|
On October 27 2011 02:12 blinken wrote:
This is what I love about North America: we let culture die a long time ago.
Culture being more important than animal welfare? What a joke.
You're upset you can't brutally kill sharks because your people have been eating shark fin soup for a long time... for reasons of culture...
Here's an idea, you might try and evolve out of ridiculous cultural norms. The western world does it exceedingly well, maybe China should try it.
Or you could continue your ignorance and brutally kill rare sharks for no other reason than your ancestors did it.
You have a lot of cultures that may be considered as ridiculous cultural norms that you won't be ... "evolving" out of anytime soon.
Just a short google : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_culture
Having said that, I'll still be very happy to have shark fin's soup without the fin because the broth itself is really delicious and the fin adds nothing to the flavour but only serves a textural purpose and use a subsitute like we poor people do. I don't care what you'll call it, it's still delicious. Obviously you can see that my view is somewhat biased though.
Still, the way other animals are treated are no different. Most people are fine with it because they aren't affected by it (besides while watching a clip about the topic) and are relatively detached to it.
Just like how you feel when something happens to someone you know in comparison to some random guy somewhere else.
Great post :
+ Show Spoiler +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.
|
On October 27 2011 02:22 Malpraxis wrote:
Hello, Team Liquid.
I have been lurking this site for some years now, and my god, my first post won't be about Starcraft. You see, I am a biology major and I've worked with sharks and rays personally. Urged by this thread, I thought I'd post some ecological/purely scientific insight about this very pressing issue. The thread seems to have turned into a discussion about ethical principles, and while these are important, you cannot ignore the natural history of the animals themselves. Brace yourselves for a wall of text.
You see, marine food chains and webs do not function like terrestrial ecosystems at all. On land, primary producers like plants make up the majority of available biomass, while each upper level decreases in biomass due to energy being lost in each organism's metabolism. In the sea, however, the primary producers are consumed so fast that the energy pyramid is inverted. Top predators (like sharks) make up for most biomass in the average marine ecosystem. This has several implications.
Top-down control of population size becomes much more important, since there are way more predator-prey relationships. The disappearance or decline of a shark species thus, has almost unpredictable, complex impacts on the ecosystem. For example populations of the species predated by sharks (which are many) would at first skyrocket, since they'll have no pressure. As these large populations consume all their limiting resources, they too would decline in time, or if their growth is too rapid, they could even become locally extinct (ecologists call this an oscillating event). This process then repeats itself in the lower links of the food chain. To make a long story short, this leads to a progressive loss of diversity in the seas and an explosion of jellyfish populations.
Fishing is not like other forms of food production. Animals aren't grown for the purpose of human consumption, but rather they are harvested from the environment. This is like me going to the forest, then killing and eating a grizzly bear. Sharks and rays also have another thing that makes them even more vulnerable. Most species are viviparous: They breed slowly, have a slow sexual maturation (30+ years in deep-sea species), and produce few young per litter. They cannot be sustainably harvested at the current rates we are doing it, and not without some kind of control.
So...sharks are important. Their decline could lead to a collapse of all fisheries in general. That said, the sharking industry is also the job of thousands of people who will lose their way of life if this business continues unchecked. So you see, the conservation of sharks is necessary to preserve them both as a species and as a resource. Breeding sharks in captivity is an unreal solution. What we need are temporary bans, intelligent use of the resource, using the WHOLE SHARK giving the guys some time to recuperate and fulfill their role in the ecosystem. Because right now, it is pretty much a massacre. Not only from finning, but also as bycatch from other fisheries (sharks and rays make up to 95% of the bycatch in shrimp trawling, at least in my country).
Finally, sharks are an old group. They've been around since before the dinosaurs, they have survived pretty much every mass extinction, and the pressure of every sea monster that has ever lived. Wouldn't it be just lame if we were their end?
Thank you.
Edit: Fixed some spelling/grammar errors
Bravo. Thank you for this!
"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Pogo
|
On October 27 2011 02:14 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 02:04 Rice wrote:
what a joke, people arguing that its part of chinese culture and thus shouldn't be banned.
