of IUCN ratings from Least Concern to Critically Endangered, with "Near Threatened" looking like the mean, and with no extinction of any tuna species witnessed yet in documented human history.
C) Tuna are high predators, but are rarely apex predators like tigers. (For example, predators of albacore: )
D) I can only find one example of tuna extirpation: the North Atlantic Bluefish. Whereas tiger territories have diminished 93%.
Well the analogy may be hyperbolic and loose, the point is that very little attention is given comparatively to the wiping out of oceanic life, which is very large in scale. We are fishing the ecology into extinction very rapidly.
Comments like yours give me reason to look forward to the day humans become extinct.
We're not meant to rule over nature, we're meant to be part of it. We are part of it. Damaging the capacity of the planet to support life will ultimately cause us problems, and that includes draining the oceans of its wildlife.
Being part of nature comes with no moral qualifications. The fact that can't "live outside nature" implies that everything you do is living inside nature, whether you find it morally repugnant or not. We have (social) responsibilities to each other and to ourselves, and that includes taking care of our environment, but we do not have any metaphysical responsibility to nature itself, including such things as "not ruling over it."
If you answered the question you'd have seen why it was relevant, but if you'd rather not then allow me to elaborate.
Imagine someone is fascinated by seeing a butterfly moving between the plants in their garden. Does the person own the butterfly? Naturally, it has no allegiance to any person. Can they own the butterfly? The only ownership possible appears to result in the butterfly being held captive, either alive or dead. The captivity robs both the person and the butterfly, the butterfly is robbed of its freedom, and the person is robbed of the joy of seeing the butterfly live naturally, which is what they may have found fascinating in the first place.
This is a hard thing to explain, because it requires a different mindset. If someone is of the ownership mindset then it doesn't matter to them what existed before that ownership, or what happens after their ownership. However, with a less individualistic mindset, different values emerge. For example, is a tree worth more than the paper it can produce?
In a scenario where you use land to grow food, if you don't own the land you can't say you control it. How this that the case? You can state you control it without owning it, and use that land to grow food. However, that control only lasts if only one person has access to the land. If I decide to dig up all of your crops and use the land for my own use, then do you really have control of the land? No. Neither would I in this scenario, anyone could undo the changes I made as well.
Ownership enables exclusive control. When it comes to managing resources, there is no reliable control without exclusive control.
In other words, in this case, there's no point in making the distinction between ownership and control.