This guy thinks the Shark Finning issue is an attack on his culture.

[DevonDiver]

I find it laughable that some people can't seem to understand the implications of a basic cause-effect relationship.

You killed most of the sharks - you can't have your soup any more.

...and the rest of the seafood you enjoy eating will be less available and more expensive...for a while, until it is gone...

It's as simple as that.


And impact on culture? What about the culture of those coastal communities that live, thrive and survive by the sustainable harvest of the marine ecosystem.

This short story by Peter Blenchley sums it up... (should be essential reading for all)...

The Day All Of The Sharks Died

 

[gismonkey]

It's really inappropriate to argue for shark finning bans as a conservation issue. It is not; biologically speaking, a dead shark is a dead shark. If this was really about limiting the number of sharks killed, the proposed regulatory schemes would be about just that.

Shark fin bans are a social policy issue, much like the foie gras bans. The practices involved in finning are seen (primarily by Western audiences) as barbaric, horrific, and cruel. They are not, however, biologically relevant in any way (beyond sharks ending up dead). There is a social policy interest in prohibiting activities that appear morally objectionable, and that's what these bans are about.

It's interesting to see the what practices occur in Western societies that are just as morally objectionable to others, that we accept as both normal and moral (e.g. beef slaughterhouse practices, failure to provide healthcare/education to vulnerable children, or the blind eye turned to the famine in Africa). Because shark fin soup is primarily consumed by Asians, it's easy for Western audiences to judge it and the cultural practices surrounding it, and to push for a ban that doesn't actually affect them in any way. The destruction wrought by American energy policy is far more consequential to all living things, yet changing it would be very uncomfortable for Americans, so we don't see the same enthusiasm for banning internal combustion engines or prohibiting doing business with state sponsors of terrorism that happen to have lots of oil.

Keep in mind that science can answer questions, but policy is formed through a process of social inquiry (which often includes asking scientific questions). If shark finning is socially objectionable to folks in Western society, banning it is a logical outcome of the policy-making process. However, there is absolutely no sound scientific or conservation basis for these targeted bans where the primary objection is that the practice of finning makes Western observers feel uncomfortable.

 

[merxlin]

It's really inappropriate to argue for shark finning bans as a conservation issue. It is not; biologically speaking, a dead shark is a dead shark. If this was really about limiting the number of sharks killed, the proposed regulatory schemes would be about just that.

Shark fin bans are a social policy issue, much like the foie gras bans. The practices involved in finning are seen (primarily by Western audiences) as barbaric, horrific, and cruel. They are not, however, biologically relevant in any way (beyond sharks ending up dead). There is a social policy interest in prohibiting activities that appear morally objectionable, and that's what these bans are about.

It's interesting to see the what practices occur in Western societies that are just as morally objectionable to others, that we accept as both normal and moral (e.g. beef slaughterhouse practices, failure to provide healthcare/education to vulnerable children, or the blind eye turned to the famine in Africa). Because shark fin soup is primarily consumed by Asians, it's easy for Western audiences to judge it and the cultural practices surrounding it, and to push for a ban that doesn't actually affect them in any way. The destruction wrought by American energy policy is far more consequential to all living things, yet changing it would be very uncomfortable for Americans, so we don't see the same enthusiasm for banning internal combustion engines or prohibiting doing business with state sponsors of terrorism that happen to have lots of oil.

Keep in mind that science can answer questions, but policy is formed through a process of social inquiry (which often includes asking scientific questions). If shark finning is socially objectionable to folks in Western society, banning it is a logical outcome of the policy-making process. However, there is absolutely no sound scientific or conservation basis for these targeted bans where the primary objection is that the practice of fining makes Western observers feel uncomfortable.

