|
On October 27 2011 01:44 paulinepain wrote:
Shark fins are good to eat, but looking at the damage it is causing, i would rather live without it, i can't really imagine how it is possible to have an "opinion" on that, it is evident that it should be banned as long we live in a society of profit and consumption and that we can't manage our resources in a sustainable way.
Exactly. The people who are killing these sharks are not doing it in a sustainable way. If they were doing it such that they are not ruining the future of the species, similar to how chickens are not being forced into an endangered species, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But that's not the case. This is not sustainable at all. This is just people who are being greedy and thinking of short term gains over the long term future of the species.
If its not possible to have shark farms, then tough shit. The well being of an entire species certainly outweighs these people who obviously have no regard for the future. They can find another way to get by.
|
On October 27 2011 00:37 Williammm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 00:32 Excludos wrote:On October 27 2011 00:27 Williammm wrote:On October 27 2011 00:22 Paperplane wrote:What responsibility do you have or anyone in this forum have on the slaughtering of sharks for their fins? Why does it concern you, how they're killing the sharks? Without established connections, what grounds do you have to say that what the fishermen are doing is wrong? Why is it wrong to kill for food? On what basis do you feel obligated for moral responsibility if you're so far removed from the actual context?
It is not enough to simply say we're human beings and we should be fair to all living things the way we are fair to each other. That is subjective, and not every person holds those views. Your argument is that the shark fishers don't have time to do this humanely because economy yada yada. It takes a couple seconds to kill the shark and put it out of it's misery. How is that too much to ask? If that is what you consider humane, then how do you know they don't do it already? We saw one example of of a video most probably only took footage of the most horrendous practices in a third world country. Also why does it matter if they do or don't? In the long run, it won't bother you in any way, shape or form. Its not about the long run, its about ethics. This example has been used thousand of times in this thread but I'm going to go ahead and use it once more anyways: Would it matter to you in the long run if people went around chopping off the legs of lions, while alive, and left it there? Its doubtful you'd notice the difference in your every day life. But its about ethics. Some things you just don't do. And if no one is concerned about it, nothing is going to happen about it either. This is a very specific case, because the product of food sought after is the fin, and the fin only. No matter how you argue, the rest of the carcass is going to be wasted due to the demand of the market. I'm afraid this is an issue of the produce, ethics will do very little to change how we produce it.
This has nothing to do with production. This is about how we treat the animals we eat. Its not ethical to slice the fin off a shark while its still alive, and then just leave it to die. We don't do this with any other food we're eating, so why should it be ok with this one? Thats part 1 of the argument. part 2 is about some shark species are becoming extinct. I'm not touching that one tho, as so many others has already.
The easiest solution to both of these is to simply ban shark fins altogether.
|
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.
Not the comparison to fish and other seafood harvested from methods much more unsustainable than cutting off shark fins and throwing them back (e.g. bottom trawling). Most animals caught from industrial fishing get thrown back in the water. Why is there not a ban on all seafood harvested from these unsustainable methods?
And animal farming does take a lot more than it puts back. The energy input:output ratio is not 1:1 for pigs, cows, and chickens.
|
On October 27 2011 01:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 01:44 paulinepain wrote:
Shark fins are good to eat, but looking at the damage it is causing, i would rather live without it, i can't really imagine how it is possible to have an "opinion" on that, it is evident that it should be banned as long we live in a society of profit and consumption and that we can't manage our resources in a sustainable way. Exactly. The people who are killing these sharks are not doing it in a sustainable way. If they were doing it such that they are not ruining the future of the species, similar to how chickens are not being forced into an endangered species, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But that's not the case. This is not sustainable at all. This is just people who are being greedy and thinking of short term gains over the long term future of the species. If its not possible to have shark farms, then tough shit. The well being of an entire species certainly outweighs these people who obviously have no regard for the future. They can find another way to get by.
very myopic view of the whole topic. population numbers are not everything in ecology. not saying we're not overfishing sharks, but there are bigger fish in the pond that need to be tackled with respect to the ecological damage we do to get the food on our plates every night.
the way they're selling this "news" item in toronto today is disgraceful.
|
On October 27 2011 01:47 fush wrote:Show nested quote +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
So, your argument from the last two posts is basically the battle isn't worth taking the time to win, because it won't automatically win the war. Good argument.
|
I always wanted to try Sharkfin soup...Not any longer.
That is absolutely atrocious how they are handling things. I eat meat and always will, but I try to ensure most of the meat I eat comes from ethical farms, preferably local. Naturally this cut back the amount I eat significantly due to cost, but I honestly don't miss the excess any.