Slavery was part of American culture too, should it have not been banned? Pretty far stretch but I think you get the point. It's true that culture is never a justification for unethical and unsustainable practices. But our consumerist culture tries to justify waste and unsustainable practices that have just as large or much larger impact than killing sharks. Why don't we all drive electric cars or use public transit? Or stop using paper unless it's absolutely necessary? Or stop watering lawns and sidewalks, golf courses, etc.
I never said society was in a state of perfection, if it were up to me things would be a lot different just like you said. I'm not a big fan of todays consumerist simpleton culture as it is.
|
I'm just curious. Have there ever been reports of sharks being overfished due to the hunting of fins? I've never seen any evidence of it. If anyone has evidence I'd love to see it. I know specific species of shark are indeed endangered, but are the ones being fished endangered?
If there is indeed evidence that sharks are being overfished due to fin hunting then by all means ban it. The issue I have with the Toronto law is that the reasoning behind the law isn't because sharks are overhunted. It's because it's "unethical," which is utter horseshit when you look at how the vast majority of our meat production is done.
|
On October 27 2011 02:22 Malpraxis wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Hello, Team Liquid.
I have been lurking this site for some years now, and my god, my first post won't be about Starcraft. You see, I am a biology major and I've worked with sharks and rays personally. Urged by this thread, I thought I'd post some ecological/purely scientific insight about this very pressing issue. The thread seems to have turned into a discussion about ethical principles, and while these are important, you cannot ignore the natural history of the animals themselves. Brace yourselves for a wall of text.
You see, marine food chains and webs do not function like terrestrial ecosystems at all. On land, primary producers like plants make up the majority of available biomass, while each upper level decreases in biomass due to energy being lost in each organism's metabolism. In the sea, however, the primary producers are consumed so fast that the energy pyramid is inverted. Top predators (like sharks) make up for most biomass in the average marine ecosystem. This has several implications.
Top-down control of population size becomes much more important, since there are way more predator-prey relationships. The disappearance or decline of a shark species thus, has almost unpredictable, complex impacts on the ecosystem. For example populations of the species predated by sharks (which are many) would at first skyrocket, since they'll have no pressure. As these large populations consume all their limiting resources, they too would decline in time, or if their growth is too rapid, they could even become locally extinct (ecologists call this an oscillating event). This process then repeats itself in the lower links of the food chain. To make a long story short, this leads to a progressive loss of diversity in the seas and an explosion of jellyfish populations.
Fishing is not like other forms of food production. Animals aren't grown for the purpose of human consumption, but rather they are harvested from the environment. This is like me going to the forest, then killing and eating a grizzly bear. Sharks and rays also have another thing that makes them even more vulnerable. Most species are viviparous: They breed slowly, have a slow sexual maturation (30+ years in deep-sea species), and produce few young per litter. They cannot be sustainably harvested at the current rates we are doing it, and not without some kind of control.
So...sharks are important. Their decline could lead to a collapse of all fisheries in general. That said, the sharking industry is also the job of thousands of people who will lose their way of life if this business continues unchecked. So you see, the conservation of sharks is necessary to preserve them both as a species and as a resource. Breeding sharks in captivity is an unreal solution. What we need are temporary bans, intelligent use of the resource, using the WHOLE SHARK giving the guys some time to recuperate and fulfill their role in the ecosystem. Because right now, it is pretty much a massacre. Not only from finning, but also as bycatch from other fisheries (sharks and rays make up to 95% of the bycatch in shrimp trawling, at least in my country).
Finally, sharks are an old group. They've been around since before the dinosaurs, they have survived pretty much every mass extinction, and the pressure of every sea monster that has ever lived. Wouldn't it be just lame if we were their end?
Thank you.
Edit: Fixed some spelling/grammar errors
Nice to see the perspective from a "pro". And dear mother of god...
this leads to a progressive loss of diversity in the seas and an explosion of jellyfish populations
I hate jellyfish >.> Somebody go save those sharks right now. I've been stung by jellyfish a couple times, no fun : (
|
On October 27 2011 02:22 Malpraxis wrote:
Hello, Team Liquid.
