EPTIf not, then WTF. No.
Why don't people just breed sharks for the fins and sell them at exorbitant prices? Look, no longer hunting the sharks to extinction. Problem solved. (Animal nuts will still get pissed about it though...)
Opinions on ban of shark fin - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
If not, then WTF. No. Why don't people just breed sharks for the fins and sell them at exorbitant prices? Look, no longer hunting the sharks to extinction. Problem solved. (Animal nuts will still get pissed about it though...) | ||
|
Zetter
Germany629 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:16 Sephy90 wrote: Before I say anything, I want to ask something. Can a shark survive without its fin at all? The chances of a shark surviving without it's fin are exactly 0. | ||
|
Hikari
1914 Posts
| ||
|
Sephy90
United States1785 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:16 Sephy90 wrote: Before I say anything, I want to ask something. Can a shark survive without its fin at all? Quoting myself to thank everyone who responded. I was going to make a little argument but I had a feeling it was going to be weak so anyway~ I was going to say well since usually the sharks are thrown back in once their fins have been cut off wouldn't that just be considered throwing waste in the ocean? I assumed other animals would end up just eating its remains/eating it while its weak. Yeah sucky argument but I wanted add to the thread. | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:22 Kimaker wrote: Is it certain that it's having a significant negative impact on the number of sharks? If so, then I guess that's legit, albeit a bit much to outright ban it. If not, then WTF. No. Why don't people just breed sharks for the fins and sell them at exorbitant prices? Look, no longer hunting the sharks to extinction. Problem solved. (Animal nuts will still get pissed about it though...) I think a lot of people would accept that, actually. Much like how we generally accept the way in which we treat Cows, Chickens etc. But, the costs of maintaining and breeding sharks would raise the price of sharktail, which would in turn reduce the demand, so it wouldn't be as profitable. We all know the whole reason they do it in the first place is for profit. When you've got a big wide ocean full of sharks staring you in the face, people just look at it as a giant piggybank waiting to get raided, never thinking about sustainability or long term profit. Those always get sacrificed in the name of short-term profit. | ||
|
fush
Canada563 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:09 Hikari wrote: I am against this ban. Have had sharkfin soup multiple times in the past, mostly in major celebrations. Not too sure about the no flavor thing, but it does change the texture of the soup to be somewhat gooey. I suppose you can replace that texture and taste from other sources, just as having fake beef made from soy (the ones these days are very hard to tell which is fake and which is real if you don't look into what you are eating in details). I agree that cutting off the fins and throwing the shark back into the ocean is a waste. However there is still legal hunting of sharks, and sharks do come with fins. What I dislike about this whole sharkfin ban is that its more or less a political act. No, banning shark fin trades in various cities would NOT fix anything, but to give raise to "illegal trading" of "legally obtained" shark fin. What needs to happen is for countries around the world to tighten sharking regulations: returning with a shipload of sharkfin without any "sharks" should not be able to walk around sharking bans some countries have. To my knowledge, cruel harvesting of shark fins do not happen in Canada. Should we also ban fur trade just because parts of the world take fur in a cruel manner? How about making it a law to help the injured since people in China simply let that little girl suffer after getting rolled over by 2 cars? It is not a Toronto problem. Why ban shark fin trading when the city should just ban the trade of tobaco? Cigarettes are known to cause nothing but trouble, and I see cigs to be far more inhumane (omg: people are suffering from cancer from 2nd hand smoking!) than shark fins. Politicians are simply wasting time, putting up an act, pretending they just performed a good deed for the community while affecting many chinese eateries and medicine shops. Take chickens for example: a lot of them are raised in small cages the size of a shoe box: that is not very humane right? Does that mean we should ban all chicken sale, including those raise in free ranges? The problem is there but is approached in the completely wrong method. If I am an international shark fin trader I wouldn't give a shit about the ban, and maybe secretly rejoice since I can try to start and underground sharkfin trade to those in Toronto and possible establishing a monopoly. To top it off, as shark fin trading is illegal anyway, might as well as sell them the "real" illegal stuff from Africa instead of buying fins off Canadian fisheries. great post. it's nice that people are suddenly caring about the welfare of sharks. i'm definitely not arguing this ban, but the reasoning behind it is absurd. domestic farming is far from "ethical" in the sense that you can't prove animals are not in pain, nor can you come close to saying that all farms adhere to any standards that exist. the beef industry has one of the largest carbon footprints based on feed, growth, packaging, and transport of the product from the cow to what shows up on store shelves - don't see anyone complaining about that. ecological damage - what about mass fishing? how about we ban fish consumption too? seems like a sidestepping of the many problems in the toronto area... for what, a moment of city council doing "good"? | ||