For those asking about farm raised. Shark has been one of those few creatures that has never survived long in captivity even if raised. It just isn't possible with the current technology (if ever) to farm raise shark. As such it needs to be banned, there is no excuse for this type of treatment or irresponsible harvesting.
Do it right, or don't do it at all.
|
I'm going offer my sentiments, which are similar to many people here.
Endangered species should not be hunted, I definitely think that people should have the right to eat shark fin if they so desire, as long as it's not completely detrimental to the environment, I'm not sure where that line is placed, but something tells me when a species is close to being extinct, it is going past that line.
So either breed shark, which may not be possible, but if there's a demand for it and it really costs as much as $1,000 dollar a kilo I can see profit being made. Possible or not, the other alternative is to ban trade of shark fins and have strict regulations by the government on how many sharks can be hunted yearly etc to keep the population of the sharks safe.
|
instead of banning shark fin soup, they should just start eating shark. Boom, everyone wins
EDIT:
Shark steak is delicious. I don't know why people don't buy shark meat.
|
What I'm getting from this thread is that since many things are unsustainable we shouldn't ever try to end specific unsustainable practices.
ok
|
The last time I was in Vancouver, I decided to swing by Chinatown. There was a small shop with a faded placard that read "Pharmacy". I thought it might be an interesting place to snag painkillers, so I went inside. Much to my dismay it was full of dried plants and animals parts that were supposedly natural chinese remedies.
For the lulz, I tried conveying to the non-English store lady that my male virility needed a boost and I wanted to give my girlfriend a strong penis. She promptly brought out a dried, impaled lizard on a stick and told me that I needed to put it in tea, so I could have "a night of pleasures."
Shark fin soup has a similar connotation and makes equally terrible sense. It's like the poaching of rhino horns or elephant tusks except pretend the horn/tusk is edible and makes a pretty boring, tasteless addition to soup.
|
I have had shark fin soup, It is fucken good....Don't ban it.
They need to regulate how it is harvested though because throwing back the entire shark aside from the fin is wasteful. Sharks have all but disappeared from Most of China's shorelines I wonder why...
O and those arguing its their cultural right, There is a cultural tradition and then theres wasting food....it isn't like they are wasting only a little bit they are throwing away hundreds of thousands of pounds of shark meat every few months...Thats pretty messed up, if you hunt something you should use all the parts of that animal..or at least 95% of the animal... it is fucked to use 5% and throw the rest away.
|
On October 27 2011 01:51 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 01:47 fush wrote: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 So, your argument from the last two posts is basically the battle isn't worth taking the time to win, because it won't automatically win the war. Good argument.
how's that my argument? i'm not against the ban at all, in fact i've said several times that i'm for it. but the bandwagoners who jump on saying this is a great victory for humanity in battling this unethical/inhumane killing of sharks are grossly misinformed and often contradictory in their argument. i point out examples by which our daily consumption of meat and fish violate these very principles that people are hating about shark fin harvesting.
i'm arguing against the reasoning behind this law, and the way that it's being sold to the public in toronto - perhaps you missed that part. this is a small amount of good that amounts to nothing more than a vote grab by politicians - of course no one's stepping up to regulate the meat industry or overfishing, but hey, shark fins are a niche enough topic that can make them look good in a time when toronto politicians look nothing but fools.
|
On October 27 2011 01:49 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +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. Not the comparison to fish and other seafood harvested from methods much more unsustainable than cutting off shark fins and throwing them back (e.g. bottom trawling). Most animals caught from industrial fishing get thrown back in the water. Why is there not a ban on all seafood harvested from these unsustainable methods? And animal farming does take a lot more than it puts back. The energy input:output ratio is not 1:1 for pigs, cows, and chickens.
Well regulated crab fishing is completely sustainable, not sure where you got the idea that it is not. As an example, once they enacted stricter catch limits on crabs in the Chesapeake bay in the US in 2007, the crab population went from a record low of 270 million to a record high of 450 million in 2011. You can still get Chesapeake bay blue crabs and they are maybe a dollar or two more a pound then they used to be.
|
On October 27 2011 01:56 bonifaceviii wrote:
What I'm getting from this thread is that since many things are unsustainable we shouldn't ever try to end specific unsustainable practices.
ok
I don't think anyone said that. Other more unsustainable practices are largely ignored by the media and yet this one comparatively minuscule issue receives so much attention despite not making much of a difference environmentally.