I have been lurking this site for some years now, and my god, my first post won't be about Starcraft. You see, I am a biology major and I've worked with sharks and rays personally. Urged by this thread, I thought I'd post some ecological/purely scientific insight about this very pressing issue. The thread seems to have turned into a discussion about ethical principles, and while these are important, you cannot ignore the natural history of the animals themselves. Brace yourselves for a wall of text.
You see, marine food chains and webs do not function like terrestrial ecosystems at all. On land, primary producers like plants make up the majority of available biomass, while each upper level decreases in biomass due to energy being lost in each organism's metabolism. In the sea, however, the primary producers are consumed so fast that the energy pyramid is inverted. Top predators (like sharks) make up for most biomass in the average marine ecosystem. This has several implications.
Top-down control of population size becomes much more important, since there are way more predator-prey relationships. The disappearance or decline of a shark species thus, has almost unpredictable, complex impacts on the ecosystem. For example populations of the species predated by sharks (which are many) would at first skyrocket, since they'll have no pressure. As these large populations consume all their limiting resources, they too would decline in time, or if their growth is too rapid, they could even become locally extinct (ecologists call this an oscillating event). This process then repeats itself in the lower links of the food chain. To make a long story short, this leads to a progressive loss of diversity in the seas and an explosion of jellyfish populations.
Fishing is not like other forms of food production. Animals aren't grown for the purpose of human consumption, but rather they are harvested from the environment. This is like me going to the forest, then killing and eating a grizzly bear. Sharks and rays also have another thing that makes them even more vulnerable. Most species are viviparous: They breed slowly, have a slow sexual maturation (30+ years in deep-sea species), and produce few young per litter. They cannot be sustainably harvested at the current rates we are doing it, and not without some kind of control.
So...sharks are important. Their decline could lead to a collapse of all fisheries in general. That said, the sharking industry is also the job of thousands of people who will lose their way of life if this business continues unchecked. So you see, the conservation of sharks is necessary to preserve them both as a species and as a resource. Breeding sharks in captivity is an unreal solution. What we need are temporary bans, intelligent use of the resource, using the WHOLE SHARK giving the guys some time to recuperate and fulfill their role in the ecosystem. Because right now, it is pretty much a massacre. Not only from finning, but also as bycatch from other fisheries (sharks and rays make up to 95% of the bycatch in shrimp trawling, at least in my country).
Finally, sharks are an old group. They've been around since before the dinosaurs, they have survived pretty much every mass extinction, and the pressure of every sea monster that has ever lived. Wouldn't it be just lame if we were their end?
Thank you.
Edit: Fixed some spelling/grammar errors
Thanks for the insight on marine ecosystems. Completely agree and I for one will be happy to try shark meat.
One thing common in the mist of all the ethical shark problems is that people are blind to the fishermen who are in Ramsay's video for example.
|
On October 27 2011 02:22 Malpraxis wrote:
Hello, Team Liquid.
I have been lurking this site for some years now, and my god, my first post won't be about Starcraft. You see, I am a biology major and I've worked with sharks and rays personally. Urged by this thread, I thought I'd post some ecological/purely scientific insight about this very pressing issue. The thread seems to have turned into a discussion about ethical principles, and while these are important, you cannot ignore the natural history of the animals themselves. Brace yourselves for a wall of text.
You see, marine food chains and webs do not function like terrestrial ecosystems at all. On land, primary producers like plants make up the majority of available biomass, while each upper level decreases in biomass due to energy being lost in each organism's metabolism. In the sea, however, the primary producers are consumed so fast that the energy pyramid is inverted. Top predators (like sharks) make up for most biomass in the average marine ecosystem. This has several implications.
Top-down control of population size becomes much more important, since there are way more predator-prey relationships. The disappearance or decline of a shark species thus, has almost unpredictable, complex impacts on the ecosystem. For example populations of the species predated by sharks (which are many) would at first skyrocket, since they'll have no pressure. As these large populations consume all their limiting resources, they too would decline in time, or if their growth is too rapid, they could even become locally extinct (ecologists call this an oscillating event). This process then repeats itself in the lower links of the food chain. To make a long story short, this leads to a progressive loss of diversity in the seas and an explosion of jellyfish populations.