As much as this sounds logical, you are very much off base here in my opinion. Yes, the policy would seem to target those who consume shark fin soup. However, the compelling reason behind this is to remove the demand for shark fins, and therefore stop the mindless slaughter of 70 to 100 million sharks per year. These are an apex predator necessary for the health and welfare of our worlds oceans. That is not an imposition of a Western philosophy- it is a mandate to keep our (our as in everyone alive) oceans alive and therefore the human race alive. Yes the practice of fining is deplorable, but so is the end result, and I cannot think of anything more appropriate to argue as a conservation issue. This is not just socially objectionable (wasting 95% to 98% of what you catch- I can't believe anyone would not find that objectionable) but IS a scientific and biological issue- when the sharks are gone, we will have done irreversible damage to the ecosystem that covers 70% of our earth, with catastrophic results I am sure.

We as Americans do have some things we do poorly. But this is one case where I think we are almost too late to do enough good. I'll save arguing some of your other points for a different thread.

 

[DevonDiver]

It's really inappropriate to argue for shark finning bans as a conservation issue. It is not; biologically speaking, a dead shark is a dead shark. If this was really about limiting the number of sharks killed, the proposed regulatory schemes would be about just that..

I couldn't disagree more.

The regulation targets the specific cause for massive and unsustainable decline of global shark populations.. namely, deliberate, large-scale targeting of shark species due to the extremely high value of shark fins.

The decline of shark populations hasn't been slow or gradual. If it was, it would indicate that the commercialisation of general fishing techniques were to blame. Shark populations have dropped over 80% in 2 decades - precisely in line with the increased demand for shark fin soup.

Shark meat, as a foodstuff, has never been in high demand. The market cost of shark meat is low (approx $6 per lb), so it was never worth deliberate effort on behalf of fisheries. The costs to catch, transport and process this meat is simply not profitable. In contrast, shark fins have become extraordinarily profitable (approx $500 per lb). A bowl of shark fin soup can retail for more than $100.

Put simply, nobody is interested in shark meat. The large-scale fisheries wouldn't target them, if it were not for the value of their fins.

Ban the finning practices and the deliberate target of sharks for their fins... and sharks will cease to be a 'product of interest' to global fisheries.

 

[driftwood]

As I understand it, the shark fin only adds texture to the soup. Not a valid reason for eradicating the remaining sharks. Find a substitute and call it Snark Fin Soup. We are also running low on bear gall bladders and ground rhino horn.

Is the ban an attack on Chinese culture? Hell yes and for good reason.

 

[Wantonmien]

Think you'd find that the 'younger' generation in numerous Asian countries (most definetly in Taiwan) are slowly but surely avoiding shark fin soup - and there are numerous 'awareness' campaigns in countries making more and more people aware of the need to avoid the soup, stop the finning and get it 'off' the menu !

Of course getting "fin soup" off the menu is one thing, as it will reduce the demand, but at same time getting countries globally to tighten up their fishing laws is another.

- Recently the States tightened it's laws.

- Commendably the Taiwan Fisheries are set to tighten their own laws to ban 'dismembered' sharks (ie: just landing fins) and be the first country in Asia to have such ban. Taiwan to Implement Fins-Attached Policy for Shark Fishing : Humane Society International

- And here's another one - Sign the petition to protect Europe's Sharks! Europe and the European Union needs to tighten it's fishery laws, read and get your name on it - as quite a few such petitions are slowly but surely getting positive results.

As for the 'ban shark finning' being an attack on the Chinese culture - nah, the culture is made of a lot more than shark fins Chinese hands. [VIDEO] - but it is the growing stigma atached to shark finning, allowing shark finning and still serving it that is slowly turning the tide !

Cheers

 

[Thalassamania]

What I posted on FB was:

Mistreating a duck is offensive but not a danger to the health of any ecosystem. Killing off top predators makes systems unstable and can cause them to crash. All sharks should be protected, immediately and if that insults your culture, too damn bad ... it endangers the world and I think it reasonable that that should take precedence.