On October 27 2011 01:58 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 01:49 reincremate wrote: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. Not the comparison to fish and other seafood harvested from methods much more unsustainable than cutting off shark fins and throwing them back (e.g. bottom trawling). Most animals caught from industrial fishing get thrown back in the water. Why is there not a ban on all seafood harvested from these unsustainable methods? And animal farming does take a lot more than it puts back. The energy input:output ratio is not 1:1 for pigs, cows, and chickens. Well regulated crab fishing is completely sustainable, not sure where you got the idea that it is not. As an example, once they enacted stricter catch limits on crabs in the Chesapeake bay in the US in 2007, the crab population went from a record low of 270 million to a record high of 450 million in 2011. You can still get Chesapeake bay blue crabs and they are maybe a dollar or two more a pound then they used to be.
I didn't say all industrial fishing was unsustainable; much of it is. I said that there are methods much more unsustainable than cutting off shark fins and throwing them back that are widespread and have a much bigger environmental and economic impact, yet don't receive much attention and haven't resulted in product bans. That being said, the shark hunting practices should be banned, but so should many other things.
|
I don't care what you eat, but why do you make the shark struggle? Can't you just kill it before cutting its fins? I mean I wouldn't even care if you throw the rest back into the sea, as other fish / animals would feed on it, but making it suffer a horrible death is way over the top.
|
On October 27 2011 01:50 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 01:48 Mohdoo wrote:On October 27 2011 01:44 paulinepain wrote:
Shark fins are good to eat, but looking at the damage it is causing, i would rather live without it, i can't really imagine how it is possible to have an "opinion" on that, it is evident that it should be banned as long we live in a society of profit and consumption and that we can't manage our resources in a sustainable way. Exactly. The people who are killing these sharks are not doing it in a sustainable way. If they were doing it such that they are not ruining the future of the species, similar to how chickens are not being forced into an endangered species, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But that's not the case. This is not sustainable at all. This is just people who are being greedy and thinking of short term gains over the long term future of the species. If its not possible to have shark farms, then tough shit. The well being of an entire species certainly outweighs these people who obviously have no regard for the future. They can find another way to get by. very myopic view of the whole topic. population numbers are not everything in ecology. not saying we're not overfishing sharks, but there are bigger fish in the pond that need to be tackled with respect to the ecological damage we do to get the food on our plates every night. the way they're selling this "news" item in toronto today is disgraceful.
If they are over fishing, it needs to stop, plain and simple. They are over fishing, so it needs to stop. It is not a sufficient argument in any context that bigger problems make a lesser problem not worth solving. Can you elaborate on your interest in keeping shark fishing around? Why do you defend it?
|
On October 27 2011 01:32 fush wrote:Show nested quote +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?
But this delicacy is actually quite harmfull to shark populations and it's trade is way too inhuman since as you know in many cases fisherman cut the fin and throw the shark back in the watter with absolutely no change of survival. Unlike shark fins most delicacys like caviar are actually quite tastefull not that i have tried shark fin before but i guess we can trust on Ramsay's word. Also caviar from endangered species is prohibited.
|
Well to be honest, this way every animal we eat is abused. Have you seen a beef slaughterhouse!! Please dont!! Also have you seen how tomato ketchup is made!! I am not siding anyone on this one!!
But what if we ban beef!! Tell me what will the europeans and americans do!
You have to be sensitive to rights of the minority! Anyways just my two cents!!
I am indian!! if they ban goat meat and chicken tomorrow, I will probably turn vegan!
|
this passed a while back for california. here, the ban doesn't take place until 2013. most old chinese people don't follow legislation around here, are they in for a surprise or what lol.
but until then better eat as much of it as possible!
|
On October 27 2011 01:50 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 01:48 Mohdoo wrote:On October 27 2011 01:44 paulinepain wrote:
Shark fins are good to eat, but looking at the damage it is causing, i would rather live without it, i can't really imagine how it is possible to have an "opinion" on that, it is evident that it should be banned as long we live in a society of profit and consumption and that we can't manage our resources in a sustainable way. Exactly. The people who are killing these sharks are not doing it in a sustainable way. If they were doing it such that they are not ruining the future of the species, similar to how chickens are not being forced into an endangered species, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But that's not the case. This is not sustainable at all. This is just people who are being greedy and thinking of short term gains over the long term future of the species. If its not possible to have shark farms, then tough shit. The well being of an entire species certainly outweighs these people who obviously have no regard for the future. They can find another way to get by. very myopic view of the whole topic. population numbers are not everything in ecology. not saying we're not overfishing sharks, but there are bigger fish in the pond that need to be tackled with respect to the ecological damage we do to get the food on our plates every night. the way they're selling this "news" item in toronto today is disgraceful.
There is a great deal of research that has come out lately regarding the importance of apex predators throughout the population tree. It significantly altered the ecological balance for the better in nearly every recorded case of the re-introduction of apex predators to depleted regions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