Fishing is not like other forms of food production. Animals aren't grown for the purpose of human consumption, but rather they are harvested from the environment. This is like me going to the forest, then killing and eating a grizzly bear. Sharks and rays also have another thing that makes them even more vulnerable. Most species are viviparous: They breed slowly, have a slow sexual maturation (30+ years in deep-sea species), and produce few young per litter. They cannot be sustainably harvested at the current rates we are doing it, and not without some kind of control.
So...sharks are important. Their decline could lead to a collapse of all fisheries in general. That said, the sharking industry is also the job of thousands of people who will lose their way of life if this business continues unchecked. So you see, the conservation of sharks is necessary to preserve them both as a species and as a resource. Breeding sharks in captivity is an unreal solution. What we need are temporary bans, intelligent use of the resource, using the WHOLE SHARK giving the guys some time to recuperate and fulfill their role in the ecosystem. Because right now, it is pretty much a massacre. Not only from finning, but also as bycatch from other fisheries (sharks and rays make up to 95% of the bycatch in shrimp trawling, at least in my country).
Finally, sharks are an old group. They've been around since before the dinosaurs, they have survived pretty much every mass extinction, and the pressure of every sea monster that has ever lived. Wouldn't it be just lame if we were their end?
Thank you.
Edit: Fixed some spelling/grammar errors
This is an amazing post. So naturally it will be ignored by anyone who disagrees and they will continue arguing. God it is so annoying to wake up and see the thread 15 pages longer and points still being made that were already put death on the first couple pages. People just pick and choose the easiest arguments to counter and will continue to argue just for the sake of it.
Let me emphasize this more. The problem is not economics or sustainability or the infringement of culture. The problem IS that the shark is an EXTREMELY important species in most ocean ecosystems and if they are becoming endangered, we should take drastic measures to try and reverse their decline.
Thank you Malpraxis! and welcome to TL 
|
Is the issue here about animal cruelty? Because if it is, then we might as well stop eating meat altogether. Things happening in factory farms are just as cruel as cutting off shark fins.
If the issue is about the sustainability of sharks, then we should be arguing against shark hunting in general, not just against the harvesting of shark fins. Because now, all this law is going to do is promote the illegal trade of legally-harvested (aka shark hunting) fins.
I suppose I just won't be able to eat shark fin's soup at restaurants nowadays. I will, however, still be eating shark fin when I travel to China, or at home from the supply that I already own here in Toronto.
|
On October 27 2011 02:22 Malpraxis wrote:
Hello, Team Liquid.
I have been lurking this site for some years now, and my god, my first post won't be about Starcraft. You see, I am a biology major and I've worked with sharks and rays personally. Urged by this thread, I thought I'd post some ecological/purely scientific insight about this very pressing issue. The thread seems to have turned into a discussion about ethical principles, and while these are important, you cannot ignore the natural history of the animals themselves. Brace yourselves for a wall of text.
You see, marine food chains and webs do not function like terrestrial ecosystems at all. On land, primary producers like plants make up the majority of available biomass, while each upper level decreases in biomass due to energy being lost in each organism's metabolism. In the sea, however, the primary producers are consumed so fast that the energy pyramid is inverted. Top predators (like sharks) make up for most biomass in the average marine ecosystem. This has several implications.
Top-down control of population size becomes much more important, since there are way more predator-prey relationships. The disappearance or decline of a shark species thus, has almost unpredictable, complex impacts on the ecosystem. For example populations of the species predated by sharks (which are many) would at first skyrocket, since they'll have no pressure. As these large populations consume all their limiting resources, they too would decline in time, or if their growth is too rapid, they could even become locally extinct (ecologists call this an oscillating event). This process then repeats itself in the lower links of the food chain. To make a long story short, this leads to a progressive loss of diversity in the seas and an explosion of jellyfish populations.
Fishing is not like other forms of food production. Animals aren't grown for the purpose of human consumption, but rather they are harvested from the environment. This is like me going to the forest, then killing and eating a grizzly bear. Sharks and rays also have another thing that makes them even more vulnerable. Most species are viviparous: They breed slowly, have a slow sexual maturation (30+ years in deep-sea species), and produce few young per litter. They cannot be sustainably harvested at the current rates we are doing it, and not without some kind of control.