 

[gismonkey]

Conserving sharks is an entirely reasonably policy goal, and the role of sharks as an important part of marine ecosystems is well documented. However, by targeting a specific (primarily Asian) cultural practice as "the worst thing to ever happen to sharks", while neglecting the apocalyptic effects of largely Western-driven anthropogenic ocean acidification and climate change on these same ecosystems, Westerners are again demonstrating that cultural imperialism runs deep and strong. Western policies and practices caused the near extinction of Atlantic cod and salmon (and their related ecosystems), the collapse of orange roughy, the ongoing collapse of the (delicious) salmon of western North America, and so on.

It's impossible not to notice that the increase in fishing pressure on sharks is strongly correlated to the fin trade, but the fins aren't the biological conservation issue; dead sharks are. The end use (fins in soup) is a cultural practice that drives demand, but it's the killing of sharks that puts their continued viability at risk. Bans on rhino horn, mahogany, and elephant tusks have lead to some interesting market effects and incredibly high values for illegal harvest (much like prohibition of narcotics). Time and again, just banning something doesn't make the demand go away and the value drop. Without built-in support for cultural changes that make shark fin soup unattractive (e.g. teaching schoolkids about why we like sharks better alive) and realistic alternatives for the fishers who are trying to make a living, bans like this serve to do little beyond make us feel good about having done something. The central conservation issue here is that lots of sharks are dying, and instead of just saying, "Hey, Asian people, stop doing that thing we don't like!" we may be better served by regulatory approaches that address the entire situation.

If the policy preference is immediately halting the decline of shark populations, we need to directly target the outcomes we want. In places like Palau, where the sharks are more valuable in the water (for divers to watch), the policy outcome has proven both achievable and a winner for the people making the day-to-day decisions on whether or not to catch sharks. If we want this outcome in other places, piecemeal bans (which will never impact most of those pushing for the ban) are far removed from the decisions that lead to actual dead sharks.

It's sort of difficult for me--having built my career in marine conservation--to take this sudden interest in "oh, no, dead sharks!" seriously, as we've tried desperately to get anyone to listen to us on ecosystem issues and other decidedly unsexy topics for decades. We've been beating the drum on collapsing stocks of delicious fishes, and the risks of fishing down the trophic levels (starting with delicious predators like tuna and marlin), and the impacts of heavy metals, CO2, and nitrogen fertilizers on marine ecosystems, and very few Westerners want to make the expensive and difficult cultural shifts required to stem the tide of disasters. Finally, something easy ("Click here to sign this petition!"), charismatic ("Yay! Shark Week!"), and foreign ("They eat what?!?") comes along, and people get all worked up about it. I can see why Mike Eng (from the article in the first post) sees this as an issue of cultural imperialism; I can't help but wonder how Westerners would react to Asian audiences pushing a ban on banana farming (another practice with profoundly destructive ecosystem and sociopolitical effects).

 

[merxlin]

gismonkey- I am having a hard time following your logic. You agree that shark protection is needed, but because this direction is offensive to you it should be abandoned. Since you want to back this up by science, let me do that for you- 70 to 100 million sharks are caught and killed each year, primarily for their fins. This kill rate exceeds the sharks ability to reproduce enough to compensate for that death rate. Therefore, whatever tactics are needed to stop the wholesale killing of a species should be considered.

Your attitude of not wanting to take action because your perceived notion of the motive is why we are in this position in the first place. I agree that many of those other issues you bring up also need attention. But the rate at which the shark devastation is happening is why it is of such concern. If the only ones allowed to take action on any issue were those whose house was in order, virtually nothing could ever be done. Remember, even the devil himself spoke the truth once in a while.

I get that you are discouraged with the lack of attention to many of the global environmental issues you mentioned. I understand and agree. But does that mean we should ignore this issue as well? Perhaps, if some headway is made here, we can then get people to understand that it does no good to protect a species if we are not going to provide them with an environment that allows them (and everything else) to flourish and thrive.

How many people got interested in the oceans due to the "Save the Whales" campaigns? Was that wasted effort? I think not, and trust that this effort will not be wasted either.