|
KevinBacon
Portugal48 Posts
| ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:27 Sephy90 wrote: Quoting myself to thank everyone who responded. I was going to make a little argument but I had a feeling it was going to be weak so anyway~ I was going to say well since usually the sharks are thrown back in once their fins have been cut off wouldn't that just be considered throwing waste in the ocean? I assumed other animals would end up just eating its remains/eating it while its weak. Yeah sucky argument but I wanted add to the thread. Well yeah, you give the ecosystem a meal (a meal it didn't 'earn' the good old-fashioned way, but a meal nevertheless). The problem is the population is dwindling because of it. If they were sacrificing one shark, so that two may have the food and strength to grow, that would be better (not great, just better). | ||
|
fush
Canada563 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:30 KevinBacon wrote: I hate when ppl justify retarded things with the it's tradition or it's a cultural thing argument. If fins have no proper culinary or health purpose why keep eating them, because its tradition? it's a delicacy. just like how people pay through the roof for caviar or gourmet meals at top restaurants. why take a date out to an expensive dinner when you're just getting the same nutritional intake regardless? how in any way is this retarded? | ||
|
reincremate
China2215 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:30 KevinBacon wrote: I hate when ppl justify retarded things with the it's tradition or it's a cultural thing argument. If fins have no proper culinary or health purpose why keep eating them, because its tradition? So why don't we stop eating meat entirely (I'm not a vegetarian)? It's cruel, highly detrimental to the environment and we can live without it. Why don't we ban putting up Christmas lights, which are a waste of electricity? | ||
|
Geovu
Estonia1344 Posts
On October 26 2011 20:10 OuchyDathurts wrote: No soup is worth more than $5 and even that is pushing it. My friend, that is one of the biggest lies I have ever had. I would gladly pay $20+ for soup as prepared properly it is one of the most delicious foods ever created. Maybe you should stop buying canned tomato, chicken and cream of mushroom soup, go to a nice restaurant and order a soup as a starter. You won't regret it. Shark fin soup on the other hand, is not such a kind of soup. If shark fins can really get replaced by pig gelatin of all things as well as the fact that (Apparently according to Ramsey aka world's most famous chef) all the flavour comes from chicken broth then I do not see any reason as to why this soup should exist. On October 26 2011 21:25 SolidGasPro wrote: Nobody cares about the many slain pigs and chickens abundant in our everyday menu, but if we talk about Asians slaying sharks or kittens everybody freaks out. Double standards? The majority of pigs and cows that come from reputable local butchers are killed in the most humane way possible. Chickens kind of get the short end of the stick but free rangers on local farms are also treated humanely. Sharks on the other hand? Show me one video of a single shark being humanely killed and I will agree with you. | ||
|
fush
Canada563 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:30 Bibdy wrote: Well yeah, you give the ecosystem a meal (a meal it didn't 'earn' the good old-fashioned way, but a meal nevertheless). The problem is the population is dwindling because of it. If they were sacrificing one shark, so that two may have the food and strength to grow, that would be better (not great, just better). what??? whatever eats the shark that gets thrown back may be a completely different chain of the food web down there. it makes no difference what eats it. the sharks are getting killed, whatever it preys on has fewer predators to worry about, whatever preys on it has less food. throwing a carcass back doesn't necessarily "fix" what was broken by killing the shark. if you want to talk about dwindling populations, canadians have overfished cod to the extent that it's now an at risk species. don't see that one banned just yet (heavily regulated though i think) nor people lobbying for it. general overfishing is a far bigger issue than simply sharks, which is a small small small part of the overall equation. this is a waste of time. in sc2 terms, it's the equivalent of tweaking the bunker and calling the problem fixed. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:32 fush wrote: it's a delicacy. just like how people pay through the roof for caviar or gourmet meals at top restaurants. why take a date out to an expensive dinner when you're just getting the same nutritional intake regardless? how in any way is this retarded? Foie gras is a good Western example, although ducks and geese aren't endangered and we generally don't catch wild ducks just to hook 'em up to a force feeder. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15712 Posts