So...sharks are important. Their decline could lead to a collapse of all fisheries in general. That said, the sharking industry is also the job of thousands of people who will lose their way of life if this business continues unchecked. So you see, the conservation of sharks is necessary to preserve them both as a species and as a resource. Breeding sharks in captivity is an unreal solution. What we need are temporary bans, intelligent use of the resource, using the WHOLE SHARK giving the guys some time to recuperate and fulfill their role in the ecosystem. Because right now, it is pretty much a massacre. Not only from finning, but also as bycatch from other fisheries (sharks and rays make up to 95% of the bycatch in shrimp trawling, at least in my country).
Finally, sharks are an old group. They've been around since before the dinosaurs, they have survived pretty much every mass extinction, and the pressure of every sea monster that has ever lived. Wouldn't it be just lame if we were their end?
Thank you.
Edit: Fixed some spelling/grammar errors
Great post, thank you and welcome!
|
On October 27 2011 02:29 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 02:12 blinken wrote:
This is what I love about North America: we let culture die a long time ago.
Culture being more important than animal welfare? What a joke.
You're upset you can't brutally kill sharks because your people have been eating shark fin soup for a long time... for reasons of culture...
Here's an idea, you might try and evolve out of ridiculous cultural norms. The western world does it exceedingly well, maybe China should try it.
Or you could continue your ignorance and brutally kill rare sharks for no other reason than your ancestors did it. You have a lot of cultures that may be considered as ridiculous cultural norms that you won't be ... "evolving" out of anytime soon. Just a short google : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_cultureHaving said that, I'll still be very happy to have shark fin's soup without the fin because the broth itself is really delicious and the fin adds nothing to the flavour but only serves a textural purpose and use a subsitute like we poor people do. I don't care what you'll call it, it's still delicious. Obviously you can see that my view is somewhat biased though. Great post : + Show Spoiler +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.
You literally just used Wikipedia and typed in american culture as your point AND source, I am literally in shock to what that is supposed to prove.
Also, we do not waste a single part of chicken and we have found a sustainable way to keep that practice without endangering a species. This ban is NOT because it is inhumane. I am starting to get pissed because i made this point freaking 15 pages ago but you people dont bother to read the thread before posting.
|
On October 27 2011 02:22 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 01:58 fush wrote:On October 27 2011 01:51 Bibdy wrote: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. Okay, so if a politician looks good by doing something, maybe even inflating the issue to make themselves look better from doing it than they should, there's even LESS reason to do it. Am I understanding your argument correctly now? Do you not realize how childish that is? Would you be pouting if the guy that creates the cure for cancer made profit from it? Or are we only allowed to make profit from things like entertainment products?
ok. you're having serious difficulties understanding my argument. let me spell it out for you rather than you putting words into my mouth.
1. i'm for regulating fishing in a way that is intelligent, and properly sustains the marine ecosystem - in this case, i agree with the fact that shark fishing is causing shark numbers to dwindle, and needs to be regulated.
2. i'm AGAINST the fact that they are limiting this to shark FIN. the shark fishing industry in canada, as well as the fishing industry in general pick up sharks as well, albeit not just for their fins and don't "torture" them in a way that the chinese practice does. but the end point to all arguments here is that the practice isn't sustainable. so okay, we prevent shark fin collection/possession/sale. that's a fraction of the overall damage to the shark population from overall fishing. why is shark fishing not regulated as a whole? why is it just FINS?
3. i'm against the fact that the politicians are spinning this into a front page story. ban shark fins in canada? sure - why not regulate shark fishing in canada? while we're at it, why aren't we regulating other grossly unsustainable food practices - overfishing, meat farming, etc? why is it just shark FINS? this is a disgraceful spin of a small amount of good, that really solves little in the grand scheme of things, and doesn't really even solve the problem of shark populations.
in sc2 terms: this is like fixing the terran bunker when 1-1-1 is punishing everything. they're trying to do good, they mean well, but their focus is too small (and in this shark fin case, it may even be unfair), but they're trying to sell it as something amazing. and along with it come the uninformed who argue about animal ethics or sustainability or whatever when they themselves know next to nothing about the subject barring a wiki page and a news story, or in some cases (KevinBacon), their own feelings of how shark fin taste like nothing, so it's no loss if banned because he thinks its "retarded".
|
|
|
If it's under threat of extinction then how is there even an argument?