And by the way- this "sudden interest" is far from that. Articles were written in the late 90's and early 2000's about the crisis. But it took this long to finally get some action started. Unfortunately at the feverish rate that sharks are being killed, we do not have time to wait and see what the ultimate plan to save them might be.

So bring on the call for action to end many of those other ecological practices you mention. However, don't discount or discourage those that are finally doing something about this crisis. They just might be your best ally in your fights.

 

[DevonDiver]

You're typing a lot... but seemingly uninterested in reading, or responding to, what others have written.

Westerners are again demonstrating that cultural imperialism runs deep and strong.

Pathetic.

20 years ago, shark fin soup was a rare delicacy... available only to the rich and privileged in certain Asian societies. It wasn't available in every Asian restaurant and road-side eatery. It is now. It is now longer a delicacy or rare... it is common.

The people eating all this soup don't have a 'tradition' of eating it. They couldn't get it before... now they can. It's nothing more than a shameful boast of affluence. That's not a cultural issue. It's a short-sighted greed issue.

Either way... it's going to be rare again soon... whether there are bans, or whether the sharks are all killed.

The end result is that you won't have your soup.

Western policies and practices caused the near extinction of Atlantic cod and salmon (and their related ecosystems), the collapse of orange roughy, the ongoing collapse of the (delicious) salmon of western North America, and so on.

Incorrect. Globaldemand for fish-based protein, coupled with modernised fishing techniques has caused the global decline in fish stocks.

I ask you this.... which global regions are most populous...and most reliant on fish as their primary source of dietary protein?

(clue: it isn't a 'western' region)

It's impossible not to notice that the increase in fishing pressure on sharks is strongly correlated to the fin trade, but the fins aren't the biological conservation issue; dead sharks are. The end use (fins in soup) is a cultural practice that drives demand, but it's the killing of sharks that puts their continued viability at risk.

But the simple fact is: Sharks wouldn't be killed in high numbers, if it wasn't for the demand for their fins.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Time and again, just banning something doesn't make the demand go away and the value drop. Without built-in support for cultural changes that make shark fin soup unattractive (e.g. teaching schoolkids about why we like sharks better alive)...

I repeat: THERE IS NO TIME FOR EDUCATIONAL/GENERATIONAL CHANGE.

Too little, too late.

It took 20 years to destroy 80% of the world's shark population.... and you're suggesting a 20 year educational program to address the problem?

Clever....

and realistic alternatives for the fishers who are trying to make a living, bans like this serve to do little beyond make us feel good about having done something.

That's BS.

1) Mass shark finning didn't happen 10 years ago. So this isn't an impact that ends any cultural fishing dependencies.

2) Mass shark finning isn't perpetrated by local fishers. Most of the damage is done by 'factory ships' with long-lines that fly under Asian flags, but fish around the globe, including South/Central American and European waters.

The central conservation issue here is that lots of sharks are dying, and instead of just saying, "Hey, Asian people, stop doing that thing we don't like!" we may be better served by regulatory approaches that address the entire situation.

The "entire situation" is that demand for shark fin soup has led to the targeting of sharks by commercialised fishing processes at an unsustainable level.

Please read my previous post about the comparative demand and price for shark meat, compared with shark fin.

If you don't understand those figures, just ask.... but please don't carry on posting in ignorance of valid statistics that disprove your blind theories.

If the policy preference is immediately halting the decline of shark populations, we need to directly target the outcomes we want. In places like Palau, where the sharks are more valuable in the water (for divers to watch), the policy outcome has proven both achievable and a winner for the people making the day-to-day decisions on whether or not to catch sharks. If we want this outcome in other places, piecemeal bans (which will never impact most of those pushing for the ban) are far removed from the decisions that lead to actual dead sharks.

Again...ignorance of the situation.

Palau may want to keep their sharks. They may see the greater value of sharks as tourist income, rather than fishing income.

That won't stop Taiwanese factory fishing long-line boats from 'legitimately' entering their waters to devastate those shark populations though...