| ||
|
fush
Canada563 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:35 Geovu wrote: My friend, that is one of the biggest lies I have ever had. I would gladly pay $20+ for soup as prepared properly it is one of the most delicious foods ever created. Maybe you should stop buying canned tomato, chicken and cream of mushroom soup, go to a nice restaurant and order a soup as a starter. You won't regret it. Shark fin soup on the other hand, is not such a kind of soup. If shark fins can really get replaced by pig gelatin of all things as well as the fact that (Apparently according to Ramsey aka world's most famous chef) all the flavour comes from chicken broth then I do not see any reason as to why this soup should exist. The majority of pigs and cows that come from reputable local butchers are killed in the most humane way possible. Chickens kind of get the short end of the stick but free rangers on local farms are also treated humanely. Sharks on the other hand? Show me one video of a single shark being humanely killed and I will agree with you. don't make me laugh. you think supermarkets are supplied by "reputable" local butchers? how do you enforce this "humane" killing anyway, you willing to pay your tax dollars to community watchdogs? it's not even the killing - it's the raising of the animals that can be considered ethically/humanely questionable. i personally turn a blind eye to it since i love meat, but if you're going to use this as an argument for "inhumane" killing of sharks, then you're awfully misinformed or naive. | ||
|
reincremate
China2215 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:35 Geovu wrote: The majority of pigs and cows that come from reputable local butchers are killed in the most humane way possible. Chickens kind of get the short end of the stick but free rangers on local farms are also treated humanely. The majority of pigs and cows are not raised humanely at all. Most of our livestock, even the so-called "free range" is from factory farms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_farming | ||
|
Sephy90
United States1785 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:30 Bibdy wrote: Well yeah, you give the ecosystem a meal (a meal it didn't 'earn' the good old-fashioned way, but a meal nevertheless). The problem is the population is dwindling because of it. If they were sacrificing one shark, so that two may have the food and strength to grow, that would be better (not great, just better). Yeah that's true. For now I'll stay out of this thread since I have certain thoughts/opinions that would be pretty offensive and normally I wouldn't care because I'd just saying what I think and I would mean no harm but it wouldn't work out that way. | ||
|
jester-
Canada547 Posts
The difference between a pig/cow/chicken slaughterhouse is those farmers raise their own stock to slaughter or purchase them from elsewhere. They don't keep taking and taking and taking without EVER putting anything back. The majority of every other meat we eat comes from either sustainable, regulated industry or farm produced product. Fish farms, cow farms, pig farms, etc are very different than going out into the ocean and killing a gigantic portion of an already low population species and not replacing them OR letting them replace their numbers themselves (see: crab fishing, hunting for fur). The comparisons in here to other sources of food are weak, very weak. | ||
|
iFU.pauline
France1610 Posts
| ||
|
fush
Canada563 Posts
On October 27 2011 01:44 jester- wrote: Bah, sustainability is really the issue here. The difference between a pig/cow/chicken slaughterhouse is those farmers raise their own stock to slaughter or purchase them from elsewhere. They don't keep taking and taking and taking without EVER putting anything back. The majority of every other meat we eat comes from either sustainable, regulated industry or farm produced product. Fish farms, cow farms, pig farms, etc are very different than going out into the ocean and killing a gigantic portion of an already low population species and not replacing them OR letting them replace their numbers themselves (see: crab fishing, hunting for fur). The comparisons in here to other sources of food are weak, very weak. sustainable in population perhaps, but these are domesticated animals that don't contribute to the ecosystem anyway. besides, taking things from the same ecosystem, you seriously believe the rate we're fishing now is sustainable? let's talk about sustainability in farms in terms of a ecological footprint. how much co2 emissions do you think comes from the farming of domestic animals at the scale of feeding a growing population? think feed, land for grazing, health, transport, killing, packaging, and more transport? you think that's sustainable? how is this any less of a problem than the ecological damage of killing sharks? this ban = waste of time | ||
| ||