If it's not, can't say I care at all either way.
|
On October 27 2011 02:22 Malpraxis wrote:
Hello, Team Liquid.
I have been lurking this site for some years now, and my god, my first post won't be about Starcraft. You see, I am a biology major and I've worked with sharks and rays personally. Urged by this thread, I thought I'd post some ecological/purely scientific insight about this very pressing issue. The thread seems to have turned into a discussion about ethical principles, and while these are important, you cannot ignore the natural history of the animals themselves. Brace yourselves for a wall of text.
You see, marine food chains and webs do not function like terrestrial ecosystems at all. On land, primary producers like plants make up the majority of available biomass, while each upper level decreases in biomass due to energy being lost in each organism's metabolism. In the sea, however, the primary producers are consumed so fast that the energy pyramid is inverted. Top predators (like sharks) make up for most biomass in the average marine ecosystem. This has several implications.
Top-down control of population size becomes much more important, since there are way more predator-prey relationships. The disappearance or decline of a shark species thus, has almost unpredictable, complex impacts on the ecosystem. For example populations of the species predated by sharks (which are many) would at first skyrocket, since they'll have no pressure. As these large populations consume all their limiting resources, they too would decline in time, or if their growth is too rapid, they could even become locally extinct (ecologists call this an oscillating event). This process then repeats itself in the lower links of the food chain. To make a long story short, this leads to a progressive loss of diversity in the seas and an explosion of jellyfish populations.
Fishing is not like other forms of food production. Animals aren't grown for the purpose of human consumption, but rather they are harvested from the environment. This is like me going to the forest, then killing and eating a grizzly bear. Sharks and rays also have another thing that makes them even more vulnerable. Most species are viviparous: They breed slowly, have a slow sexual maturation (30+ years in deep-sea species), and produce few young per litter. They cannot be sustainably harvested at the current rates we are doing it, and not without some kind of control.
So...sharks are important. Their decline could lead to a collapse of all fisheries in general. That said, the sharking industry is also the job of thousands of people who will lose their way of life if this business continues unchecked. So you see, the conservation of sharks is necessary to preserve them both as a species and as a resource. Breeding sharks in captivity is an unreal solution. What we need are temporary bans, intelligent use of the resource, using the WHOLE SHARK giving the guys some time to recuperate and fulfill their role in the ecosystem. Because right now, it is pretty much a massacre. Not only from finning, but also as bycatch from other fisheries (sharks and rays make up to 95% of the bycatch in shrimp trawling, at least in my country).
Finally, sharks are an old group. They've been around since before the dinosaurs, they have survived pretty much every mass extinction, and the pressure of every sea monster that has ever lived. Wouldn't it be just lame if we were their end?
Thank you.
Edit: Fixed some spelling/grammar errors
Great post, I'm a undergraduate studying biological natural sciences myself; but personally looking at more of the cellular/molecular level, so I really appreciate being able to understand the broader ecological issues more clearly.
|
On October 27 2011 02:44 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 02:22 Bibdy wrote:On October 27 2011 01:58 fush wrote:On October 27 2011 01:51 Bibdy wrote: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. Okay, so if a politician looks good by doing something, maybe even inflating the issue to make themselves look better from doing it than they should, there's even LESS reason to do it. Am I understanding your argument correctly now? Do you not realize how childish that is? Would you be pouting if the guy that creates the cure for cancer made profit from it? Or are we only allowed to make profit from things like entertainment products? ok. you're having serious difficulties understanding my argument. let me spell it out for you rather than you putting words into my mouth. 1. i'm for regulating fishing in a way that is intelligent, and properly sustains the marine ecosystem - in this case, i agree with the fact that shark fishing is causing shark numbers to dwindle, and needs to be regulated. 2. i'm AGAINST the fact that they are limiting this to shark FIN. the shark fishing industry in canada, as well as the fishing industry in general pick up sharks as well, albeit not just for their fins and don't "torture" them in a way that the chinese practice does. but the end point to all arguments here is that the practice isn't sustainable. so okay, we prevent shark fin collection/possession/sale. that's a fraction of the overall damage to the shark population from overall fishing. why is shark fishing not regulated as a whole? why is it just FINS? 3. i'm against the fact that the politicians are spinning this into a front page story. ban shark fins in canada? sure - why not regulate shark fishing in canada? while we're at it, why aren't we regulating other grossly unsustainable food practices - overfishing, meat farming, etc? why is it just shark FINS? this is a disgraceful spin of a small amount of good, that really solves little in the grand scheme of things, and doesn't really even solve the problem of shark populations.
