While I agree that boycotting products will be effective and necessary, it is only a small portion of the battle. I will not pretend to have numbers but I would expect that MUCH of the "containing shark products" is not consumed in North America. I would think that the boycott would have to be global to be more than a mere hinderence to the manufacturers. I would think that if there was a way for it to cost governments, then perhaps they would actually get behind the movement rather than continue to have the pockets lined with money.
I think that while moving as many people as possible to join the ban on shark products, we need to bombard people with information. Actual irrefutable statistics about sharks and how their numbers (by species and region) have reduced thanks to questionable and illegal practices. The more people that can get behind the shark, the more that will stop buying all products containing shark and the more that can become vocal with their displeasure with the unethical of "product" manufacturers.
FWIW, I am behind this however I do not even know what products contain shark. This would need to be part of the education of people. I might be usine 30 products containing shark and not even know it. Also, the approach of this sort of movement needs to be sensible and not radical. If the approach is "stop 100% of every shark containing product" then people will tune it out and ask why not cows or why not pigs. I will not pretend to have the answer, but I know I tune radicals out no matter how great the cause. Perhaps I am unique but I do not believe so.