1) Cool
2) This is why I brought up the battle/war analogy. You can't win the war in just one battle. Give it time.
3) This is why I made the comment about you being butthurt over politicians and again with the battle/war analogy.
You can't save the world in a day. Pissing and moaning about every small step, because it wasn't big enough is just childish.
|
I think I'll stick to my own cultural tradition, a nice bowl of pasta and tomato sauce... Just like my nonna makes .
In terms of banning shark fin soup, I think that is absolutely necesary, some traditions should not be around in this day and age.
|
On October 27 2011 02:36 Ryuu314 wrote:
I'm just curious. Have there ever been reports of sharks being overfished due to the hunting of fins? I've never seen any evidence of it. If anyone has evidence I'd love to see it. I know specific species of shark are indeed endangered, but are the ones being fished endangered?
If there is indeed evidence that sharks are being overfished due to fin hunting then by all means ban it. The issue I have with the Toronto law is that the reasoning behind the law isn't because sharks are overhunted. It's because it's "unethical," which is utter horseshit when you look at how the vast majority of our meat production is done.
I think that was the point gordon was trying to make in that video, sharks are being overfished.
|
On October 27 2011 02:47 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 02:44 fush wrote:On October 27 2011 02:22 Bibdy wrote:On October 27 2011 01:58 fush wrote:On October 27 2011 01:51 Bibdy wrote: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. Okay, so if a politician looks good by doing something, maybe even inflating the issue to make themselves look better from doing it than they should, there's even LESS reason to do it. Am I understanding your argument correctly now? Do you not realize how childish that is? Would you be pouting if the guy that creates the cure for cancer made profit from it? Or are we only allowed to make profit from things like entertainment products? ok. you're having serious difficulties understanding my argument. let me spell it out for you rather than you putting words into my mouth. 1. i'm for regulating fishing in a way that is intelligent, and properly sustains the marine ecosystem - in this case, i agree with the fact that shark fishing is causing shark numbers to dwindle, and needs to be regulated. 2. i'm AGAINST the fact that they are limiting this to shark FIN. the shark fishing industry in canada, as well as the fishing industry in general pick up sharks as well, albeit not just for their fins and don't "torture" them in a way that the chinese practice does. but the end point to all arguments here is that the practice isn't sustainable. so okay, we prevent shark fin collection/possession/sale. that's a fraction of the overall damage to the shark population from overall fishing. why is shark fishing not regulated as a whole? why is it just FINS? 3. i'm against the fact that the politicians are spinning this into a front page story. ban shark fins in canada? sure - why not regulate shark fishing in canada? while we're at it, why aren't we regulating other grossly unsustainable food practices - overfishing, meat farming, etc? why is it just shark FINS? this is a disgraceful spin of a small amount of good, that really solves little in the grand scheme of things, and doesn't really even solve the problem of shark populations. 1) Cool 2) This is why I brought up the battle/war analogy. You can't win the war in just one battle. Give it time. 3) This is why I made the comment about you being butthurt over politicians and again with the battle/war analogy. You can't save the world in a day. Pissing and moaning about every small step, because it wasn't big enough is just childish.
wait, you're saying... they can ban shark fins, but not shark fishing? they can hurt one group of businessmen, but not another?
you're okay with this? you're okay with doing something half way through, half assed, and call it a temporary solution because it'll take too long to do everything?
their reason behind this is that it's inhumane, or it's detrimental to the marine ecosystem, but instead of tackling the REAL problem, they go after a niche group that don't cater to their own interests, and doesn't really solve anything in the big picture. i'm trying to explain that this is why there are some angry people out there, and all you can do is call me butthurt? right.
|
On October 27 2011 02:52 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 02:47 Bibdy wrote:On October 27 2011 02:44 fush wrote:On October 27 2011 02:22 Bibdy wrote:On October 27 2011 01:58 fush wrote:On October 27 2011 01:51 Bibdy wrote: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. Okay, so if a politician looks good by doing something, maybe even inflating the issue to make themselves look better from doing it than they should, there's even LESS reason to do it. Am I understanding your argument correctly now? Do you not realize how childish that is? Would you be pouting if the guy that creates the cure for cancer made profit from it? Or are we only allowed to make profit from things like entertainment products? ok. you're having serious difficulties understanding my argument. let me spell it out for you rather than you putting words into my mouth. 1. i'm for regulating fishing in a way that is intelligent, and properly sustains the marine ecosystem - in this case, i agree with the fact that shark fishing is causing shark numbers to dwindle, and needs to be regulated. 2. i'm AGAINST the fact that they are limiting this to shark FIN. the shark fishing industry in canada, as well as the fishing industry in general pick up sharks as well, albeit not just for their fins and don't "torture" them in a way that the chinese practice does. but the end point to all arguments here is that the practice isn't sustainable. so okay, we prevent shark fin collection/possession/sale. that's a fraction of the overall damage to the shark population from overall fishing. why is shark fishing not regulated as a whole? why is it just FINS? 3. i'm against the fact that the politicians are spinning this into a front page story. ban shark fins in canada? sure - why not regulate shark fishing in canada? while we're at it, why aren't we regulating other grossly unsustainable food practices - overfishing, meat farming, etc? why is it just shark FINS? this is a disgraceful spin of a small amount of good, that really solves little in the grand scheme of things, and doesn't really even solve the problem of shark populations. 1) Cool 2) This is why I brought up the battle/war analogy. You can't win the war in just one battle. Give it time. 3) This is why I made the comment about you being butthurt over politicians and again with the battle/war analogy. You can't save the world in a day. Pissing and moaning about every small step, because it wasn't big enough is just childish. wait, you're saying... they can ban shark fins, but not shark fishing? they can hurt one group of businessmen, but not another? you're okay with this? you're okay with doing something half way through, half assed, and call it a temporary solution because it'll take too long to do everything? their reason behind this is that it's inhumane, or it's detrimental to the marine ecosystem, but instead of tackling the REAL problem, they go after a niche group that don't cater to their own interests, and doesn't really solve anything in the big picture. i'm trying to explain that this is why there are some angry people out there, and all you can do is call me butthurt? right.
No, I'm saying get the stick out of your ass and enjoy small victories when you can. Only a tiny fraction of proposed legislation actually make it through the political process of ANY country, let alone a modernized Western one where people have long, open debates about various topics. The leverage of the 'inhumaneness' of fishing for shark fins is what got this one through easier. Nailing the ENTIRE shark fishing market has bigger implications and requires more effort. Give it time.
|
On October 26 2011 19:11 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 19:06 SevenSeven wrote:On October 26 2011 18:46 Divergence wrote:On October 26 2011 18:41 T.O.P. wrote:
It's an example of the majority infringing on the rights of the minority. The law unfairly targets people of Chinese descent by banning one of their cultural traditions. Merely being a cultural tradition is not a strong enough criterion for it to be allowed. It's not hard to imagine a cultural tradition that is clearly not acceptable in the modern world. We have to all be willing to coexist in the world, and if the majority believes strongly in preserving the environment then it's unreasonable to not accept that. I agree, but there must be a sentiment of sensitivity when dealing with cultural traditions as well. A lot of the posts here do not reflect that at all. Posts like 'Good, ban it', or 'Ban it, greed' etc are not ways to bring about smooth change which cares about the people involved. You'd presumably be in favour of it being heavily taxed then?
I agree with the person that I quoted, like I already said. I believe it should be illegal.
What I'm merely saying is that when people call for a ban, they shouldn't methodically silence cultural traditions so coldly, but rather do it sensitively, with the people in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
